1. The Seattle City Council’s land use committee will vote tomorrow on a proposal, from Councilmember Eddie Lin, to eliminate an appeals process that allows activists to halt pro-density legislation before it becomes law. Currently, anyone can stop or delay city land use decisions by filing an appeal with the city hearing examiner under the State Environmental Policy Act, arguing that the city hasn’t done enough environmental review before proposing legislation that would change city land use law.
Speaking to PubliCola on Tuesday, Lin said the vast majority of appeals are filed by a relatively small group of activists and attorneys with long experience appealing complicated land use laws.
“The fact that we often see the same people appeal again and again shows that 99 percent of Seattleites, if not 99.9 percent, do not find [hearing examiner appeals] a way to engage” on land use issues, Lin said. “This is a small number of people engagnig who have the resources” to file complex legal appeals.
Lin’s legislation would remove the right to appeal land use decisions to a hearing examiner, requiring opponents of land use legislation to appeal directly to the state Growth Management Hearings Board or King County Superior Court. Eliminating the local appeals process allows legislation to go into effect while the activists and lawyers appeal through the other two available avenues. Had the legislation been in place when the council took up the remaining parts of the long-overdue Comprehensive Plan update, the council would have spent the last few months meeting to discuss important amendments to the plan; instead, it’s stalled until next year at the earliest.
“I’ve never been a big fan of our SEPA appeals process,” Lin said. “I’ve seen the decades-long delays [it caused] to Fort Lawton housing and the Burke-Gilman Trail,” two projects that have been stalled for years by a seemingly endless series of environmental appeals. (Opponents argue that it’s better for the environment to move cyclists next to a busy arterial roadway rather than the current path where, it just so happens, a lot of industrial businesses like to drive their trucks.)
Activists lined up earlier this month to denounce the legislation as a reckless giveaway to developers that would allow them to “clearcut” Seattle, sacrificing trees, orcas and birds to apartments in Seattle’s suburban-style single-family neighborhoods. The land use committee will discuss Lin’s proposal tomorrow at 9:30; so far, there’s just one amendment, from Council President Joy Hollingsworth. It would add a 30-day public comment period to every land use decision that would be exempted from hearing examiner appeals by Lin’s legislation.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
2. On Tuesday, the council approved legislation PubliCola covered last month that aims to increase participation in the city’s Utility Discount Program by increasing the threshold for eligibility from 70 percent of the state median income to 60 percent of Seattle’s muchhigher median income next year, with two more bumps—to 70 percent of Seattle median in 2027 and 80 percent in 2028. Both those increases will require separate legislation.
The bill’s sponsor, Dan Strauss, initially seemed surprised at the lack of controversy surrounding the proposal, which would result in slight utility rate increases and would make UDP one of the easiest income-based programs to apply for. A press availability to discuss the bill (and other topics) enticed just one reporter (me), and the vote on Tuesday was unanimous—and even followed by a rare burst of applause for every council member.
One challenge the program has faced is getting more eligible people to sign up; at the end of last year, only about 36 percent of eligible Seattle residents were participating in the program. To apply, visit the city’s Utility Discount Program page.
So Seattleites consider fish and natural habitats “anti-housing”?
Wow… shallow article.
No…It’s simply saying it hurts something when it’s truly not. Or negligible at worst.
Like trees…And complain about parking shortages. And anti transit route because busses are bad for neighborhoods. The town centers are bad for all those reasons and more. It’s excuses made by wealthy owners to keep the neighborhood gentrified. Invisible gates.
Then call people hypocrites for not caring about trees or animals. It’s old and worn and we all know it’s simply a farce. No actual merit. The facts show clearly.
The poors can have the freeway run through their backyard on a vote. The rich make sure they are pristine and untouched by progress. We need housing and these untouched neighborhoods are gonna be touched.
Ask Eddie how many of those appeals were made by developers or MBAKS versus community members?
“Opponents argue that it’s better for the environment to move cyclists next to a busy arterial roadway rather than the current path where, it just so happens, a lot of industrial businesses like to drive their trucks.”
Just so happens they “like” to drive their trucks along Shilshole? Who wrote that shit? I’m a lifelong cyclist who rides that road throughout the week. I would LOVE to put a bike path along Shilshole, but I don’t appreciate your characterizing important businesses in such an insulting way. I think those businesses are dead wrong in their opposition to the bike path, and I’m pissed that they’ve managed to stop it so far, but those companies also represent serious tax revenue and many jobs. Elitist arrogance is a lousy look.