Last month, Seattle mom, homeowner, and urbanist Sara Maxana gave a keynote address at the first national YIMBY conference, held in Boulder, Colorado. That’s “Yes In My Back Yard,” an invitation to build more homes—of more types and sizes and affordability levels—so that our cities can remain places of opportunity for many, rather than enclaves of privilege for a lucky few.
I don’t think any of us are fighting for more housing because the data say so. We are doing it because we are passionate about a better future.Sara Maxana
Sara reminds us that the growth we are seeing in our cities is not some faceless enemy to fear and fence off from our communities. That growth is people, with individual stories of love or school or work or hopes for their children—stories long-time residents may understand or share themselves—that led them to find new homes here. One story she told stood out to me especially:
My daughter is ten years old, in the fourth grade, and halfway through this past school year, she found out there was going to be a new girl in her class, a family that was moving to Seattle from Texas, and she talked about her for two weeks in anticipation. What was this girl going to be like? Would they have things in common? Would she play with us at recess? And this new child arrived, and my daughter and her group of friends welcomed her. So when is it, exactly, that we lose that sense of wonder about new people? When do we decide to stop sharing? Is it when we grow up? Is it when we buy a house? When does the convenient parking spot in front of our home become more important than the opportunity to make a new friend?
I’m tempted to quote more of her talk, but it’s worth watching in full. Sara describes the shortage in Seattle, the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda, and how we can leverage our cities’ growth and success to both preserve and advance opportunities for the many people who call these places home.
jon vonn
One problem is the building of low income buildings rather than disperse low income apts in the total community. The poor often find themselves “redlined” socially and economically. The lack of parking hurts. Seattle may have good public transit. That does not help when the job is in Redmond.
Sarajane Siegfriedt
I am an affordable housing advocate who happens to be a single-family homeowner. I am tired of being vilified by urbansits. It tends to stifle conversation. I am not a NIMBY. In fact, that word is used only by bullies and should be banned from public speech in the name of civility. It’s another N word. I’m also tired of urbanists getting up at City Council hearings and putting words in my mouth, stating as my position things I don’t believe and have never said. We at Seattle Fair Growth are not anti-growth. We all accept the 70,000 new households in the Comprehensive Plan as a given.
If we can talk policies for a moment, would someone please explain by impact fees for infrastructure, especially schools and parks, are off the table? We have a school construction crisis, are growing by 1,000 students a year, and no way to pay for growth, yet 80 cities in our state use impacts to do just this.
Why do you persist on calling single-family zones exclusionary, when that is part of the definition of all zoning. The alternative is no zoning, as in Texas. What the HALA urged was to apply the definition of low-rise housing types to single-family zones? Why not enlarge low-rise and use it as a transition around urban villages, so we have density where it makes more sense, instead of in SF zones far from transit?
Why do the urbanists in the city persist in spreading the lie that 65% of Seattle is zoned single-family, when they know that number includes parks, open space and public rights-of way? The actual number is 35% (18,810 of 53,151 acres, see HALA Land Use Appendia A for the chart). There is planty of capacity in the 12% (6,230 acres) that is zoned multifamily/commercial, because the capacity of this land, if zoned midrise, is at least 600% greater. Yes, upzone the urban villages, but don’t use lack of capacity to build density where it isn’t true and makes no sense envronmentally.
When will urbanists support a strong urban tree canpoy to protect our watersheds? Are you serious about concrete parks in the street as nurturing places of respite? Really??
Urbanists cannot cover themselves with the cloaks of the Hero until they get their facts straight and stop throwing wordbombs into the public discourse.
Rory H.
I would like to see fewer straw man arguments and hyperbolic rhetoric if I’m going to take you or your group seriously.
I am curious how NIMBY is comparable to another N word. I didn’t realize that to be called a NIMBY has comparable cultural and historical significance with an racial slur hearkening to a disgraceful systems of forced servitude, segregated institutions, and oppressive violence against people based on their skin color.
Who took impact fees for infrastructure, especially schools and parks, off the table? Has someone told the City Council we have no way to pay for growth?
Can one not call something exclusionary if it is understood to be widespread and can already widespread categories become more inclusive? Have no Texas cities taken advantage of the state’s zoning rules (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/LG/htm/LG.211.htm)?
What test should be applied to determine if a zoning action makes sense environmentally? What metric will be used to determine if urban tree canopy is protective of watersheds and what will the remedy be if the current urban tree canopy is not found to be protective?
I’m just looking for some facts and rationale about this issue.
Sue
I couldn’t agree with Sarajane more. These new Urbanists are so off the mark.
BusterG.
Has anyone give thought to the possibility that the demand for housing could be markedly reduced if we were to discourage new business growth in our community?
Luka U
Yes, if you somehow found a way to discourage new business growth in all the surrounding cities as well. Good luck telling low income cities like Tukwila to turn down economic prosperity both on a realistic level and a moral level.
Commuters don’t stop at the city border. As long as there is job growth in the region and Seattle is a desirable place to live, demand won’t be reduced. Discouraging business growth in Seattle will just force more Seattlites into SOVs on I-5 to commute to other cities.