Tuesday’s council vote on the legislation was held in a virtual session as City Hall was closed in anticipation of a planned protest outside the building
By the hair on its chin, the Seattle City Council has met a statewide deadline for implementing new so-called Middle Housing legislation, approving a bill Tuesday setting the framework for expanded zoning to allow a greater range of housing types in more parts of the city.
CHS reported here on the final amendments shaped by the comprehensive code update committee led by District 3 representative Joy Hollingsworth that will put many of the development and zoning changes proposed over months of debate back on the table now that the May 30th deadline for the interim legislation has been met.
The city turned to the interim legislation intended to form the structure of the comprehensive plan and Neighborhood Residential updates to implement the HB 1110 state Middle Housing laws after legal challenges to the planning process slowed down an already massively delayed process. Mayor Bruce Harrell’s initial 20-year plan proposal the council started with itself had landed around a year later than planned.
CHS reported here on the attempts to reshape the comprehensive growth plan proposal as a neighborhood group sued, calling on the King County Superior Court to intervene and reverse the city Hearing Examiner’s recent dismissal of appeals against the growth proposal.
Groups have pushed back on the growth plan over the creation of 30 new Neighborhood Centers across the city including D3’s Madison Park, Madison Valley, Montlake, and Madrona. The designation could “allow residential and mixed-use buildings up to six stories in the core and four and five-story residential buildings toward the edges.”
The compromises over drawing those lines will be pushed to later in the year as the council considers permanent legislation including rezones for the new Neighborhood Centers, new and expanded Regional and Urban Centers, and “select arterial rezones along frequent transit routes.”
The final stages in the process come after years of planning and outreach and months of public debate over the draft plan and zoning maps released last fall.
Now that the deadline has been reached, it’s not clear what if any real world implications for development and construction the interim legislation will have with the major questions around the final 20-year plan still to be solved.
Tuesday as the council unanimously backed the interim bill, comprehensive plan committee chair Hollingsworth said the next phase of the legislation will require a bigger push and more effort to get things done in time for review and implementation. “Our timeline is going to be a little more strict,” Hollingsworth said.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
Joy keeps bending at the knee for NIMBY SFH dwellers in Madison and putting the future of the city on the line. Next time D3, don’t vote for business owners who don’t care about you outside of their bottom line.
But Chi Chi, that might mean voting for an ideological misfit who doesn’t reflect a core competency in seeking and getting economic rents from The State!
No I’m not voting for another Sawant or Sawant-like figure. next.
Despite the fact that this Council has been considering last-minute amendments on every piece of legislation for 18 months, this time will be different…for some reason.
City Council was so cowardly to hold the meeting on Zoom when the shit show that was outside city hall was brewing.
They hate workers and renters. So OVER this council.
So, when does the part come where we also add a city-wide vacancy tax in conjunction, so as to prevent the exclusive development of more “luxury” townhomes? Simply lifting zoning requirements will not alleviate the current core plight of middle class homebuyers–the affordability crisis. Ya know, the thing simultaneously continuing to increase the homeless population? De-zoning is a great tool to create the landscape necessary for more housing in Seattle–an inevitable and necessary change for a growing region–but the other caveat is that private development will now be guaranteed to gobble up all the most affordable lots that go up for sale, bidding up the price out of reach to the average middle-class homebuyer, all so they can maximize on their profit-motive and thereby build the cheapest trash to sell for the highest possible luxury prices that the market will allow. Why do we allow this configuration, while ignoring conversations about the more efficient and equitable solutions that fully public housing provides? Hint: it’s industry money corrupting our political process (in case some of you didn’t get my question was rhetorical).
Social housing is a great start, but without public offices backing construction efforts from top to bottom, contracting and all, the public’s needs won’t be sufficiently met. Private developers always socialize costs while privatizing the gains, that’s the business model…why is this the route we’ve chosen for solving an affordable housing crisis??? Not to mention, when has the private market ever even solved a problem that the government didn’t already lay the entire field out for in terms of grants, subsidies, or resources?? Never! All material progress in our modern US society has been off the backs of the American tax payer, via the US government. We’ve allowed private industry to play god with our lives for FAR too long, and our seeming inability to solve this very simple problem of housing supply and affordablity is proof, clear as day. Just like the impetus for creating a public option to decommodify health insurance, public housing should in kind should be used as a tool to disrupt the market of what amounts to an inflexible demand…a thing people can’t live without–shelter. Irreplaceable in our lives, exactly like proper health care. The problem is clearly the ‘private’ aspect of these public-private partnerships, and it’s the same energy behind why we don’t repeal the faircloth amendment’s federal ban on public housing starts.
If it’s going to be expensive to build housing regardless, then why add in private middle men and expect a better public-focused solution? It’s a no-brainer at this point–but due to obfuscation from the top down, we’re stuck creating fake arguments between NIMBYs and YIMBYs over how and when rich corporations can develop our land, while not addressing “why the hell should they?” We’re hurtling down this path toward complete budget implosion, yet allowing private industry to continue setting the narrative that the government is too strict with regulations and therefore needs to step aside for ‘innovation’. More like innovating new ways to profit off our suffering!!!
Citywide vacancy tax excellent idea. How about eliminate Airbnb completely? That would us umpteen new rental units in one fell swoop.
Joy is doing a great job. Her constituents include renters and homeowners in large areas of the city with trees and yards—the lungs of the city. Other areas, like Madrona, are on steep unstable slopes, which were nonetheless proposed for 5 story apartment zones. Having grown up there below a house that slid down the hill I know geology matters. Not only is it hazardous, but to mitigate risk, if building is pushed into slopes it requires expensive engineering and foundation work that make it impossible for the housing to meet affordability needs.
The proposed massive increases to neighborhood densities are in many cases ill-considered: drainage, water pressure, narrow one-way streets, missing transit, all have been ignored in the rush to build dense housing in areas that are not suited for it.
I want to see more affordable housing in the city. I see zero evidence over the last 20 years that building more market rate housing pushes the needle. What’s more important than adding new housing is preserving the affordable housing we already have, and working to make housing taxes less steep (they can easily be half the expense of a monthly mortgage), expanding co-op and condominium supply and preserving and adding to Section 8 housing along with stacked flats. Also dialing back permitting times and fees, which add thousands of dollars in cost to building. All this can be done without the wholesale destruction of neighborhood character and tree canopy seen throughout the city.
Oh paleeeez stop already…That’s quit the line you got there.
“Other areas, like Madrona, are on steep unstable slopes, which were nonetheless proposed for 5 story apartment zones.”
Really? You an engineer? How’d San Francisco get built? Of any other mountainous region on the planet?
” homeowners in large areas of the city with trees and yards—the lungs of the city.”
Oh get over yourselves. They plant more than they cut. HOUSING is most priority. Your lame NIMBY excuses are that of some rich, out of touch person who thinks they are above it all.
Your “Building more won’t help the housing shortages” is a common ullshit from people wanted to keep it nice and gentrified.
You talk like you “know” and you don’t. You parrot the garbage spewed at every project to help the poor.
I guess if we build nothing and give you more tax breaks? That’d solve the crisis of housing the homeless!
Cost only becomes a problem with offering affordability when it’s assumed a private company will need to first profit off the build…
PUBLIC HOUSING BUILT BY THE GOVERNMENT