Last week, one of the leading housing obstructionists in Cascadia’s biggest city took to the Seattle Times op-ed page to make a case against the city’s two most consequential pro-housing affordability reforms—and efforts in the state legislature to bring affordable home choices to communities across Washington. That case, published in the largest-circulation periodical in the region, is a fire hose of misinformation, a masterpiece of gish gallop, a pack—as Kurt Vonnegut would have put it—of foma.
Sightline is solutions-oriented. We write about the region’s slow-and-steady progress toward healthy, compact, sustainable, and affordable communities and study the multiple benefits of ensuring more housing options in Cascadia’s neighborhoods. We try to stay positive. But the tropes and myths about growth and housing that riddle this op-ed—no matter how predictable and distorted—all too often hold sway nonetheless, thwarting community solutions to ensure inclusive affordability in cities across our region and beyond. So we’re going to fisk this pack of foma, top to bottom.
The restrictive zoning he wants to enshrine reinforces a city of gated communities, exclusive and expensive.
The author opens: “Seattle’s prized neighborhoods…”
If by “prized” neighborhoods the obstructionist author means exclusive, he’s correct. The restrictive zoning he wants to enshrine reinforces a city of gated communities, exclusive and expensive. The gates may be invisible, but zoning rules that make it illegal for any other kind of home except the biggest and most expensive amount to walls around huge portions of the city, keeping away anyone who can’t—and won’t ever—afford to live inside them.
And continues: “…are under attack…”
Um. Hyperbolize much? Saying all single-family zoning is under attack reminds us of somebody stoking fear about a phony “invasion” to justify a border wall. If there’s a threat, it’s that exclusionary zoning pushes up prices and bodes the end of the kind of diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods that for many have defined Seattle. If the city instead allowed modest multi-dwelling homes like triplexes, Seattle might actually save more existing homes and fend off an actual invasion of sorts: the takeover by million-dollar McMansions of Seattle’s communities.
Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.
And so on: “…eliminate all single-family zoning…”
The op-ed’s author targets two reforms, both long-delayed outcomes of Seattle’s 2015 affordability plan. The first, adopted last week by the city council by unanimous vote, moderately upzoned parts of the city in exchange for new mandates for affordable housing (called Mandatory Housing Affordability or MHA) and, second, a proposal still pending before council to eliminate barriers to homeowners’ construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—in-law apartments and backyard cottages.
The first thing to get straight: Seattle’s MHA rezones leave untouched 94 percent of Seattle’s single-family land. Now, if it’s true that allowing more than one home on a lot by legalizing ADUs ends single-family zoning, then by that definition, the state killed it off way back in 1994 when it legalized ADUs as part of the Growth Management Act. And then the author himself, by his own admission, drove the nail further into the coffin when he “helped draft” new ADU rules when Seattle began legalizing backyard cottages in 2006.
But it’s not just exaggeration, it’s a dog whistle intended to strike fear into otherwise reasonable residents about entirely reasonable solutions. As Erica Barnett put it, “allowing people to retrofit their basements to produce rental income or add an apartment for an aging relative does not constitute a ‘threat to single-family neighborhoods’; rather, it’s a way for homeowners to stay in the neighborhoods where they live, and provide new people with access to those neighborhoods—a rare commodity in a city where the typical single-family house costs more than three-quarters of a million dollars.”
In 2019 our families and households are knit together by more than blood.
“…confiscate property rights…”
Seriously: what!? Relaxing restrictions on homes do not confiscate property rights. It grants them.
“…and haven’t even bothered to ask if that’s OK…”
Whoa. That’s a McMansion-sized fabrication. For MHA, Seattle held more than 200 community meetings over a multi-year, multi-faceted outreach process. For ADU reform, Seattle also held community meetings and collected hundreds of comments from the public over a five-month period.
And let’s be clear, in survey after survey, housing affordability nears the top of the list of concerns held by Seattleites—and Washingtonians. The appetite for upzones is strong, especially among younger residents. City of Seattle outreach staff found receptiveness to loosening ADU rules in single-family neighborhoods and “interest from low-income homeowners, including POC [people of color] homeowners, in building ADUs,” noting that they were “overwhelmed by the level of response and interest in building ADUs.” AARP is a huge proponent of ADUs because they give older people the flexibility to age in their community. The Washington state legislature’s proposed ADU reform bill has support from elected officials, labor unions, and affordable housing advocates from all over the state.
“…[MHA] morphed into encouraging developers to buy their way out by paying ridiculously cheap fees-in-lieu…”
That sure sounds sinister! But in real life, from day one through MHA’s passage, planners set the fees-in-lieu to match what it costs developers to include affordable units in their buildings. “Ridiculously cheap?” From day one through passage, officials have been clear about setting the fees this way so that roughly half of projects would pay the fee and half would build affordable homes on-site. Look, Sightline does have concerns about the technical details of MHA, but the obstructionist’s claims are bunk.
“…which will result in a modest number of housing units…”
We’re talking about thousands of new subsidized homes for low-income families. Officials estimate that the fee-in-lieu option yields about three times as many affordable homes as the build-on-site option because the city can leverage the fees to win additional funding from outside sources. With a wink and a nod to those who love demonizing developers, the author bashes an option that actually puts more roofs over people’s heads.
“…shunted to the edges of our city.”
Building affordable housing can be economically and politically challenging in expensive neighborhoods, but Seattle’s Office of Housing has an exemplary record of distributing projects throughout the city—even in red-hot neighborhoods like South Lake Union. What really shunts the workers who make the city tick to the edges and beyond? Seattle’s high prices, due in large part to lack of modest, affordable, in-city options. And long commutes cost those families in time and budget and cost every one of us in this region in air pollution, traffic, and climate damage.
“…sacrificing true housing affordability.”
MHA creates subsidized homes for low-income families earning 60 percent of the area median income—in other words, truly affordable homes—homes that won’t materialize otherwise. Obstructing rule changes that would increase the city’s housing options is the most effective way to sacrifice affordability. The nearly three years of delay in adopting ADU reform caused by the two legal appeals filed by the author and his group likely prevented construction of over 700 ADUs.
Backyard cottage designed by live-work-play, located in Seattle’s Columbia City neighborhood. Photo by Cindy Apple, used with permission.
“Among many ‘takings’…”
Liberalizing zoning rules is not a taking. It is a giving. Allowing ADUs gives homeowners more freedom and flexibility and adds modest, convenient rental options. It allows Seattle communities to add a range of homes for neighbors at different incomes and stages of life.
“…usurping Seattle’s autonomy to manage its own land-use decisions.”
Seattle’s land-use decisions shape the kind of city it will grow to be, and who can afford to live in it. Let’s be honest, though, about who’s been doing the usurping in Seattle: the broadly supported proposals for MHA and ADU reform have been hijacked by a tiny minority of residents, in some cases rallied and coached by this obstructionist author, through legal appeals that abused state environmental laws.
“…overreaching [state ADU] bill…”
From Seattle’s perspective, there’s nothing overreaching about Washington’s ADU bill, which is similar (as originally proposed) to the ADU reform city council will likely pass this summer. It’s nothing radical. It reflects modern best practices. Five members of the Seattle City Council have endorsed it. Most other Washington cities still have overly restrictive rules that stymie ADU production. A state ADU law will help ensure that all of Washington’s cities and towns work together and do their share for affordability in all our communities by relieving the statewide housing shortage.
“…no limitations on number of residents per lot.”
Building codes enforce a hard limit on the number of residents according to the size of the dwelling. The state’s bill prohibits additional limitations only on the number of unrelated residents—morally objectionable laws that discriminate against families with unconventional relationships and would likely be struck down if challenged in court. In 2019 our families and households are knit together by more than blood. These days many households are creative combinations, making ends meet together or sharing elder care or child-rearing duties.
“…erasing 150 years of our history.”
First, get the history right. And then take a good look at what that shameful history represents. Seattle didn’t adopt single-family zoning until 1923, and by 1920 had 315,000 residents. Historically, Seattle’s neighborhoods included a variety of small-scale multi-dwelling homes mixed in with houses. In 2019, it’s high time to reverse, not pay reverence to, much of the city’s history when it comes to housing and zoning, especially. Councilmember Lorena González recently reminded the council that racial covenants only ended in the 1940s and then redlining followed, both designed “to keep certain people out of certain areas of the city.” As a policymaker, she said, “it is my duty to undo this history and to support legislation to begin the process of dismantling… laws that are intended to exclude people who look like me…”
“…no parking [requirements]…”
Parking concerns are overblown and play—again—on people’s fears, fears cynically trumped up to toggle good-hearted neighbors away from their civic interest in shaping healthier, more sustainable communities and toward narrow, self-interested concerns. As for overblown, Seattle’s environmental study for ADU reform found no significant impacts on street parking. Oh, and let’s not forget that mandating off-street parking beyond what private individuals choose to install themselves makes homes less affordable and encourages driving in a region where cars are the single largest source of climate pollution.
…[no] long-term ownership requirements…”
Adding modest ADU rental homes to expensive neighborhoods advances housing equity no matter who builds them and regardless of whether the owner lives there too. In any case, Seattle’s environmental study determined that investors renting out a house and two ADUs is the least likely scenario, even in low-income neighborhoods. Furthermore, cities have no such restrictions on owners who rent out their detached houses. Nor do cities require owners to live in their multi-dwelling rental properties. Owner occupancy requirements that single out ADUs discriminate against renters, and are likely illegal.
Backyard cottage designed by CAST architecture, located in Seattle’s Greenwood neighborhood. Photo by CAST architecture, used with permission.
“…no control over traffic…”
Seattle’s environmental study found no significant impacts on traffic. On the contrary, making sure Seattle’s neighborhoods have more affordable options near jobs and transit can reduce car trips and improve transit efficiency.
“[no] tree protections…”
The same tree protections for single-family houses would apply to houses with ADUs. In other words, no change. Plus, anyone who wants to save trees and the carbon sequestration they provide should favor efficient homes in existing neighborhoods near job centers. In-fill housing is our best defense against tree-killing sprawl and pollution.
READ MORE: No, Seattle’s Growth Boom Is Not a Tree Apocalypse
“…no provision for improvements in streets, sidewalks, schools, or our aging infrastructure.”
Most of Seattle’s single-family neighborhoods have lost population since the 1970s: their infrastructure is underused. Seattle planners estimated that ADU reform would increase the number of homes in single-family zones by just 2 percent over 10 years. These neighborhoods have plenty of room for more neighbors living in ADUs.
“Should we allow lame-duck politicians… to advance their personal ideological and unpopular land-use agendas?”
Work on MHA and ADU reform began more than four years ago, and the four Seattle council members who aren’t running for reelection this fall have all been supportive throughout their terms. Furthermore, both proposals would have passed more than a year ago if anti-housing activists, led by the op-ed author in one case, had not filed appeals.
“…accommodating population growth while preserving what makes living here such a blessing.”
Again, most of Seattle’s single-family areas have not accommodated population growth for decades and they won’t ever unless zoning laws free up housing options in those neighborhoods. The blessing is reserved for those who can afford it. As Seattle Times’ Mike Rosenberg reported, “Going back to 1995… just 8 percent of the city’s new housing has gone to the single-family zones that hold two-thirds of the city’s residential properties. So in reality, most of Seattle is not growing—only certain parts are. Single-family neighborhoods…are absorbing virtually no growth.”
“I helped draft the current regulations allowing in-law apartments and backyard cottages…”
The ADU rules the author helped draft are so restrictive that just 512 have been completed over the three years from 2016 to 2018—the height of Seattle’s building boom. A mere 1.5 percent of Seattle’s single-family homes have an ADU, compared with about one in three houses that have them in Vancouver, BC, where requirements are less burdensome. This ADU drought is why Seattle has pursued reform.
By nature, ADUs are modest homes tucked into existing neighborhoods, giving homeowners flexibility to age in community, care for family, and earn income from a small rental. They also represent just the kind of small, efficient, cheaper, convenient home options Seattle renters need to live near jobs, schools, transit, and parks—in neighborhoods otherwise perpetually out of reach. People want them, communities need them, but city rules get in the way.
Backyard cottage designed by Nest Architecture & Design, located in West Seattle. Photo by Alex Hayden Photography, used with permission.
“On behalf of every neighborhood, the Queen Anne Council appealed…”
The Queen Anne Community Council was the only neighborhood group that sanctioned the appeal of Seattle’s ADU reform. The council does not speak for any other Seattle neighborhood, nor can they speak for everyone in Queen Anne.
“…convert every single-family neighborhood to one-size-fits-all multifamily development…”
Single-family zoning—exclusively reserving neighborhoods for detached, one-unit houses on large lots with yards and driveways—is the epitome of one-size-fits-all! Loosening zoning is what creates housing diversity and shared opportunity. Our families, lives, budgets, and housing needs are not one size fits all. To retain affordable, mixed-income neighborhoods, Seattle needs rules that allow homes of all shapes and sizes to fit a range of incomes and households. The one-size-fits-all status quo is shutting out affordable options from the bulk of Seattle’s residential land.
“…degrading the quality of life for everyone…”
Everyone? Really? Only if by “everyone” you mean those privileged enough to live in neighborhoods where exclusive single-family zoning puts homes out of reach for everyone else—even middle-class families.
“…without performing one environmental impact study…”
Environmental claims against rules that encourage compact, affordable communities are empty. It’s another underhanded attempt to confound the moral equation of Seattle’s housing affordability solutions. Adding low-impact homes near where people work, shop, recreate, and go to school is one of the region’s best tools for reducing traffic and climate pollution, along with saving trees and open space by curbing sprawl.
That said, contrary to the op-ed’s claim, Seattle followed state rules and first conducted a “SEPA checklist,” an abbreviated study of environmental impacts that is standard for modest changes such as ADU reform. All other Washington cities that have liberalized ADU rules have only done a SEPA checklist, and not a full-blown environmental impact study.
“Queen Anne Council appealed the EIS in hopes of remanding the study back to planners for a transparent and real-world specific analysis.”
Seattle’s ADU EIS is by far the most detailed environmental impact review of ADU regulations ever conducted by a Washington city and, for that matter, probably any city nationwide. It will almost certainly prevail over the obstructionists’ baseless appeal.
“As we strategize how best to grow, let’s do so respectfully and inclusively.”
Inclusive growth is absolutely impossible when Seattle reserves three-quarters of land on which housing of any type may be built for the most expensive kind of homes: single houses on large lots. Preserving these rules is the paradigm case of exclusivity.
And to finish it off: “…our cherished single-family neighborhoods.”
There’s nothing wrong with cherishing your neighborhood, but together as a community, Seattle will decide who’s included and who’s left out. Zoning for more homes opens access to opportunity, to convenience, to quality of life—to schools, jobs, and community investments like transit. By doing so, Seattle is rightfully reevaluating who the “our” is when we talk about “our neighborhoods,” and what we cherish about them.
Hearings on the Queen Anne Community Council’s appeal of Seattle’s ADU Environmental Impact Statement begin at 9 a.m., March 25.
Chris Gilbert
Stopped reading after the first few paragraphs. What is being billed as a factual rebut immediately makes assumptions about the original author’s article.
For example,
“The author opens: “Seattle’s prized neighborhoods…”
“If by “prized” neighborhoods the obstructionist author means exclusive, he’s correct.”
Why not just ask him what he “means”. It could also be prized architecturally. There may be other interpretations. Again, not an investigative article, just more rhetoric.
Dan Bertolet
Sorry man, we thought it would be obvious that he doesn’t mean exclusive!
Kraus
It’s a rant response to someone’s else’s rant. Not helpful. Divisive to the overall conversation.
Al
I concur
Todd Aschoff
Your intentions are good but severely flawed in a real marketplace. You want taxpayers to pay for a decrease in livability? ADUs are not really the upzoning we fear- after grinding 20 years to get into a safe and quite neighborhood with acceptable schools. The Tina Kotek (OR) “end of the single family residence” with no parking, minor setbacks and development subsidies will, check every urban decay study,
Cause flight and erosion of the highly efficient tax base.
Todd Aschoff
Portland, Or
Chris Gilbert
This seems to be saying that you think he does mean exclusive….
“If by “prized” neighborhoods the obstructionist author means exclusive, he’s correct. The restrictive zoning he wants to enshrine reinforces a city of gated communities, exclusive and expensive. The gates may be invisible, but zoning rules that make it illegal for any other kind of home except the biggest and most expensive amount to walls around huge portions of the city, keeping away anyone who can’t—and won’t ever—afford to live inside them.”
I was just saying that “prized” could mean something else, such as a architecturally worth saving, for instance. If zoning is changed to multiple unit housing AND houses that are valuable architecturally are torn down and replaced, some houses worth having around may disappear. I’m sure there are many that don’t care what a house (or building or city) looks and feels like but it is a issue worth addressing, in my opinion.
Benj Wadsworth
Great job! I hope you will submit this to the Seattle Times as an op-ed.
Paul T CONTE
Whowee! This blog post itself serves up one steamin’ pile of gish gallop.
Rather than do the same, I’ll just hit a few of the low spots where the blog authors stoop to the same deceptive tactics that they accuse the “obstructionist author” of using.
* The blog uses shop-worn, formulaic and deceptive YIMBY language, such as: “accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — in-law apartments and backyard cottages” and “allowing people to retrofit their basements to produce rental income or add an apartment for an aging relative” and “it’s a way for homeowners to stay in the neighborhoods where they live” and — my favorite — “By nature, ADUs are modest homes tucked into existing neighborhoods, giving homeowners flexibility to age in community, care for family, and earn income from a small rental.” (Gotta’ love the gratuitous and legally meaningless use of “by nature.”)
I’m all for true “Accessory” Dwellings, such as for a relative or to help the homeowner afford his/her home by deriving some income from the property on which he or she lives. Of the many, many homeowners I know who live in “single-family” neighborhoods, most are supportive of small dwellings used as an accessory to the benefit of the owner occupant. But the blog authors make clear they’re not pushing true ADUs at all; they’re pushing plain-and-simple upzoning to allow two or three dwellings on a lot, all of which can be rentals with no “accessory” relationship and no “granny’s” anywhere to be seen.
Whether or not such an upzoning to double the allowable dwellings on all lots would be a worthy idea, the dishonesty of folks like these authors wholly undermines their case. They’re using classic bait-and-switch marketing with phony images of ADUs; and yet the authors have the gall to claim someone else’s opinion “reminds us of somebody stoking fear about a phony ‘invasion’ to justify a border wall.”
* The blog’s deceptiveness is also present in asserting that: “[r]elaxing restrictions on homes doesn’t confiscate property rights. It grants them” and “[l]iberalizing zoning rules is not a taking. It’s a giving. Allowing ADUs gives homeowners more freedom and flexibility.”
Let’s assume the authors aren’t so clueless that they don’t even realize the issue is the loss of rights by the property owner who is adjacent to a property that is up-zoned. Zoning confers rights to owners not only by allowing what they can do, but by restricting what others with the same zone can do. If a “single-family” neighborhood’s zoning is changed to allow gas stations on all properties, the owner next to a newly permitted gas station has lost his/her right to safe and peaceful enjoyment of their property.
One can attempt to argue that, for example, upzoning to double the number of dwellings on all lots isn’t significant enough to actually impinge on the rights of property owners who will find themselves surrounded by the increase in dwellings and the impacts of more residents. However, one cannot honestly take the position that such an upzoning only “grants property rights” and doesn’t also diminish property rights of some owners.
The blog authors, typical of YIMBYs who wrap themselves in a mantle of holy crusaders, seem to have never spent a moment considering the ethics of imposing radical upzoning over the objections of the affected property owners. The authors should read: “Zoning and the Neighborhood Commons” to become better informed.
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/zoningandtheneighborhoodcommonsexcert.pdf
As a final example: “Single-family zoning—exclusively reserving neighborhoods for detached, one-unit houses on large lots with yards and driveways—is the epitome of one-size-fits-all!” This speaks volumes about the authors’ uninformed, elitist perspective. There are thousands of small, detached single-family homes on tiny lots in generally under-served, lower-income neighborhoods. “One-size is all we know” is more appropriately attached to the simplistic approach of YIMBYs — “build-baby-build.”
The blog authors should take a lesson from a housing advocate who has thought beyond YIMBY dogma:
Why Voters Haven’t Been Buying the Case for Building — Shelterforce
https://shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/why-voters-havent-been-buying-the-case-for-building/
The subhead for this article is perfect: “It’s not because they’re stupid”
Unfortunately, the blog posts on Sightline all too often treat anyone who disagrees as “stupid,” and this blog post is no exception.
Dan Bertolet
Paul –
It seems to me that it all comes down to your perception that Seattle’s ADU reform is “radical upzoning.” We disagree. We’re talking about modest, incremental changes to single-family neighborhoods, not gas stations.
We understand that some single-family homeowners won’t like those changes around them. But they are part of a larger community, not islands unto themselves.
Paul T CONTE
It comes down to honesty. Make your case on the reality, not some “ADU confection.”
And read the “Zoning and the Neighborhood Commons” before dismissing concerned members of a neighborhood as “islands unto themselves.” That’s disrespectful and dishonest, as well.
(Remember that I and others led a neighborhood-community-based process that created the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone in Eugene, which allows two dwellings on lots, without an owner-occupancy requirement, as well as all “plex” forms and a “dwelling(s) bonus” for cottage clusters. And none of this was misrepresented the way your blog post does. The neighborhood association vote was overwhelmingly in favor.)
Dan Bertolet
Paul, if you’re done accusing us of bad intentions for using common terms, how about you tell us if you think Seattle’s ADU reform would be good policy or not?
Paul T CONTE
Is owner-occupancy on the property required for the second dwelling’s legal use to be “accessory”? If not, what criterion(a) must be met for a second dwelling to be considered an “accessory” use?
Paul T CONTE
I looked at what’s in the EIS as far as “ADU” standards. If that’s not correct, point me to the actual “reform” proposal. BTW, I don’t believe it’s accurate to describe it with the loaded term “ADU reform“. (What’s with YIMBYs that y’all can’t seem to just take straight?)
My review “highlights”:
1. Irrespective of the merits, it’s a multi-dwelling standard, not an “ADU” standard. (We didn’t try to fool people when we created the S-JW standard.)
2. It appears to assume a certain existing development form, i.e., grid-patterned streets and lots. Concepts such as “side lot lines” don’t work well with (e.g.) “loops-and-lollipops” development forms. In addition, where alleys are present, the standards need to be based on whether the alleys were intended for regular access to parking (Boston Back Bay) or primarily for utility ROW and access (Eugene). These standards probably have some issues being applied to steep slopes. These are just a few examples of the flaw in “one-size-fits-all” standards.
3. I wasn’t sure how the minimum lot size applied. If all new lots must be at least 5,000 s.f., that’s reasonable, at least in many contexts. (S-JW allows new lots 2,250 s.f., but only one small dwelling. A “standard lot” must be at least 4,500 s.f. and allows two dwellings.)
4. There don’t appear to be any standards here (but maybe elsewhere) for lot shape and other configuration specs. Sleezeball infill developers in Eugene have, and continue to, exploit weirdly gerrymandered lot divisions. S-JW fixed that cleverly.
5. The scale, massing, setback coverage standards are poor. We did it much simpler and more effectively in S-JW.
6. The density & max occupancy standards are poor. We did it much simpler and more effective in S-JW based on dwelling count and bedrooms, with a few tweaks.
7. Entirely eliminating parking is stupid. S-JW allows credit for adjacent on-street parking spaces, which reduces vehicle use areas on lots, but doesn’t cause insufficient capacity.
8. There appears to be no limit on vehicle use areas? (I may have missed that). That’s a critical element of “coverage” to limit.
If this were what was proposed for an upzoning of a Seattle “single-family” neighborhood, and I were a Seattle city councilor, here’s how I would approach my vote:
a) Probably “No” is this weren’t a flat, grid-patterned neighborhood for which the standards reasonably fit.
b) Otherwise, “Yes” — If there were substantial evidence of strong support from well-informed, current property owners, including resident and non-resident owners.
c) Otherwise, “No” — Because the standards would present too high a risk for disruptive redevelopment, displacement and/or significant negative impacts on some resident homeowners. (I’d send it back for more work and have them contact some of us in Eugene for advice.)
We did a much better job with the S-JW community process and the code we produced.
Dan Bertolet
Paul –
I’m glad you were able to pass legislation that you think so highly of in your neighborhood of 7,500 people in Eugene. You might give some thought to whether or not your experience with that gives you credibility to pass such presumptuous judgement on changes people are working to make in a city of 730,000 with one of the hottest real estate markets in the country.
Paul T CONTE
@Dan Bertolet
Boy Dan, your snotty reaction to my taking the time to provide substantive feedback really reflects mostly on your insular attitude. One thing seems apparent — you don’t understand the physical aspects of development criteria. You could learn something from us poor souls in the humble backwater of Eugene.
But to do that, you’d have to follow your own advice: “You might give some thought to whether or not your experience gives you credibility to pass such presumptuous judgement on changes to people” who live “in a city of 730,000 with one of the hottest real estate markets in the country.”
Basically, your “Masters in Urban Planning” apparently didn’t include learning how to respect people who may be harmed by your “I know best” attitude. Good luck.
Dan Bertolet
@Paul T CONTE
Sorry, gotta call out armchair quarterbacking when I see it.
To me, this really says it all about your perception of cities: “Entirely eliminating parking is stupid.”
Re: understanding the “physical aspects of development criteria,” thanks for the lecture but I spent 10 years working at architecture firms.
I’ll say it again: We’re not ignoring that some people might not like these changes. But our research tells us that better policy is needed to help the greater numbers of those less privileged whose access to opportunity is stymied by the status quo.
Paul T CONTE
@Dan Bertolet
Enjoy your self-delusion. (“Ten years at an architecture firm.” LOL)
Dan Bertolet
Thanks, will do!
And just so you know, if it was up to me I’d fourplex single-family zoning by state law just like the bill that’s in play in Oregon right now. (Oh no, here’s comes the lecture about nuance…)
BK
Paul –
Your characterization of zoning law is incorrect. Zoning does not convey property rights over property one does not own. Rather, it is an application of the police power of the state to restrict owners’ property rights.
“Safe and peaceful enjoyment” of property one owns is protected by nuisance law, which is a different body of law entirely.
Under nuisance law, one would have to prove what another property owner is doing rises to the standard of intering with your rights or interests (such as the use or enjoyment of property) by being offensive, annoying, dangerous, obstructive, or unhealthful.
Paul T CONTE
I appreciate your comments regarding where in the realm of legal concepts the “taking” would occur; however, the substantive point is that forced upzoning is a “taking” in common parlance.
The blog post authors clearly sought to use faux legalese to convey a false impression, i.e., in their representation that “[l]iberalizing zoning rules is not a taking. It’s a giving.”
Whether the “taking” in carving out a new/expanded, more intensive zoning “use” diminishes an adjacent property owner’s legal rights under zoning law or creates the potential for a nuisance that may no longer have legal remedy would be important in court, but doesn’t change the reality on the ground.
The legal scope of “nuisance” is, obviously, much narrower than the scope of negative impacts from increased density. Thus, “peaceful enjoyment” is both a matter of legal uses allowed by zoning and proscribed activities under nuisance laws.
I’d suggest you read the cited excerpt above for a more erudite explanation of the role and ethics of zoning and up-zoning.
Dan Bertolet
Paul, I’ve got a masters in urban planning and in my entire career I’ve never heard the word “taking” used to refer to anything but government rules restricting an owner’s use of their own land.
Paul T CONTE
You know what the point is. Quit trying to finesse your dismissal of adjacent property owners’ concerns.
Emerson White
Finding the phrase “Gish Gallop” in an article that isn’t about CDesign Proponentism made this former debaters heart do somersaults! I love it!
Constance Hellyer
People who oppose upzoning need to explain how else we can get more affordable housing and reduce homelessness. Otherwise, you are just saying “I’m alright, Jack. Too bad about you.”
Paul T CONTE
@Constance Hellyer
Is your question serious? If so, you must have missed millions of words on that point, including not just from individuals like me, but national organizations doing serious work to address the housing shortage. I suggest you start by reading
National Low Income Housing Coalition’s
2019 Gap Report
https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/gap/Gap-Report_2019.pdf
Here’s clue: Subsidize the building of apartments that are affordable to “Extremely Low Income Households.” There’s plenty of land already zoned or where inclusionary rezoning would be reasonable for siting the apartments.
Here’s another clue: Upzoning single-family neighborhoods to allow expensive townhouses ain’t going to do jack, “Jack”.
Paul T CONTE
FYI … From the “2019 GAP” Report by NLIHC (see above)
SEATTLE-TACOMA-BELLEVUE
1. Surplus (Deficit) of Affordable and Available Units
1.1. At or below ELI: (89,701)
1.2. At or below 50% AMI: (110,303)
2. Affordable and Available Units per 100 Households at or below Threshold
2.1 At or below ELI: 28
2.2 At or below 50% AMI: 49
2.3 At or below 80% AMI: 89
2.4 At or below 100% AMI: 97
3. % Within Each Income Category with Severe Housing Cost Burden
3.1 At or below ELI: 72%
3.2 31% to 50% AMI: 33%
3.3 51% to 80% AMI: 6%
3.4 81% to 100% AMI: 1%
The “housing affordability” problem in the Seattle area (and other large metro areas) is undeniably greatest and most severe for “Extremely Low-Income” (ELI) Households and the whole YIMBY push for fake “ADU” and so-called “Missing Middle Housing” isn’t going to make any significant, positive contribution if left to market-rate development.
Greg Flood
Wow, this article is just more of the same half-truth and misdirection that our elected officials used to snow gullible young folks and represents why I have ceased to consider Sightline as a source of accurate information.
There is so much to unpack and disavow, that it is virtually impossible to address it all. Here’s a few that come to mind:
None of the areas of Seattle targeted by MHA are “gated-communities”. They are former middle-class and working-class neighborhoods with modest-sized lots of 4000 sq ft and modest homes that average about 1500 sq ft.
MHA will turn loose deep-pocket speculative Wall Street money on our neighborhoods, unlikely to do much more than create profit for those that treat housing as a commodity, a place to park the money of the 1-percent.
Council has made it very clear that they intend to push MHA city-wide and up zone all single-family housing in the City (other than the areas that still use covenants to dictate what may be built, which are not touched by MHA in the first place).
Open houses and “dog-and-pony shows” to check a box is not a substitute for dialogue and neighborhood planning.
In-lieu fees actually ARE ridiculously low, averaging $12 to $22 per sq ft. Even if tripled by using TAXPAYER money, one would be hard-pressed to build a unit at that price, and those that are built will likely not be in the same neighborhood.
MHA will target existing rental homes. Owner-occupied homes will not be the ones that sell to developers. They will be passed on the family as an affordable place to live. Those homes owned by uncaring corporate investment firms have the resources to afford to kick out current tenants and tear down the most affordable housing in the City, to be replaced with market rate, ultra-high-density, one-person “units”.
The primary opposition to the changes proposed for ADU/DADU is allowing corporate ownership by waiving the owner-occupancy requirements. This will convert what should be a means for seniors or young folks to afford a home by collecting rent to help pay the mortgage, into a high-priced, market-rate commodity.
Corporate real estate firms gobbled up hundreds of SG homes in Seattle during the downturn and will now reap the huge profit allowed under MHA to tear down what they bought to build multiple market rate, tiny units.
Seattle has over 2100 ADU/DADU being built under existing standards, not the 200 that O’Brien claims. Providing such improvements as a library of standards plans, no net loss of parking, and assistance to reduce oppressive King County fees for sewer would go a long way to making it less expensive for a homeowner to build. Insisting that the only way to incentivize ADU/DADU is with corporate funds is disingenuous.
None of the neighborhoods targeted by MHA resorted to covenants and redlining. The areas that DID adopt discriminatory covenants are let off the hook. Also, it is disingenuous to claim that residents had anything to do with redlining. This was a Federal plan to try to kickstart banks to start lending again after the Great Depression.
Parking is a real problem in the urban villages already. Most have RPZs because the saturation exceeds 85-percent. Replacing one single-family home with an 18-unit SEDU, which is allowed under MHA, will certainly create adverse impacts that need to be mitigated rather than ignored.
MHA allows existing trees to be cut down if the tree impacts building on the site.
MHA would have passed long ago if the City had adopted a PARTNERSHIP with neighborhoods rather than an adversarial approach. They brought it on themselves. Compare to the 1990s bottom-up planning process under Jim Diers that empowered neighborhoods and met with little opposition. Residents bought into the plans.
The multi-family zoning is grossly under-developed. The average number of housing units, primarily studio and one-bedroom units, is a measly 5 units per MF parcel. This level essentially houses the same number of people as currently SF homes/parcel because homes house families, whereas studio and one-bedroom units house individuals. Millennials need to adjust their preference for living alone if they wish to live more affordably.
All 27 neighborhoods appealed MHA. It was deemed heavily flawed. It is noteworthy that the Hearing Examiner decided that SEPA did not need to address the economic impacts of MHA, which is the primary objection (and intent) of the legislation.
Sure, it sounds bad to state that 75-percent of land is reserved for single-family homes. That is why supporters shifted from the 35-percent of land in Seattle is single-family argument. However, as noted above, SF houses essentially the same number of people as the average MF parcel, usually more affordably, and SF essentially represents the only housing in Seattle sized to accommodate families.
No one has been against density or is refusing to acknowledge a need for action. The primary difference is that some folks question authority that turning housing over to corporate development interests is a good plan for the future of our City. If one wished to see all housing ultimately end up in the hand of corporate real estate investment interest, support MHA and create more unneeded rental housing (20-percent is vacant downtown, 10-percent citywide).
If you wish to create ownership opportunity for young families in Seattle, FIX MHA to encourage sensitive infill housing and incentivize owner-occupied homes. MHA is horribly flawed. Sightline’s opinion piece is biased and slanted, resorting to the same objectionable baloney that City officials resorted to, rather than answering questions and concerns. The last four years have been an exercise in misinformation and manipulation, and simply was not an example of good governance. I hope it never happens again.
Dan Bertolet
Greg –
Seattle’s conversion to a place where only the wealthy can afford to live will happen faster under the status quo than with MHA and ADU liberalization.
One fact check: ~ 2,100 was the total number of built ADUs on the ground as of 2017. As of 2019 there are about 500 ADUs permitted but not yet built.
Greg Flood
Hi Dan,
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. It appears to many, economists included, that unleashing corporate deep-pockets, Wall Street REIT money, Section 1031 money, and other investment money to compete with young couples and families just seeking a place to live seems far more likely to exacerbate the pricing situation. I just don’t agree that corporations will behave altruistically in the housing market, which gets pretty darn cut-throat where developer profit comes to play.
Excellent about your fact-check. Sounds like we have 2600 ADU/DADU in the pipeline rather than the 200 that MOB quotes. Again, waiting to allow waiver of owner-occupancy until we see how the other less drastic tweaks work first seems prudent as it would help preserve some of the primary benefits of adding an ADU/DADU – help with mortgage, help seniors with taxes, non-professional landlords simply charge less. Otherwise, ADU/DADU will just turn into more market rate investment property, too.
Dan Bertolet
No, there are not 2,600 ADUs in the pipeline.
Data here:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/Demographics/AboutSeattle/Citywide_Permit_Report.pdf
As of Jan 2019 there were 446 ADUs permitted but not yet built (some of which never will get built).
The doomsday scenarios you describe simply have not happened in Vancouver, BC, where about 1 in 3 houses has an ADU (attached, detached, or both).
Chris Troth
Good work Dan.
I got tired rolling my eyes as I read the opinion piece that you so effectively rebutted.
ALJ
You do not have a “right” to the zoning in your neighborhood. Unless you meet your state’s requirements for a “vested right” or “nonconforming use,” you don’t even have a right to the current zoning of your own property.
Wanderer
One thing to remember is that all those lovely houses that some people are trying to “defend” were built by private, profit motivate developers. I’m willing to bet some of them annoyed the then current neighbors. This is how we build most housing in America–it may not be the best way, but it needs to be acknowledged. Decry the arrival of evil capitalist housing builders if you want–but know that they’re already there.