Category: housing

Business, City Council, homelessness, housing

Greater Seattle: We’re Number 1 (in Home Listings Jump); Small Biz is in a Bad Mood; and Sweeps are Not a Solution

by Josh Feit

More Sweeps ≠ Less Homelessness 

During last week’s city council budget hearings, Ballard council member Dan Strauss channelled a business owner in his district to give a speech criticizing Mayor Wilson. There’s an encampment in front of the business, Strauss said, leading to this dais grandstand: “We have seen in this last year, since last October, a complete change in the city and how effectively the city is addressing homelessness.”

He continued: “I have a business in downtown Ballard that had an encampment in front of their business last October and .. it wasn’t moved until, I believe, March. And that person reported to me that they have had an encampment on one of the four blocks around their business—and it’s a small block—270 days out of the last 365 days.” This demonstrated, Strauss said, that “just the ability to interact with and work with people has changed from a three-week cycle to a three-plus-month cycle”.

What Strauss’ (and his constituent’s) sidewalk tent example actually shows is not that we need more sweeps, but the opposite: Sweeps don’t work. They simply push homeless people around the city. Logically enough, in the context of an ongoing, active sweeps campaign, an encampment has now landed on this particular doorstep. Sweeping the people living in that encampment to another part of Ballard just means that a different business will eventually end up in Strauss’ ear.

Consider: Wilson is actually doing more sweeps than her tough-love predecessor, Bruce Harrell. According to the UCT’s own records, they’ve done more than 150 full encampment removals this year, compared to 112 by this point in Harrell’s term. According to the UCT’s “site journals,” the team rarely connects encampment residents to shelter.

Complaining about a homeless encampment in front of a business as an argument for more sweeps—when the people at that encampment were likely swept there in the first place—reminds me of the illogical days when neighbors argued against upzones on the grounds that they would make housing more expensive even as housing prices were skyrocketing under the strict Seattle zoning that prevented building more housing.

Seattle Home Listings Increase > Home Listings Increase in All Other Metro Areas

This brings me to the post-single-family-zoning-only Seattle housing market. According to Zillow data for September 2026, Seattle has the biggest percentage increase in home listings for US metro areas. Seattle’s current 14,877 listing represented a 20.3% increase from September 2025.

With housing prices dropping 1.1% month over month and 2.2% year over year, Seattle is a buyer’s market right now.

Rents, by the way, dropped .2% in September and ticked up only minimally, and far below inflation, at 1.8% year over year with typical rent at $2,250.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Cutting $950,000 is Not a Good Look 

As I’ve noted before in this column, I’m frustrated with Mayor Wilson’s approach to reviving Seattle’s business climate. Following the recommendations of a report her Office of Economic Development commissioned, the mayor seems focused on prompting more tech-adjacent startups as opposed to girding existing small businesses. The thinking goes that tech businesses have a disproportionately positive impact on jobs and the local economy. But my thinking is that indie businesses, just like childcare and affordable housing, are prerequisites for economic growth. Indie small businesses, for example, bring the crowds and lines that make cities vibrant. Lines around the block at clubs are a public policy win for a city.

I’ve been asking managers at bars and shops lately what the city could do for them right now. One thing I’m consistently hearing has to do with the costs of repairs and infrastructure upgrades—how those costs, often related to city inspections, can be debilitating. One manager, who recently oversaw the closure of a longtime North Seattle business (and still manages a couple more across the city), gave a specific example about graffiti, reporting that the cost of  repeatedly cleaning up the graffiti —as the city requires—became onerous for the neighborhood bar that closed.

I’m not convinced graffiti cleanup could sink a healthy business, nor do I think the city’s fixation on graffiti —particularly under Mayor Harrell, who actually funded anti-graffiti education for kids—is discerning policy. But I took this bar manager’s request for city support in earnest—and, lo and behold, it turns out Wilson’s budget cuts $950,000 for a program that helps private business owners clean up graffiti on their buildings.

As a council Central Staff memo put it, “The proposed budget would not continue funding for these services and [Seattle Parks & Recreation’s] ability to offer private property owners graffiti abatement services would be significantly impacted.”

I tend to filter the business-lens on local politics with skepticism, but as a Wilson fan I must say, when the bad-mood example from a bar manager tracks so succinctly with Wilson’s new budget, the mayor’s got a problem. I’m not saying reinstating a graffiti cleanup contract is the answer. I’m saying Wilson’s angle on what’s ailing Seattle’s economy has the wrong emphasis.

Josh@PubliCola.com

Business, Development, Economy, housing, Mayor Wilson

Greater Seattle: Inclusionary Zoning, Part 2; Amazon as a Percentage of the Budget; Permitted, but Struggling

By Josh Feit

Last week, I featured Seattle City Councilmember Dionne Foster in an item headlined “Inclusionary Zoning > No Inclusionary Zoning” to reflect her progressive affordable housing stance. However, according to a comprehensive new academic study, she has it backward.

No Inclusionary Zoning > Inclusionary Zoning

So says the study released this summer by an economist at UC Irvine about inclusionary zoning (IZ), a policy that requires builders to couple any market-rate housing they build with affordable housing. Seattle’s version of this—as in Foster’s resolution calling for inclusionary zoning requirements in residential areas where the policy doesn’t currently apply—uses a “fee in lieu” model where developers can pay into an affordable housing fund instead of including the affordable housing in their own projects.

Unlike other (inconclusive) research on IZ, the UC Irvine study had a clean before-and-after look at the policy, thanks to California’s unique history of going through a period when inclusionary zoning (including the fee-in-lieu model) was legal, illegal, and then legal again.

The study indicates inclusionary zoning does the opposite of what it’s intended to do, finding that IZ makes it more expensive to rent. California renters paid approximately $6.97 billion in additional rent in areas with IZ mandates. So, even as IZ funds some affordable units, it comes at a steep cost to renters, including low-income renters, who aren’t “lucky enough to get an IZ unit,” according to the study.

But the real zinger: The study then compared that rent increase to the number of affordable units created and found that it wasn’t worth the tradeoff. As the author bluntly states in the opening summary: “I estimate the cost of generating an affordable unit with inclusionary zoning to be approximately $800,000 [per the 8,990 units created] in ‘excess rents’ paid by market rate renters as a result of the policy’s constraint on supply. This exceeds the cost of directly incentivizing the creation of low-income housing [~$441,00 per unit] in California through existing programs.”

Seattle’s Budget = Amazon’s Stock Price

Speaking of being blunt, Erica didn’t hold back in her report on Mayor Wilson’s $2.5 billion budget proposal last week. And I quote: “JumpStart is Basically Just a Slush Fund Now.”

JumpStart, of course, is the 2020 tax on high-end salaries proposed and passed by former lefty city councilmember Teresa Mosqueda to pay for affordable housing and other progressive priorities. Now, according to a recent economic study commissioned by Seattle’s own Office of Economic Development, it increasingly covers the city’s regular budget shortfalls. Since 2024, when a newly elected city council majority changed the law to eliminate the original JumpStart spending plan, more than half of JumpStart revenues are used to cover the gap between city budget expenditures and general fund revenue.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

I’m not here to cry about that. True believers like me have lost that fight. But here’s a problem with  budgeting-by- JumpStart that everyone should note: The report found that “Seventy-five percent of JumpStart revenue comes from just 10 companies.”

This is emblematic of Seattle’s worrisome status as a one-crop town (big tech). “In summary,” the report states, “the city’s fiscal health now depends on the marginal location and compensation decisions of a handful of employers. It also depends, indirectly, on the stock prices of those employers.”

Zeroing in on the city’s largest company, the report continues: “When Amazon’s stock rises, Seattle’s tax base rises with it; when it falls, the base contracts. (Amazon’s stock price alone has ranged from roughly $85 to $245 over the past three years.) But it means that a fiscal base already concentrated in a few firms is further exposed to the single most volatile attribute of these firms—one the city has no ability to forecast or influence.”

Existing Third Places > New Startups

Wilson explicitly acknowledges the challenge by incorporating her recent “Resilient Economy” executive order  into her budget proposal. Seattle has “become increasingly concentrated on the tech sector,” the EO states. It commits the city to convene a task force “to develop and implement strategies for diversifying and growing Seattle’s economy.”

And while the specifics of the order focus on making it easier to permit and establish startups in tech-adjacent fields, that strikes me as being more top-down than middle-out. As I noted a few weeks ago, the thing that makes Seattle attractive to the talent needed for new startups are third spaces—i.e., existing businesses.

I wish Wilson’s proposal did more for the bars and restaurants and coffeeshops that are already permitted, but increasingly struggling: 67 percent of brick-and-mortar, small, independent businesses told OED they are under more financial stress than during the pandemic. “[Seventy-one] percent reported lower foot traffic than a year earlier, and only 12 percent said customer demand was sufficient to cover their cost structure.”

Josh@Publicola.com

City Council, Development, housing, Mayor Wilson, Transportation

Greater Seattle: Councilmember Foster Breaks the MHA Logjam
Construction workers packed city council chambers last Friday, September 18, to support city councilmember Dionne Foster’s tax holiday on  housing development.

By Josh Feit

Councilmember Dionne Foster > Mayor Katie Wilson

You couldn’t have a clearer juxtaposition. Mayor Wilson tried to cut a deal between housing developers and the affordable-housing left to accelerate housing production. And Councilmember Dionne Foster tried to cut a deal between housing developers and the affordable-housing left to accelerate housing production. Wilson put it off.

Foster moved it forward.

The city currently has an affordable housing program known as Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) which makes developers either add affordable housing to their projects or pay into an affordable housing fund whenever they build new projects. Ironically, the MHA program seems to have slowed housing production. Since MHA kicked in back in 2019, housing applications are down 94 percent and permits issued are down 66 percent. This means less housing supply, which increases rents for everybody—while also bringing in less money for affordable housing. To get production going again, developers wanted to cut MHA fees by 80 percent for two years on projects that are already in the pipeline but have stalled due to the fees. Their argument: A smaller fee on some production will generate more money for affordable housing than a hefty fee on minimal production.

Wilson’s efforts ended with a plan to convene a task force (with a goal of cutting a deal on the fees in early 2027). Enter Foster. She brought the parties together and surfaced math that showed two things: MHA revenues had dwindled to a minuscule portion of the Office of Housing’s affordable housing budget (6 percent down from 39 percent a few years ago) and millions in revenue were being left the table from unrealized development. Developers estimate that lowering the MHA fee would trigger about $24 million in affordable housing funds by greenlighting projects they already have cued up, but can’t move forward thanks to the fee. This is millions more than the anemic $11.7 million MHA has brought in so far this year at the full fee, and down from $67 million in 2020, before developers started forgoing projects.

That would also bring in an estimated $225 million in new construction sales tax and create up to 6,700 new units. Oh, and it would create new construction jobs, which is why labor packed a meeting of Foster’s housing committee on Friday to support her legislation to lower the fee by 80 percent for two years.

Despite the obvious boon for affordable housing, you still can’t convince the left that developers should get tax breaks. And so Foster’s deal—which, of course, still has to pass—includes keeping the full MHA fee in place on any new projects in vulnerable neighborhoods such as Beacon Hill, the Central District, and the Chinatown-International District where development is often considered synonymous with displacement.

It’s worth noting, though, that almost all the projects developers are trying to get moving again under the 80 percent discount are on vacant lots or lots that aren’t currently residential.

Wilson applauded Foster on her proposal. From the sidelines.

Inclusionary Zoning > No Inclusionary Zoning

So says Foster herself, who has added a resolution to her MHA-holiday ordinance clarifying that despite the temporary reduction in the MHA rate, she believes developer fees need to be a “core part” of the affordable housing equation in the future. Using developer fees to fund affordable housing is known as “inclusionary zoning,” a policy that conditions issuing permits for market-rate projects on the production of affordable housing.

Foster’s resolution calls for adding inclusionary zoning requirements in neighborhood residential zones—formerly single-family zones—that are currently exempt from MHA fees. Her resolution directs staff to “develop legislation implementing an inclusionary requirement for new market rate residential development in Neighborhood Residential zones … [and] estimate how an inclusionary requirement for new market rate residential development could … contribute to meeting the need for housing affordable to lower income households.”

This startled some urbanists who cheered her MHA holiday ordinance, but then wondered why she’d do a 180 by adding the fees where they currently don’t exist. Given the slumping post-MHA housing production numbers, urbanists ask why Seattle would tax something its wants to encourage—housing.

Foster, who wants to be “transparent that [her] vision” supports inclusionary zoning, says she doesn’t believe MHA is solely responsible for the falloff in housing production; she cites Trump’s tariffs, for one. However, she also says she wants to make sure the fees don’t stall development and wants staff to “recalibrate” MHA fees “to find the right balance.” (As Erica reported last week, Foster differentiates her resolution from a council proposal last year that would have simply applied the MHA fee structure as is.)

“Right now we are doing a short-term fee reduction to help get development back on track in the midst of lots of negative macroeconomic factors we weren’t facing a decade ago,” Foster said when asked about the seeming contradiction in her approach. “And as we look towards the future, I believe inclusionary zoning should continue to be a part of how we build a city that works for everyone. We just have to get the dials right. The resolution focuses on determining the right path to include neighborhood residential in that recalibration.”

City Council, housing, Mayor Wilson

Greater Seattle: Katie Wilson is to Jimmy Carter as Zohran Mamdani is to Barack Obama

By Josh Feit

First of all, a quick followup to an item from a couple of weeks ago, when I wrote: “Trump’s Case Against US Olympian David Hearn for Vandalizing the Reflecting Pool (since abandoned by Trump’s own DOJ) > North Seattle Couple’s Case for Recalling Katie Wilson.”

Yup. Last week, King County Superior Court Judge Patrick Oishi dismissed the request for a recall. At a confusing hearing last Thursday, August 27, Oishi told the petitioners their case was “befuddling.” For starters, they missed a filing deadline and then withdrew their request. Seems like the Trump analogy was spot on. And in what seemed even more similar to Trump’s endless mishegas, the couple then claimed they had more info. Oh brother.

Barack Obama > Jimmy Carter

Speaking of Wilson and analogies to presidents, let me alert you to this one: With her econo-travel  aesthetic, earnest policy brain, lefty-populist comfort zone, socially-awkward-bookworm personality, and (from what we hear about her behind-the-scenes leadership style) prickly isolation on the 7th floor—Wilson is Seattle’s own Jimmy Carter. If this analogy isn’t tracking for Gen Zers and Millennials, ask the internet about solar panels, sweaters, and thermostats. Carter, an outsider who was a elected during America’s post-Watergate call for goodie-goodie governance, eventually started to tank in the polls during his presidency. I initially thought Wilson’s high-wattage smile and unbridled joy in civics would confound the naysayers, critics, and bitter media. But—recall effort or not—recent polling indicates this mayor is in trouble.

Thanks to Wilson’s socialist label and sudden, surprise rise, the analogy that used to come to mind was more encouraging: Wilson was Seattle’s own Zohran Mamdani. But Mamdani veers toward a presidential analogy of his own. And it’s the opposite of a one-termer like Carter who got mired in “malaise.” Mamdani’s soaring popularity, confident charm, and big-ideas agenda make him like Barack Obama, an incorrigibly popular two-term president.

As Mamdani continues to wow the public and generate hope with his own gleeful project of sweeping governance (sweltering subway stations as pools of sustainable energy being the latest Mamdani lightning bolt) a pal in New York asked me why Wilson was having so much trouble in Seattle. I don’t think this fully explains it, but the fact that he’s a he and she’s a she has evidently allowed the media to normalize an unbridled condescension, giving their anti-Wilson bias free rein.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

50 > 0

Protesting density, liberal Boomers and Xers often quote Joni Mitchell’s famous line, “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” Unwittingly, their knee-jerk “Development=Bad” mantra prioritizes car-dependent lifestyles. By stalling new housing development, they are locking pervasive car culture in place, thwarting the density needed to create walkable neighborhoods and expanded transit service. I derisively call it Joni Mitchell Politics.

So, as summer comes to a close, let’s applaud the Seattle Office of Housing and City Councilmember Dionne Foster’s pro-housing politics. Thanks to legislation they passed earlier this summer, OH used $6 million to acquire the site of a former gas station, mini-mart, and parking lot on East Montlake Place E. in the upscale Montlake neighborhood to build 50 below-market-rate condos. There’s currently zero affordable housing in the pricey area.

Under Seattle’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda, adopted in 2015, high-income communities like Montlake that lack affordable housing are known as “high opportunity” neighborhoods.

In her summer wrap-up newsletter, Foster noted the housing win: “Through acquiring property in a high opportunity neighborhood in Montlake we are locking in a future for affordable homeownership in a neighborhood that currently does not have affordable homeownership.”

Josh@publicola.com

housing, Opinion, Transit, Urbanism

Greater Seattle: Bikes, Cars, and Housing

By Josh Feit

First, a quick follow-up to last week’s item about former state house candidate Ron Davis. ICYMI: Despite the fact that the Stranger endorsed a long list of progressives, Davis contended—in a 3,000-word email to his supporters—that because the paper didn’t endorse him, there’s reason to believe a cabal of centrist oligarchs have taken over the paper and are calling the shots on endorsements.

Surprise: It turns out Davis isn’t actually Neo in the Matrix. According to members of the Stranger’s endorsement board, there’s a banal reason he didn’t get the nod from them. I’ll put this as gently as I can: Davis is not a great listener. The SECB wasn’t thrilled with the mansplaining.

Okay. On to this week in X>Y.

No Cars in Pike Place Market > Cars in Pike Place Market

Despite increased business at Pike Place Market and broad public support for the no-cars pilot project that coincides with the bullish numbers, SDOT is looking at opening the Market back up to cars starting this October. Ryan Packer at the Urbanist has been all over the story.

The naive thing about undoing the new pedestrian-only version of  Pike Place Market, which went into effect in April 2025 and tracks to a notable 8.8 percent increase in local visitors who live between 3 and 5 miles away, is that it’s not the only pro-pedestrian upgrade in the area. Have you noticed the new multi-billion-dollar Waterfront Park, including the $70 million Overlook Walk that melds directly into the Market? It’s a whole feng shui down there now. And it started, emphatically enough, when we tore down the car-choked Viaduct.

Pike Place Market is now just one element in a comprehensive waterfront makeover that has embraced pedestrians and de-emphasized cars. It’s one thing Seattle has gotten right.

7 > 69

The Seattle Metro Chamber is trolling me.

Their most recent polling had a stat that made my heart leap: 69 percent of people agreed with the concept that “Building more housing will help slow down Seattle’s increasing housing costs.” This might seem like easy-peasy Econ 101 to you, but as someone who’s been pushing this once-radical urbanist idea since 2004, I was pleasantly surprised to see it’s now conventional wisdom; 58 percent even agreed with the once-anathema notion that “All things considered, growth and development has been a positive for my area.”

Ah, but then, in the same poll, this: Only 7 percent of people think “more density” is among the top one or two things the city should be doing to improve quality of life.

So, nearly everyone supports the idea of growth and building more, but only a smidgen actually think it’s something we should prioritize? Isn’t there a term for that dysfunctional way of thinking. Oh, right. NIMBY.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

2026 > 2019

According to SDOT’s Fremont Bridge tracker, Seattle bike and scooter commuting hit its highest count in Seattle history last month. The previous high was set pre-pandemic in August 2019.

Tom Fucoloro at Seattle Bike Blog, who reported on the data last week with a headline that used the word “obliterated,” writes: “The 153,238 trips was near 11,000 trips more than the previous high-water mark set in August 2019, and total counts for 2026 through July are up more than 18% year-over-year.”

This is excellent news for anyone who supports investing more in multimodal transportation.

And I’ll add another stat: As of July, combined bike and scooter trips are nearly two million higher than last year at this time: 7.2 million versus 5.4 million.

I’m comparing 2026 to 2025 rather than the pre-pandemic 2019 baseline that city planners seem obsessed with these days because all these record-setting bike and scooter numbers exist in a post-pandemic reality that looks nothing like the pre-pandemic world. Fucoloro hints at this in his own analysis by pointing out that return-to-office requirements have generally only gotten downtown office workers back three days a week.

I’d contend the reason we’re lapping pre-pandemic ridership, and doing so when just three days a week is the new RTO norm, has to do with a disproportionate increase in commuting in the so-called off-hours.

For example, another telling 2025 to 2026 comparison: Off-traditional-peak bike and scooter ridership is growing at a faster rate than traditional peak-hour bike and scooter commuting. Ridership at 9 am has grown 21.4 percent while 11 am ridership has grown 23.3 percent. And after work? Ridership at 5 pm has grown 23.7 percent while ridership at 7 pm has grown 27.8 percent. At 8 pm it’s even more pronounced. Ridership has grown 29.8 percent..

There’s a new shape to city life that’s not only about punching the clock. Our infrastructure and planning should adjust to this 21st-century lifestyle rather than looking backward to the old one.

Josh@PubliCola.com

City Council, Density, housing

On Narrow Vote, Council Gets Rid of Local Appeal Process that Delays Land Use Legislation

 

Opponents of Seattle land-use legislation will still be able to appeal to King County Superior Court or the Growth Management Hearings Board.

By Erica C. Barnett

On the narrowest possible vote, the Seattle City Council approved legislation yesterday that will eliminate one of several avenues for opponents to appeal land-use legislation, such as the city’s comprehensive plan. The bill, sponsored by Councilmember Eddie Lin, eliminates pre-legislative appeals to the city’s hearing examiner while still allowing people to appeal legislation to the state Growth Management Hearings Board or to King County Superior Court after it passes.

Currently, hearing-examiner appeals are one of many tools that people and organizations opposed to apartment construction use to delay or stop development.

Yesterday’s four-hour meeting, which I covered live on Bluesky, featured the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has long characterized debates about housing in Seattle. Public commenters who opposed new housing, mostly older white homeowners, argued that denser housing harms the environment by removing individual trees when homeowners sell their houses to developers (opponents refer to these lawn-based tree removals as “clear-cutting”), and contribute to climate change that kills salmon, orcas, and birds.

Although opponents have repeatedly raised the specter of Seattle turning into New York City (the horror!) the comprehensive plan, currently delayed indefinitely by an appeal that began at the hearing examiner’s office, would in fact allow modest new density in a few dozen small areas citywide, all within a block or two of major transit stops.

One speaker suggested that the city just convert all the vacant commercial buildings downtown into housing and let renters live there. (This isn’t really a new idea: “Solutions” that involve moving all renters into segregated areas are exactly what we have now, with new rental housing mostly confined to highways and busy arterial roads). Another said councilmembers who supported Lin’s appeal reform bill are just like Trump, because they’re taking away the civil rights of local density opponents the same way Trump is taking away the civil rights of Black voters and immigrants.

Councilmember Rob Saka, a former Facebook attorney and Air Force veteran who proposed an amendment to Lin’s bill that would have restored the appeals the underlying legislation sought to eliminate, also invoked “civil rights” in a speech excoriating his colleagues for violating “fundamental due process rights, free speech rights, the right of people to petition their government for redress of grievances. These rights form the bedrock of our democracy, and these rights are enshrined in our Constitution,” Saka said.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Later, after Lin confirmed with a staffer that there’s no Constitutional right to appeal land-use legislation to a hearing examiner in Seattle, Saka said, “Even if it’s not a right, we heard dozens of people today say, from their perspective, that it is a right.” As I noted yesterday, that is not actually a point—just because a political faction uses highfalutin language about “rights” and “democracy,” that doesn’t mean their feelings trump the law. Allowing property owners to endlessly delay housing for renters by appealing land-use changes is arguably pretty anti-democratic in itself, especially when it halts legislation before the public legislative process can begin.

After Saka’s amendment failed (even Maritza Rivera voted against it), the final vote ended up being a nail-biter. Rivera, the council’s most consistent opponent of pro-housing legislation, said she of course wants to see more housing, but doesn’t support “taking something away” from her constituents. Debora Juarez, a former elected councilmember who was appointed to serve out Cathy Moore’s term last year, said she wanted to “err on the side of giving a little bit more… because that’s due process, and that’s what the people want.”

Bob Kettle, who represents downtown, Queen Anne, and Magnolia, ended up casting the surprise swing vote (Joy Hollingsworth, who abstained from voting in committee, voted no), but not before chiding housing proponents, mostly younger renters, for using rhetoric he called inappropriate.

Kettle says it's not "right to declare our neighbors are weaponizing" the appeals process because of the war in Iran and the gun violence epidemic. Of course he is only chiding people on the pro-housing side. The anti-housing folks have been vitriolic, but he isn't tone policing them.

— Erica C. Barnett (@ericacbarnett.bsky.social) 2026-07-29T00:35:34.683Z

Lin, who’s emerging as a pro-housing star on the council, said little before the final vote, which took place at nearly 6:30pm. Earlier in the meeting, however, he did take a moment to respond to commenters who likened new housing to toxic waste and highway expansions. “I don’t think housing and future residents are toxic waste or pollution that need to be studied for years and years and years on end,” Lin said. “I believe housing is a human right.”

Although yesterday’s 5-4 vote to eliminate hearing examiner appeals won’t prevent housing opponents from challenging land use changes in court or to the state Growth Management Hearings Board, the change will allow the legislative process to move forward during appeals, and puts Seattle in line with Bellevue, Everett, King County, Tacoma, King County, and many other local jurisdictions that don’t allow this kind of pre-legislative appeal.