Amendment Could Scuttle Roosevelt Development Proposal

Good for Licata. Goes to show that even a stopped clock is right once a year. I hope he’s sincere, which is a big “if” around here.

I don’t see any rational reason against letting the developer build the 150′ he wanted in the first place. Rents are through the roof – we need more places to live so that supply catches up to demand.

Oh for fuck’s sake. Most of the neighborhood and the council were willing to compromise at 65′. This is descending into farce.

PASS THE FUCKING ZONING, GET SOMETHING BUILT WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH.

Most of the neighborhood is NOT willing to compromise. At all the meetings we heard the message loud and clear – 40 feet. I’d rather have that be the baseline to work a viable design. If they give some public benefit, e.g. vistas, green space, setbacks, they can get a higher building in particular areas. If 65 feet is the baseline, they’ll ask for more. That’s how developers work.

Thank you Nick Licata for your leadership in this issue.

Development will not make rents more affordable.  With all the development in Ballard, rents have not gone down, they have only risen and the size of the units has gotten smaller.  Roosevelt will be no different.

From what I gather the property that Sisely owns has been vacant and derelict for many many years.  In talking to Tom Rasmussen, apparently the city can do nothing about these derelict properties unless it involves the Department of Health.  I don’t understand why the Mayor and City Council don’t work on an ordinance requiring the landlord to either keep the property up or tear the houses down. 

Good. Licata and Harrell are the only two council members who valued the Roosevelt neighborhood planning. The world won’t cave in with 65′ in most places and 40′ for 3 blocks. It’s called compromise, a way to handle current AND future interests, and a way to move forward with significant increased density in the rest of the area.

I don’t live in Roosevelt but do live happily with L2 zoning and L3 nearby. Do I trust developers, the majority of council or the density nazis to take a balanced approach to those of us already negotiating family life in a largely working mixed use environment to not completely ruin my neighborhood with big tall boxes and empty groundfloor storefronts? Not for a second. Nor do my neighbors. Undermining years of input from the Roosevelt neighborhood, which has WELCOMED density, does nothing but spur us on to start a legal defense fund now. And to actively campaign against the majority of council the next time they are on the ballot.

Licata’s amendment is about where, as in, proximity to a high school.
There is a lot of property throughout the city not covered by the proposed amendment.

Shbhh, Nick is legislating a popular, and yet, losing point. He’s watching the watchers, checking the checkers, and drawing publicity without actually doing anything.
A long whiff.

That the council has not come up with a compromise on those three blocks astounds me. Why not 85 next to the station and 40 on 15th. That is the design the neighborhood has been seeking. But the developer and owner have other greater plans. Come listen to the echo in the canyon.

Worth remembering that the Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt Plan (SLRP) bumps density and affordability way, way up – in exchange for saving the character and important features of the neighborhood, specifically the 40′ zoning around the high school.

In other words, Roosevelt presented an answer to the Mayor’s density challenge: “yes”. And they did it with style and grace, adding even more density than the Department of Planning and Development had originally requested, and all while keeping their Neighborhood Plan intact. Now is not the time for the Council to turn its back on Roosevelt.

If you take away the soul of a neighborhood, then we’ve lost our way as a city. But if you grow as a city – while keeping the soul and character spelled out in the pages of Seattle’s neighborhood plans – then you’ve done right by the past, present and future of the city.

Ben, I think if you’d followed the process more closely, you might have another opinion. The HS campus will forever be low-rise and it doesn’t make sense to build high-density immediately to the south of such a classic public structure. And especially when the property owner has committed so many violations against the City, the community, and his tenants over the year. We should not reward slumlords.

There’s plenty of room to accommodate future housing demand in Roosevelt west of 12th Ave. NE, between 12th and the freeway. The City and the community should determine development patterns, not slumlords.

You prentended to be against zoning in a different thread. When I called you a liar, you pretended to be against “height based zoning.” When I asked you about that 100-story building I want to put next to your house, you didn’t answer. Typical “progressive.” When caught lying, he runs away.

I would LOVE for you to put a 100 story building next to my house! I’m sorry I can’t reply to every one of your comments – a lot of them are just personal attacks.

65′ is ridiculous. Compromise would be 150′. We need to allow people to build as high as they want to.

I think that if you want to limit height to 65′, you should have to compensate the landowner for what you’re preventing them from building.

All they have to do is allow the developer to build what actually makes them money, and those blocks would have vibrant buildings on them.

Development doesn’t make rents go *down* – nothing can do that. We have a choice between rents that go up with inflation, and rents that skyrocket because we don’t let people build enough to meet demand. Every time we choose ridiculous limits, we choose ever higher rents.

The property covered by the amendment is the property that can be developed. Other properties around the station aren’t owned by folks who want to develop them.

That would equate to what is the very worst of Seattle Process!  Months and months and hearing after hearing and study and them some more…mostly focused on these 3 blocks.  Geez Council just do it and stop trying to make everyone happy.  Licata?  Do you want the affordable housing units that would come from an upzone to 65? Council should pass this.  It’s a good plan

I lived on 69th. The idea that you can somehow “trade” a place where the owner wants to develop for some nebulous “other places” that don’t have plans on the books is ridiculous – it’s just a way to stop new housing from being built, and keep rents going through the roof for residents.

In the long run, you’re going to lose this debate, either because we actually make neighborhoods pay for the impacts they want to have, or because you won’t be able to afford to live here.

So you want any scumbag developer to be able to put a 100-story building anywhere he pleases? Really? And what about the 7-Elevens, the Wal-Marts, and the steel mills? No zoning?

85 would be a great start!

I don’t understand who will be able to see the school over 40′ buildings. Nobody’s been able to answer this.

In the proposal the base heigh IS 40..Going tp 65 requires all kinds of set backs for increased sidewalk widths and also requires affordable units.

Why can’t you accept the statements I make without trying to twist them? The only places where 100 story buildings make sense to the market are near other tall buildings. Nobody wants to build 100 story buildings in Roosevelt. However, they’d love to build 150′ buildings (that’s about 15 stories), because there’s a lot of demand for them.

What about 7-elevens, Wal-Marts and steel mills? I don’t understand your question. In a place where density is *allowed*, wal-marts can’t survive because no landowner can get enough contiguous space to build one. 7-elevens are great, and in higher density they even exist without parking, on the first floors of larger buildings! Who wants to build a steel mill, though?

The Council is giving Roosevelt 95% of what’s in its SLRP plan. It’s looking at a measly 25′ more on two blocks that are 1/8 of a mile from the multi-million dollar light rail station (that the neighborhood lobbied to have put in the center of their ‘hood). In addition, the Council is considering UNPRECEDENTED set-backs on anything built at 65′…NO OTHER neighborhood near light rail is getting the time (at least six COBE meetings now??) and consideration Roosevelt is getting on this issue. 

The upzones RNA brags about are on properties that are very hard to assemble (think dozens of individual owners) or hold long-term ground leases with existing tenants. 

Plus, I’ve heard from several Roosevelt neighbors that RNA has been less than inclusive in talking with neighbors who don’t share their “all or nothing” view. Not cool. 

And finally, views from Safeco Field aren’t even protected by the city…so while the Roosevelt High School is awesome, to think that its views are protected forever is not realistic. Work on a compromise. Let thoughtful policy and design review do its job and let’s move on. 

Why is Licata attacking a project that would bring 50 affordable housing units (under the incentive zoning program that he and Clark and others have been strong advocates for) to the neighborhood?

Let’s all at least agree that 65′ is not “high-density”.

Agreed, especially when most of the rest of Council supports this project.  Even Clark, who struggled with it all, came in the end to support 65 ft and DPD’s proposal for the RDG site.  http://clark.seattle.gov/2011/12/06/final-decision-near-in-roosevelt-rezones/

It’s about our kids not going to schools surrounded by high rises.

The “rational” reason is, you don’t just get to do things because you have a lot of money and want to do them. There’s more at stake here than money, like quality of life, for example.

We also have a choice between involving neighborhoods in planning for more density, and just giving the whole process over to people with lots of money (and therefore, potential political influence). Which is more “ridiculous”, exactly? The SLR Plan includes plenty of density, and via the contract rezone process (separate from the legislative rezone under consideration now), even more could be included.

I want my kids to be able to afford housing and to live in Seattle.  And, I hope they do well enough in life to work in a high rise.  I don’t care about the view from their school.  My kids will be attending Roosevelt.

That’s a weird thing to be about. You know we build buildings well enough that the windows don’t fall off?

Nowhere close, especially not with setbacks. 65′ is half the height you see in most of Paris.

The blighted blocks around the high school currently owned by Sisley could easily have been developed – or just maintained – if he had chosen to. Plenty of other landlords do, across the city and in this very neighborhood.

As for your assertion that other folks “don’t want to develop” other areas in Roosevelt, let’s see some evidence to prove it Ben.

Putting people by schools that are by transit is a good thing. And we’re not talking  hundreds of feet…it’s 65′. Six stories at best. The hatred some neighbors feel  toward Sisley is completely understandable – but it’s not worth botching the public’s $100M-plus investment in transit. Development needs to occur where there is developable land – and developing near a freeway is loud, hard to finance (especially in this real estate market) and possibly a health hazard.

New buildings with great design will be better than drug-infested empty lots across from an amazing high school. 

To your point, the City IS determining development patterns, which is why they are listening to the neighborhood, accepting almost all of the SLRP plan and have worked hard to create a framework where great design at 65′ works on the ‘high school’ blocks. 

Another “progressive” post, another lie. You wrote: “Why should someone’s next door neighbor be able to tell them they can’t build on their property?”

Ever since I called you on your fuckin’ lie, you’ve been trying to weasel out of it. Is there anything you shitheads can ever tell the truth about?

Quality of life is demonstrably improved by more access to transit. Stopping development stops people from living near transit, reducing quality of life.

Basically, you seem to want your personal quality of life to be better, but not to let any *other* people have a good quality of life. It’s incredibly selfish.

Ben “the progressive” wants to end zoning in Seattle. To wit, in his words: “Why should someone’s next door neighbor be able to tell them they can’t build on their property?”

But as soon as he’s called on it, he lies. Ben Schiedelman will say anything, at any time. No wonder he’s part of the “new urbanists” and the Mayor McDope brigade. The only way they can ever get any traction is to tell lies.

FrequentPoster, are you having reading comprehension issues? I don’t think I should be able to tell my next door neighbor what they can build on their property. I think it’s ok for the city as a whole to require that the first floor of a building be accessible (like  that it be storefronts for the most part) and add to urban life, but I don’t think it’s ok to tell people they can’t build taller buildings, because the ability to do so is hurting us in MANY ways.

Tell me, are you a whore for everyone, or just for developers?

“…buildings taller than 40 feet would put kids at Roosevelt High School at risk”

Is that a direct quote? Really? Did someone really say that? not Rick Perry?

I’d really like to find that quote as it is just so rich — it’s a keeper when it comes to classic remarks. Please let me know.

The SLR Plan uses an outdated and controversial method for calculating density.  Most who have reviewed the plan disagree with the density it says it will create.  Also, as Ben pointed out here, the parcels slated for density in the SLR Plan are scattered and have many owners.  It is very unlikely that the SLR Plan will realize the density that it discusses.

What are you trying to prove? There’s a developer trying to build on the blighted blocks. He’s proposed a project that’s big enough to be of value to him. How is that POSSIBLY worse than how the blocks are now?

Ben, if the city/neighborhood zones one area for a certain kind of building/housing, and a different area for another, that’s what will be built there. It’s the city’s prerogative to do that, because…and you don’t quite seem to get this, so it bears repeating…the developer’s interests aren’t the only ones at stake here. Lots of people live and work and raise families in the area.

What exactly does “making neighborhoods pay for the impacts they want to have” mean, anyway? It’s the city who came to Roosevelt and asked the neighborhood to come up with a plan for more density. It’s the neighborhood that did just that. Then, they did it again when the Mayor said “more density”. The neighborhood has acted in good faith. Hopefully the City Council will too.

This is what anti-density people do. They don’t have a real argument – they’re selfish and exclusionary and they call people whores.

Again with the unsupported claims, Ben? How many times are you going to say that “nobody” wants to build more density in Roosevelt? Are you some kind of mind reader or something?

All the anti-density crowd can do is call smart people liars, over and over again. Don’t be part of this group – don’t make housing prices in Seattle worse by stopping housing construction again and again.

Yes Ben, might makes right and money is honey, so let the developers rule. Great plan.

bill_a, you aren’t qualified to say what “plenty” of density is. That’s up to the market, and the market wants more density than you want to allow. Stop being selfish and let the people who want to live by the subway station live by the subway station. You don’t get to keep billion dollar public investments to yourself.

65′ buildings are not high rises. I live in Ballard and there are multiple 65′ buildings around my house. These heights are the standard for neighborhoods that have transit stations (Othello, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, U District)…and some of those areas have much lower overall densities than Roosevelt.

Thank you!  We are raising our kids in a city and not a suburb because we want them to have the advantages of city such as public transportation and the independence that it brings.

I knew your “logic” would inevitably land you here, Ben. Why not compensate the landowner for a 1500 foot building instead, while we’re at it?

Unfortunately for you, for the moment we still live in something that (somewhat) resembles a democracy, not an (outright) oligarchy or plutocracy. Power rests with the people, Ben, not just the people with money.

So: no, the slumlord who has been letting his properties become a blight does not get compensated because he can’t build a 150 foot, or 1500 foot, building. Them’s not the rules, and for good reason.

I think it’s ok for the city as a whole to require that the first floor of a building be accessible (like  that it be storefronts for the most part) and add to urban life

Schiendelman the lying “new urbanist” Seattler Transit Blog “progressive” started off by telling us this:

“Why should someone’s next door neighbor be able to tell them they can’t build on their property?”

Ever since then, he’s been adding to the list of restrictions that he favors. Ben, the “progressive” liar, couldn’t tell the truth — even  about his own beliefs — if his life depended on it. Oh, and get this: He also thinks he knows more about real estate than everyone else!

“Selfish,” you say. Oh, ain’t that rich, you loafer licking developer whore, you!

Ben, from start to finish you have been lying here. You portrayed yourself as against zoning, but as soon as I called you on it, you’ve been trying to back out of your statements, ya whoring little weasel.

Ben, that is nothing more than thinly disguised economic extortion. Plenty of landlords own similar properties in similar areas in this city and make a perfectly good living from them, without letting them turn into urban blight.

You aren’t qualified to walk and chew gum, ya stupid little liar. You’ve been talking out of all 12 sides of your mouth here. Well guess what? Ya done got caught. Better go back to the Seattle Transit Blog, where you can censor your opponents.

Ah yes, in the end Ben and his “new urbanist” developer shills think they are smarter than the peasants in the neighborhoods. Ben has utterly no respect for anyone who lives here. None, zero, zilch.

“Roosevelt High School students would be at risk of realizing that 65 ft buildings make the neighborhood better and utilize transit investment to a fuller potential.”

Oh, the favorite jab of the literati: I’m not “qualified” to have an opinion. Sorry, Ben. I’ve seen what the “market” does when it’s left to its own devices, and I think it’s time people got to have a say, not just slumlord (or for that matter, zillionaire) landlords.

Wouldn’t ya love to know who pays Bennie Boy’s expenses, and those of the Seattle Transit Blog?

Yet another reason not to approve the plan at this point, much less to add more density in a haphazard manner such as the Council is considering around the high school.

Ben, you haven’t answered my question. Where’s your evidence?

@bill_a, in a different thread, Ben identified himself as a real estate expert, meaning that he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Ben we only call whores, whores

You need to understand something. People like  Ben never gave a rat’s ass about neighborhood input. Not then, not now, not ever.

Dude, ce n’est pas Paris.

Yes, thank you Nick!

“Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!”

Right – Council should approve the DPD plan and scuttle the SLR Plan.

Funny thing about Americans. Some of us still have this habit of calling things, people, and whores by their real names!

Now I’ve seen it all.

First, Bruce Harrell argues in favor of putting poor people closer to the freeway (slrp plan) instead of a thriving community with a future light rail station, high school, business district, a nice single family zone(DPD
plan). how’s that for race and social justice?

Now, along comes Nick licata who wants to scuttle one of the only developments openly embracing incentive zoning which would create affordable housing instead favoring of a bunch of elitist, white, elderly people from Ravenna and the central district.

Good lord.
s

Nice attempt at a straw man there Ben, but the Roosevelt plan as created by the neighborhood, then rewritten at the city’s request for even more density, does not “stop development”. And based on what I’ve seen you write, you seem all for the “every one for themselves” approach to development. So what’s it to you if I’m selfish? What if I just want to drive up property values in one block that I own, by stopping development in another? As long as I make money it’s okay, right?

You obviously don’t know jack shit about either New Urbanism or Seattle Transit Blog if you think the two are remotely related.

The article above states “Neighborhood residents have proposed limiting heights on those three blocks to 40 feet, arguing that buildings taller than 40 feet would put kids at Roosevelt High School at risk.”

Is that for real? Not just from one…individual…but as any sort of community consensus? By any respected community leader?

The link above “argues” does NOT say anything of the sort.

This from someone who just called me “selfish”. And housing starts aren’t being limited by people having a say in their own city’s development. See, there’s this recession, remember?

I know enough to know that they are two peas in a pod, and that they utterly despise most of the people here and how they live.

I wonder how much that developer pays Ben and his Seattle Transit Blog.

West Seattle Rezone had a core of 85 foot buildings, how about we get the light rail!!!

This is all I have to say about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUCnwh_KQc

Ben, when you stoop to ridicule others, you only ridicule yourself.

Not just selfish, but old, exclusionary, NIMBY, racist, you name it. As soon as the peasants in this or that neighborhood tell Ben and his “new urbanist” developers to take a hike, they find out how much respect Ben and his friends had for them to start with.

(Hint: None whatsoever.)

Ah yes. Now the neighborborhood is racist because they don’t kiss your ass.

Seriously! Take it from Roosevelt – clearly they don’t want it! Or, they want the transit and the public’s $$, but not density where it counts  - super lame. 

And given your innumerable posts and sleazy backslides on many stories in Publicola in favor of 150 feet heights for a single parcel we have only called you Ben Schiendelman a whore and deservedly so, you whore

“If you want more density you don’t want taller buildings per se, you want more generous floor area ratio (FAR)”.

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/12/05/thoughts-about-density/#more-31415

There’s a lot more to this than just building height. There’s a whole lot of money at stake too, right Ben?

“Of course developers want to build taller buildings, but it’s not just because of density: higher floors with better views are worth more money. Developers will take height without density as a matter of course.”

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/12/05/thoughts-about-density/#more-31415

“Developers’ primary concern is to make money, sometimes that means building more density, sometimes that means building a parking lot. Why should we make “redevelopment” an urbanist goal in and of itself and fight for legal changes that may not add density on their behalf?”

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/12/05/thoughts-about-density/#more-31415

“there’s a lot more to think about than just height and what developers want when you are considering density. More height doesn’t necessarily mean more square feet, and more square feet doesn’t even necessarily mean more people”

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/12/05/thoughts-about-density/#more-31415

Oh please! Selfishness is permitted only for new urbanist developers and their whores. It is called “the public good.”

yeah, I liked living next to and riding the #7 bus when I first moved here. Slice O’life as they say. Oh by the way Ben the report on the affordability article  says that folks generally don’t like living near mass transit- lowest rents- less demand you know the buzz words you float on other posts-supply/demand/market. Who is John Galt

Give it up: You cannot embarrass a dog, a Republican, or a Seattle Smugster. Ben has no shame, and never will.

Revel – 1. it’s only 15 units (5 on each of the 3 blocks) that would have restricted rents 2. they aren’t affordable, IZ requires affordability @ 80% of AMI (that’s a single person making nearly $50k/yr), which is above market rate rents.  affordability at 80% AMI is a studio renting for about $1200/month. and 3. if you buy the affordable housing hooey, well, Nick’s proposal (like SLRPs), should he introduce it, upzones 4 blocks to 85 ft. that the executive proposal does not include at 85 ft.

DPD analysis says 766 units for SLRP and 607 for Executive proposal.

AHS -  1. it’s only 15 units (5 on each of the 3 blocks) that would have restricted rents
2. they aren’t affordable, IZ requires affordability @ 80% of AMI
(that’s a single person making nearly $50k/yr), which is above market
rate rents.  affordability at 80% AMI is a studio renting for about $1200/month. and 3. if
you buy the affordable housing hooey, well, Nick’s proposal (like SLRPs)
upzones 4 blocks to 85 ft. that the executive proposal does not include
at 85 ft.

Blah21 – 1. it’s only 15 units (5 on each of the 3 blocks) that would have restricted rents
2. they aren’t affordable, IZ requires affordability @ 80% of AMI
(that’s a single person making nearly $50k/yr), which is above market
rate rents.  affordability at 80% AMI is a studio renting for about $1200/month. and 3. if
you buy the affordable housing hooey, well, Nick’s proposal (like SLRPs)
upzones 4 blocks to 85 ft. that the executive proposal does not include
at 85 ft.

Are you saying that Nick doesn’t like Council’s incentive zoning program? If so, will he take the lead to reopen that whole dialogue? How does Clark feel about him wanting to do that? Office of Housing?

Are you saying that Nick doesn’t like Council’s incentive zoning program? If so, will he take the lead to reopen that whole dialogue? How does Clark feel about him wanting to do that? Office of Housing?

Are you saying that Nick doesn’t like Council’s incentive zoning program? If so, will he take the lead to reopen that whole dialogue? How does Clark feel about him wanting to do that? Office of Housing?

Give us some examples of where in big cities, especially Seattle, taller buildings have resulted in lower rents.

Not true.

Oh, too precious! The “takings” argument! Why not just walk around with a big sign that says “I’m Ben, the ‘new urbanist,’ Sisley’s little bitch?”

“buildings taller than 40 feet would put kids at Roosevelt High School at risk” — what a ridiculous statement.  At risk of having two more stories on buildings nearby?  What?
“harm views to and from the school” –1. views to the school: hello, any development blocks views to the school.  And six stories lets two more stories worth have views.  2. views from the school — ridiculous, the 40 footers will block most views but kids should be studying anyway.  Nine months out of the year there ARE NO VIEWS it’s gray and rainy.  In summer, the kids are out at greenlake enjoying views, smoking pot and having sex in the trees after dark.  They get plenty of  views they don’t need them 8 to 3 on weekdays in winter.
“and damage the character of the neighborhood” — actually, by drawing more units, this will support more shops, people, friends, jobs, opportunities, etc, it’s called a city, and they are better places to live in than suburban like low rise communities as RNA is planning here. 

The DPD proposal is likely to be built.  SLR Plan is incorrectly calculated AND far less likely to be realized.

New urbanism, for all it’s good and questionable, has nothing to do with “takings” as a legal idea.

I agree, his use of takings here is a bit absurd — but don’t conflate it with the basically agreed upon set of ideas of how places can be made walkable.

I hate developers too — and for good reason. They build ugly things, they fight every environmental law, and they cozy up way too tight with public officials.

But to base the idea of your neighborhood plan around trying to keep one specific developer from making money — that’s not a way to make a 100 year investment in your neighborhood and our city.

Let’s put this housing where people want to live..on quieter streets near schools and parks (not in front of freeways to ‘block the noise for the single family households).  15 set aside for low income units plus another 40 units set aside at 80% AMI is good. policy!  I hope Nick will not kill this. 

 If the neighbors in Roosevelt were smart they’d be working closely with RDG instead of treating them like the enemy. Those dudes are the communities best chance to make a good project there.

AHS  – 1. it’s only 15 units (5 on each of the 3 blocks) that would have restricted rents that could be impacted by Nick’s amendment
2. the setaside units aren’t affordable, IZ requires affordability @ 80% of AMI
(that’s a single person making nearly $50k/yr).  affordability at 80% AMI is a studio renting for about $1200/month. and 3. Nick’s proposal (like SLRPs)
upzones 4 blocks to 85 ft. that the executive proposal does not include
at 85 ft. (also subject to IZ)

he’ll continue to try and bring down the setaside unit affordability when the program comes up for review, much like he’s done every time the multifamily tax exemption program has come up for review.  or like he’s done every a new housing levy comes up and some councilmembers want to use more levy dollars for “workforce housing.”

Because only city planners and privileged New Urbanists think a $1100/month studio is “affordable”.

Investors purchase their properties under the existing zoning with open eyes – no one owes them an upzone, and it is in no way a “compromise” to grant them willy nilly.

As I posted above – the property owner purchased the plot with open eyes knowing what the existing zoning is.  You might be able to make this right-wing “takings” argument about a downzone that subsequently changes that, but there is no divine right to an upzone based on whatever the would-be developer thinks he can profit with.

No way, no how.  That’s not how the system works, and for good reason.

1) I accidentally liked your statement.
2) If you think Whole Foods is going to be demolished tomorrow to build new 85 feet buildings, or 60 different parcels by a FREEWAY are going to be assembled to build 60 foot housing you obviously don’t understand the market.

As my granddad used to say – want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

I guess Nick thinks freeway housing is better than neighborhood-centric housing. Go figure.

Totally agree with you. In fact, the public investment is probably close to 500 MILLION dollars if you add up the high school renovation, the light rail station, and the future open space by lidding Roosevelt reservoir.

Asking people to live by a freeway instead of by these amenities is downright selfish. Talk about greed.

Ben in your ongoing, never ending rant and rave to build skyscrapers in this very quiet, family friendly neighborhood, you seemed to have missed that the view they are trying to preserve is that of Mt. Rainer.  The high school was designed and built way back when  to respect and honor the mountain, and so that neighbors could also see and appreciate that beauty of our region via that little uprise in geography.   I completely disagree with your viewpoint here.    If you want a concrete jungle, I have an island to suggest across the US you could adventure to.  I prefer a little peace and quiet and to be able to see the stars when the clouds are parted… not stories of buildings. 

Yes and what reliable mass transit has made it to Ballard to truck all those people out of the people farms they built???    Ballard has turned in to ALL cars these days, quite unpleasant to even visit.   Roosevelt is right next to the freeway…ALL CARS.

You won’t see the HS building from 65th with monotonous lot-line-to-lot line 40′ development, either. Better to negotiate some extra height and create some ground level open space/view corridor(s). 

I thought Licata was for tenant rights?? The effect of his amendment is no development–meaning that all of the slumlord’s housing stays in place indefinitely.  Way to help people, Nick!

Yes, Roosevelt/Ravenna has been very welcoming to new development.

They even went so far as to carve out a choice bit of property next to the freeway for future development so the current residents in their comfortable, never changing single family home wouldn’t be bothered by new people driving in their neighborhood. So, if this development ever did get built, which is highly unlikely, the cars could just go on and off the freeway and never have to enter the neighborhood. What a warm, Seattle welcome.  

Oh, and did I mention how excited the R/R crowd is to have a future building between them and I-5 because it will block the sound of the freeway? Welcome to my neighborhood, and thanks for being my human shield!

Frankly, I wish I made this shit up, but these are public statements at public forums.

(SARCASM)

Question. Is anyone against higher density in Roosevelt posting here under the age of 40? just curious

HAHAHAHAHA! That is almost as funny as the YouTube clip from “The Hangover” in an earlier comment.  

You’re right about that. My point was to counter Ben’s libertarian stance about compensating developers, and the comment about Sisley, the Roosevelt slumlord, is an aside.

I call bullshit.  DON gave them a small and simple grant to go off on their own in a vaccum and re-do neighborhood plan.  That was a bad idea and the city should not let that happen again.  With that said, every zoning proposal on the table is consistent with that plan.  It’s not about MORE density, it’s about housing where we want housing – close to parks, schools and transit!!!  This is also about the neighbors who don’t live their yet and the city’s responsibility to make the most out of the expensive and amazing light rail investment.  Every person in the region has a stake in this.

That is EXACTLY what Option 2 for the high school blocks development standards do!

I’m sorry but the Planning Commission’s report on affordability says no such thing.  It actually shows there is a higher demand for housing in a walkable, transit community.  They recommend spending levy dollars and subsidies IN these very transit communities so a range of household types and incomes can live there and take advantage of significantly lower transportation costs.  Subsidies, Incentive Zoning, inclusionary zoning, etc. are likley to be the only way we can build that kind of diversity into our walkable, transit communities otherwise the market demand will result in high end condos and a whole bunch of studios.

Totally Ben, check out all the folks that are getting jacked and robbed at Othello station….totally the quality of life I yearn for.

That is bullshit.  Everyone should expect that the property one block from lightrail shoud be upzoned.  As a matter of fact everything within a 5 block walk should be upzoned!  That should be our common expectation as a city who supports growth managment and accepts and expects high capacity transit investments.

Really? Last time I was at Othello, there was a market going, and there were families everywhere walking around and enjoying it.

I expect the city to upzone EVERY PROPERTY within 5 blocks of every lightrail station.  I also expect them to funnel money into sidewalks, street lighting, generous plantings in the right of way, street trees, open space, civic spaces.  We should all not only expect this of our City we should demand it!

Did you forget the 150′ proposal that you’re blocking in Roosevelt? Maybe you’ve missed the five construction cranes between Amazon and Capitol Hill?

Yes, I heard someone representing SLRP stand up and make that exact statement at the Seattle Architect Foundation event on Transit Oriented Development event last month.  It’s on Seattle Channel so you can look it up and hear it for yourself if you don’t believe it! 

“New urbanism” is a greenwashing scam pushed by scum developers, and promoted by their gullible, idealistic, fatuous useful idiots.

Don’t be like them. Any place is “walkable” if you just fucking walk. Duh! 

Demand all you want. But you need the votes.

Public safety issues in Othello have been there LONG before light rail station.  Light rail makes it better but can’t solve all the problems in a neighborhood.

Lisa’s numbers are not accurate.  She significantly undercounts the affordable units that would be built in the RDG project.  

Lame argument. Taxpayers are investing hundreds of millions in transit and blocks within a stone’s throw from the station aren’t going to accept more density?? I agree, upzones aren’t “owed” to anyone, but creating affordable housing near transit and schools is pretty sound public policy. 

An upzone isn’t “owned” – it should be REQUIRED in all station areas.  We are paying millions for light rail.  I am not paying for that investment to go to a single family neighborhood.  

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/gangs-target-light-rail-135509803.html

Based on the comments I’ve seen on this board from you, Kid and the like, zero respect is exactly what you deserve.

I think Ballard would LOVE to have the light rail being granted to Roosevelt.

Your numbers aren’t correct. It is 50 not 15.

TV News’ job is to make you afraid. It doesn’t reflect reality.

It’s like gazelles at a watering hole.  Step off train, get jacked.  The rail just brings more gazelles.

Yup, there ya are. As soon as the peasants tell their Stalinistic urban planner developer whores where to go, we find out what the whores really think about them. Too old. Hey, Chris, let’s put all the old people on ice floes so you and your 20-something meth snorting freaks can party hearty in one of Mayor McDope’s vibrant 24-hour bars.

Ha – it’s ALL CARS because we don’t have transit! Ballard would love any form of transit it could get..monorail, light rail, streetcar…this neighborhood’s been for it all…and we’re huge bus riders (just try and get on the 17 during peak times). 

Send yer light rail our way and we’ll take it! We’re already taking the density at 65′ and 85′. 

Seattle City Council – Support Option 2.  I just saw a great letter by the Commission that lays it all out as to why this makes sense.

Don’t you live on an island? Why don’t you let us city-dwellers solve our problems without your fatuous self-righteous exurbanite nonsense?  Run along, it’s time to go make some office-holder quake in their boots because you’re not going to support them.

Ben Schiendelman, Crumpet BoyCollapse
“I would LOVE for you to put a 100 story building next to my house! I’m sorry I can’t reply to every one of your comments – a lot of them are just personal attacks.”

don’t you live in an apartment on 1st?  at least that’s where you were registered to vote. 

Funny, that wasn’t on the ballot when light rail was voted on in 1996. 

However, I do remember that the possibility of a surface route through NE Seattle and Roosevelt was on the ballot in 1995, and the resulting lack of support in that critical part of the electorate was cited by many political observers as one of the key reasons it failed at the polls.

I’m sorry, it’s actually 56 units of affordable housing.  Math much?  Also, the 85 feet is where?  Oh, in places where there won’t be any additional redevelopment for year (such as whole foods, or sad to say the station itself).  You work for Licata, don’t you?  Then aren’t you supposed to be able to do the math on incentive zoning? 

Also, why so angry and people that make $50,000/year?  Aren’t they part of the 99%?  Regular old working people?  Teachers working at Roosevelt High, perhaps?  They can’t be part of our city?  You and CM Licata don’t care about them??

People making $50k a year don’t need housing subsidies – the rental market is already producing units that people at that income level can afford.

According to who?

Another interesting developing story is Bruce Harrell’s support of this amendment.  Why is he supporting the amendment in public and then telling his colleagues (that he’s throwing under the bus) in private that “he has to do this?”  He feels that he needs to oppose Tim Burgess on every single thing for when they run against each other for Mayor? Even though Tim is absolutely correct on this one?  Remember, Mr. Harrell, that lots and lots of people who are frequent COBE-goers are watching this vote…

According to the planning commission.

The same developer-stacked commission that considers $1100+/month studio apartments to be “affordable”? 

I’m more inclined to believe the Council Staff analysis that Lisalouh cites, thanks.

there is no “plus another” set aside at 80% AMI.  15 units in total are set aside for 80% AMI – about $1200 for a one-bedroom.  (I mistakenly said $1200 or a studio last night when I couldn’t access my affordable housing rates online)

Gemini – I’m using DPD’s analysis for the high school blocks. 

except that letter contains false assertions:

“In Option 2, the 65-foot height allowance will
yield approximately 56 affordable units (at 80% AMI) through the incentive
zoning program as opposed to zero units that would result from Option 1’s
40-foot height limitation.”

it would only provide 5 units for each of the three blocks.

I have a stake in good government, wherever it is. I’ll “run along” when I’m damn well ready to, and not at your convenience.

i would guess that Nick is responding to neighborhood character issues that the added height brings to the equation.

what is being argued here is that a handful of apartments (some “affordable” to someone that makes $45K/year, wow!) are presented as a “good deal” for the city or somehow achieves transit advocates wet dream of “density”. 

what it really only means is making a few blocks less attractive and will dominate a landmark Seattle school.

at stake is the promise to this (and other Seattle neighborhoods) that bottom up planning to achieve growth targets is the preferred approach.

instead we are experiencing extreme “seattle process” where top down dictates are foisted upon a community and we draw it painfully out every step of the way.

As are voters – and Harrell knows that there are more of them than there are STB habitues who dominate this and other local internet echo chambers….

Thanks for the endorsement! Always nice to see another arrogant “new urbanist” developer whore chime in!

How is an extra 15 feet in height a hazard for “the children?”  Whe you see “the children” trotted out as a justification for something, you know the proponents have no substance to their position. 

The height limits sought be developers have more to do with construction costs than trying to game the zoning code for bonus development.  And bonus floor area is allowed in the downtown commercial core, not in commercial zones.  Any increased height would be minimal and related to development standards.  If the city plans to condition development on having the developer provide amenities like open space, it is reasonable to provide sufficient development potential to get the deal to pencil out.  If we don’t want development out in rural areas because of environmental impacts, we need to up the density inside the city. 

http://www.bruceharrell.org/2011/12/the-roosevelt-rezone-height-limits-40-feet-or-65-feet-around-the-school/

That’s funny because I EXPECT the city to listen to the individual concerns of each neighborhood and act as a good partner.  Funny that our viewpoints collide huh?

Great, Ben. How ’bout we meet up and I crack yer skull with a crowbar? We’ll make sure it doesn’t get on the news, so no one can be scared.

Wow, now you’re threatening me!

Nobody supporting the Roosevelt Communities zoning recommendations is against higher density. They are recommending higher density-just not where the city planners  want it. That is pretty much unanimous across all ages who have participated in this neighborhood process.

Jenn, so when your favorite slumlord threatens you, is your response just to close your eyes, lay back, and enjoy it?

Only among desperate, pathetic Seattle Smugster yuppie wannabes would $1,200 for a one-bedroom shoebox rate a subsidy as “affordable.” Jesus H. Christ, don’t you people see how unfuckingbelievably absurd and out to lunch you are?!

The neighborhood supports increased density just not where planners want it. If you don’t know the issue don’t put your bogus two cents in

Not a threat, but it could be a promise if you’d like it to be.

WOW. Paris was built before the advent of elevators.  If you look at Paris from a viewpoint, you will be astounded to see that it’s flat on top, at roughly 6 stories.  You have to go to Paris’s suburbs to find the tall buildings you’re talking about.

Be careful Ben, an internet tough guy is after you!   LOL

Give us some examples of where *shorter* buildings (or buildings with lower FAR), in the vicinity of a newly-built transit line, have resulted in lower rents.

The freeway part is why I have trouble accepting that the RNA is acting only in good faith. Roosevelt Station was originally going to be built right by the freeway, but the RNA successfully petitioned for it to be built closer to the neighborhood center. And now they want to put all the density where the old station was going to be. What gives?