Get rid of single-family zoning in Seattle. That's the big message in a draft report being worked on by Mayor Ed Murray's housing committee, obtained by The Seattle Times.

According to a draft letter, the city needs to move away from the idea that all families can live in their own home on a piece of land, the Times reports.

"Today, as Seattle expands rapidly and experiences massive economic and population growth, we are held back by policies and historical precedents that are no longer viable for the long-term survival or our city," the draft letter from committee co-chairs Faith Pettis and David Werthheimer states.

The draft letter says that single-family zoning has "roots in racial and class exclusion. The zoning remains "among the largest obstacles to realizing the city's goals for equity and affordability," the Times reports.

http://mynorthwest.com/76/2782087/Is-Seattle-doing-away-with-singlefamily-homes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28395006)

Do you understand what zoning regulations are? If anything, libertarians should be cheering this move as a triumph for property rights

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28395165)

general population tends to be more conservative/centrist and they are OK with shitlib stuff and gay parades that doesn't touch their lives directly

but good luck with this shit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28395019)

i guess if the goal is expediting open race-war/revolt, strongarming people out of their homes and forcing them to live in racially-integrated commons is a good way to achieve it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28395038)

yes, Houston has an incredibly efficient allocation of land usage

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396438)

*consistently outbids young, middle class, new fathers with babby on the way from being able to afford a home and razes it to build apartment complex*

*is not a threat to single-family home ownership*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396424)

*releases hundreds of violent minorities in your nice neighborhood*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396441)

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-war-against-suburbia/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396167)

In other words, suburbs have expanded because people like them. A 2008 Pew study revealed that suburbanites displayed the highest degree of satisfaction with where they lived compared to those who lived in cities, small towns, and the countryside. This contradicts another of the great urban legends of the 20th century—espoused by urbanists, planning professors, and pundits and portrayed in Hollywood movies—that suburbanites are alienated, autonomous individuals, while city dwellers have a deep sense of belonging and connection to their neighborhoods.

Indeed on virtually every measurement—from jobs and environment to families—suburban residents express a stronger sense of identity and civic involvement with their communities than those living in cities. One recent University of California at Irvine study found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement. For every 10 percent reduction in density, the chances of people talking to their neighbors increases by 10 percent, and their likelihood of belonging to a local club by 15 percent.

These preferences have helped make suburbanization the predominant trend in virtually every region of the country. Even in Portland, Oregon, a city renowned for its urban-oriented policy, barely 10 percent of all population growth this decade has occurred within the city limits, while more than 90 percent has taken place in the suburbs over the past decade. Ironically, one contributing factor has been the demands of urbanites themselves, who want to preserve historic structures and maintain relatively modest densities in their neighborhoods. <<

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396442)

oh and it should be no problem if we eliminate the mortgage deduction and use the surplus to cut income taxes for homeowners and non-homeowners alike, right? because the free market should still signal a preference for single-family homes, no need for a government distortion like a mortgage deduction?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28397237)

>> One change already evident can be seen in commuting patterns. Density advocates and the media often characterize suburbanites as people who generally take long commutes to work compared to the shorter rides enjoyed by city-dwellers. But with the continuing dispersion of work to the suburbs over the past two decades, suburban work locations actually enjoyed shorter commutes than their inner city counterparts in virtually all the largest metropolitan areas.

This is true even in New York. Although Manhattanites enjoy short commutes and can even walk to work, most people who live in New York City and work in Manhattan suffer among the longest commutes in the nation. In fact, residents of Queens and Staten Island spend the most time getting work of all metropolitan counties. Residents in suburbs and particularly exurbs actually endure generally shorter commutes, in large part because of less congestion and closer proximity to employment. <<

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396468)

I know very little about Seattle but similar shit goes on where I live. you go like a block or two off the main streets and it's all these SFHs owned by retired boomer shitlibs. meanwhile all the apt buildings are concentrated and rents are sky high because supply is limited. plus the zoning laws don't restrict house/lot size restrictions so they rip down old small houses and build massive homes that take up the whole lot.

their reasoning for wanting to do this is pure shitlib tripe. if they just came out and said "fuck boomers" it would be more palatable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396305)

Edit: I guess I don't have a problem with building luxe apartments, but why would a city ever be in favor of building apartments for poors?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396342)

Let me stop you right there, hoss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396447)

developers also have incentive to build the most valuable housing they can. Putting in a low income apt building in an expensive neighborhood makes no sense when they could buy up shittier properties for less $ to build the same building and poors wouldn't care

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28397178)

if shitlibs can curtail suburban and exurban growth and promote growth in the dense urban settings, they can shift US politics far to the left of where they are now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396360)

A lot of this has to do with ensuring more diverse representation within the democratic ranks. Districts get drawn that way as a result. The smarter move would be to spread out the less-affluent vote.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396521)

are we in agreement that if more affluent voters can be moved from suburbs and exurbs into urban areas it will improve Democratic control over national votes without much threatening its control over the urban centers?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396713)

That's not what's happening at all. Surprisingly, most cities are declining or barely growing at all. The cities that have had rapid growth also have suburbs that are growing rapidly. The affluent arrivals in urban areas don't even participate in local politics (foreigners or transplants still registered to vote elsewhere). There is no grand plan to "improve Democratic control over national votes". If there was, the Republicans wouldn't have the control they have in the House and in state legislatures (the most seats since the 1920's).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28397145)

i am pretty sure lot of black neighborhoods in atlanta have similar zoning or places like bozeman too where there is really nobody to racially exclude. these guys see racism everywhere even where there is no evidence of it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396400)

1) this doesn't ban home-ownership. If the zoning classification changes those houses become non-conforming uses with vested rights. They will remain that way forever unless the use is "abandoned" (in most jurisdictions that means the structure is removed permanently or damaged more than 50% and isn't rebuilt within a year).

2) this is a big financial boon to those homeowners. Developers will pay a lot for lots where they can build large structures "as of right" (or at least as close as "as of right" as you can get in a major city where development always requires all kinds of special use permits and variances).

3) this memo was written for the benefit of developers who have probably salivated at the chance of finally throwing some towers in these low-density communities within a fast-growing city. These houses are occupied by limousine liberals who hate developers and ugly glass architecture and love historical buildings and architecture. They often have the power to beat back development but can sometimes be overcome if the developer has won over the city and the city government convinces the less affluent that this will relieve the housing shortage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28396464)

The only obnoxious aspect of this is the interjection of race into this debate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28400123)

By Faith Li Pettis

David Wertheimer

Special to The Times

SEATTLE is growing. We’re attracting new businesses and residents at a remarkable pace, and facing the new challenges and opportunities that growth brings.

We accepted the task of co-chairing Seattle’s Housing Affordability and Livability Advisory (HALA) Committee because we both believe in embracing the opportunities of growth. If done right, we can make Seattle affordable for all and preserve the qualities that make our city unique and vibrant.

Seattle is a city of wonderful neighborhoods, each with its own unique character, features and homes. But those neighborhoods are becoming increasingly unaffordable for many who live in Seattle.

If we do nothing to counterbalance the forces of a tight housing market, the current trend will only continue and only the most affluent will be able to stay. Deliberate planning is required to ensure that Seattle’s housing market is accessible now and in the future — not only to a CEO, but to day-care workers, teachers, custodians, seniors on fixed incomes, and young families.

HALA developed 65 recommendations that would help Seattle accommodate growth and respond to the need for more affordable places to live. Our proposal would require affordable units in multifamily housing buildings throughout the city, which would ensure that low- and moderate-income families have more choices on where to live. The plan would allow more density and new housing near transit lines, reducing congestion and pollution. And it would allow more affordable options such as townhomes and cottages in our single-family neighborhoods without changing their character.

In our deliberations, we acknowledged the impact our city’s history of exclusionary covenants and redlining have had on our neighborhoods. As uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge Seattle’s past, we see a chance to right historical wrongs and improve equity and fairness in our city by making our neighborhoods more affordable for all. Our goal is not social engineering, but to provide choice — and in that choice, opportunity.

Our recommendations are broad and touch every sector of the city because the solutions cannot and should not be the responsibility of one group. Our proposal would impose a linkage fee on commercial developers to pay for new affordable housing throughout Seattle. In exchange for taller height limits, we would require residential developers to build new affordable housing throughout the city. We discourage consideration of our proposals in isolation — their power is as an integrated package in which everyone contributes to the solution.

Some argue that we are proposing too many changes, too quickly. But none of these proposals are final. These are recommendations that now must be considered carefully by the City Council and even the state Legislature. This process ensures multiple opportunities for public input. However, we should not lose sight of urgency of this moment in time. If we don’t act, Seattle will become even more unaffordable to many who call it home today.

The HALA Committee was made up of people from Seattle’s many constituencies — housing advocates, developers, tenants and neighborhoods — each with a strongly held perspective. Our process — and our recommendations — required us to listen to each other and understand the passions behind our positions.

In the end, each of us had to give a little to reach a consensus. It required compromise and the balancing of needs among many in order to achieve a common aspiration. As the City Council considers our recommendations, we ask our neighbors and fellow residents to read the report, consider the proposals and join the conversation.

The HALA Committee is excited about the potential for positive change. We have an opportunity to not only make Seattle more affordable, but build our city fairly for all.

With this proposal and other forward-looking investments this city has chosen to make in transit, parks and education, Seattle’s future is bright.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#28420001)

It's a tough situation for all involved. Either you try to maintain the current feel of a neighborhood (i.e., single family 3 and 4 bedroom houses on 4,500 to 6,000 sq. ft. lots) and see prices go through the roof, or you try to increase housing supply, which requires density and bigger/taller buildings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#36105328)

It isn't a suburban house like what we're buying where it isn't touching anything and has a large yard and garage and shit but these don't really exist in urban areas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#36105493)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2943814&forum_id=2#36105367)