Tag: Eddie Lin

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.

City Council, Density, housing, Utilities

Seattle May Actually Limit Anti-Housing Land Use Appeals; More People Will be Eligible for Utility Discounts

 

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.

Support PubliCola

 

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.

City Council, Environment, housing, land use

“Ballard is an Environmental Disaster”: Opponents Rail Against Plan to Eliminate One Avenue for Land Use Appeals

By Erica C. Barnett

Legislation would eliminate an early local appeal process that has delayed land use decisions a year or more drew the usual crowd of longtime Seattle property owners to City Council chambers on Wednesday, where they claimed the proposal would eliminate their “voice” in land use decisions and result in the “clear-cutting” of Seattle.

On the other side were environmentalists and housing advocates who argued that the lengthy delays that routinely bog down efforts to add housing contribute to sprawl, worsens pollution from cars, and exacerbates the affordability crisis that impacts Seattle’s growing renter majority.

In recent years, property owners have shifted away from saying out loud that renters will take away “their” street parking and harm their property values, a view that has become somewhat less acceptable amid a growing affordability crisis. Now, they insist that denser housing for renters will turn Seattle into a treeless desert and kill orcas and salmon.

Many of the opponents’ comments on Wednesday bore little relationship to reality. One speaker, for instance, falsely claimed the legislation would “eliminate environmental appeals on all city land use legislation and any city building project” at a time when the city experiences “heat islands because of clear-cutting thousands and thousands of mature trees” for development, which is also untrue.

Another speaker, who identified himself as a Seattle resident for more than 30 years, called the Ballard neighborhood—which has transformed over the past 20 years from sleepy fishing village to lively urban center with the addition of thousands of new residents—”an environmental disaster. … I lived in the New York City area. I moved from the East Coast to here to get away from that. And when I see Seattle changing into something that resembles New York City, it’s very sad to see that we’re going in that direction,” he said.

Other speakers claimed that eliminating administrative appeals would result in deaths due to heat islands caused by apartment construction, “take away the voice of the people” the same way Trump is trying to take away people’s voting rights, and, yes, kill orcas and salmon.

The actual proposal, which is sponsored by District 2 councilmember and land use committee chair Eddie Lin, is much more benign, though it’s obvious why density opponents are against it: The bill would eliminate their ability to delay changes to the city’s land use code by filing the equivalent of a complaint form with the city.

Currently, anyone can halt a proposed land use change in its tracks by paying $120 and filing an appeal with the city’s hearing examiner. Appeals at this level stop the legislative while it’s still ongoing, cutting off deliberation and debate while the hearing examiner considers whether the city has made the right determination about a proposal’s environmental impact.

This process rarely results in changes to legislation—between 2016 and 2026, just three appeals have even partially succeeded—but it does slow down proposals to allow more density in the city’s historic single-family enclaves: Over the last 10 years, cases have taken an average of 151 days to resolve, with two-thirds of all claims resulting in a dismissal or being withdrawn.

While Seattle has offered this “administrative” appeal process since the 1980s, other local jurisdictions, including King County and Bellevue, do not.

Lin’s legislation would get rid of this “pre-legislative” process, while still allowing appeals to the state’s Growth Management Hearings Board or King County Superior Court, which both occur after the city has adopted actual legislation, rather than while the deliberative process is still going on. Although many of the speakers at Wednesday’s hearing said eliminating hearing examiner appeals would “silence” their “voices,” that’s clearly not true: The city’s long-delayed Comprehensive Plan update is currently stalled indefinitely due to a legal appeal.

House Our Neighbors co-executive director Jeff Paul, one of several public commenters who spoke in favor of Lin’s bill on Wednesday, said he was “remarkably frustrated,” as a lifelong environmentalist, to hear so many people claim that dense housing leads to environmental harm.

“According to every environmental scientist in the world, we have to massively reduce the amount of time that people spend driving in cars,” Paul said. “The only way that we can do that is build densely. Public transit only works when people have dense cities. It’s the most important single drawdown that we can do, and we needed to start five decades ago.” Yet Seattle homeowners are still busy “talking about [how] it’s so important that one person can stop the entire city from making decisions about what is going to happen with our land use and our ability to meaningfully address the climate crisis.”

Lin’s land use committee meets again, and is expected to take up the proposal, on July 15.

 

City Council, Density, homelessness, podcasts, Police

Seattle Councilmember Eddie Lin: “Go As Big As We Can” On Growth in Comp Plan
Image via Seattle.gov

By Erica C. Barnett

This week on Seattle Nice, we talked to City Councilmember Eddie Lin, who’s serving his first term representing Southeast Seattle’s District 2. He’s the third council member to represent this district since 2025, when Tammy Morales resigned just one year into her second term; she was replaced by Mark Solomon, a crime prevention coordinator for SPD who served until Lin was elected in November.

As head of the council’s land use and comprehensive plan committees, Lin will oversee the work of updating the plan that guides the city’s growth and density for the next 10 years, as well as zoning and land use decisions like whether to grant developers a temporary break from the Mandatory Housing Affordability program that allowed taller, denser housing in some areas in exchange for fees that fund affordable housing.

We talked to Lin about those fees and whether they’re working as designed. While MHA has brought in tens of millions a year for affordable housing, developers argue it has increasingly squelched development, by adding significant costs at a time when market-rate housing developments barely pencil out. Lin talked (favorably but cautiously) about a different concept called Planned Inclusionary Zoning, which requires developers to build affordable housing but offers them tax breaks, rather than charging a fee, to make it more feasible for them to build.

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

Support PubliCola

 

“We absolutely want to go as big as we can” in the remaining parts of the comp plan, Lin said, by expanding the areas where housing is allowed (as The Urbanist pointed out recently, the city’s planning department actually reduced density along several arterials in wealthy neighborhoods). Lin said “we need to be going deeper into the neighborhoods” with density, as well as restoring the neighborhood centers former mayor Bruce Harrell removed from the plan, nodes of density where modest apartment buildings will be allowed.

We also asked Lin about the new dynamics on the council, Mayor Wilson’s new plan to build tiny house villages all over the city, and police surveillance cameras, a program Wilson once opposed and now seems likely to expand.

After pointing out that many people want cameras in their neighborhoods, including people who live in the Chinatown-International District, Lin said he’s still not happy that the cameras were expanded without any analysis of whether the “pilot” program launched last year (and immediately expanded) was effective and protected people’s privacy. His outstanding concerns, Lin added, have to do with the potential for the footage to end up in the hands of the Trump Administration, which could use it for immigration enforcement or to target people seeking gender-affirming or reproductive care. That’s the focus of an audit Wilson has commissioned, but hardly the only reason to question mass surveillance by local police.

City Council, housing, land use

City Council Proposal Would Repeal Law That Allowed Housing Near Stadiums

By Erica C. Barnett

Seattle City Councilmember Eddie Lin will introduce legislation later this week to repeal a law that would have allowed apartments in the Stadium District just south of downtown, undoing a longstanding priority of housing developers and handing a significant win to the Port of Seattle and unions representing port workers.

The legislation, sponsored by former councilmember Sara Nelson, would have allowed more than 900 new housing units in the area (half of them affordable “workforce” units), which is largely occupied by warehouses, vacant lots, and businesses like the Showbox and a Showgirls strip club. It’s also home to the current (and future second) SoDo light rail station, which gets minimal use because the area has few businesses and very little housing.

Opponents of the bill argued it would irreparably harm the city’s industrial businesses, and said the city should not build housing near busy, polluted freight corridors; proponents countered that the stadium district hasn’t been in industrial use for many years, and said the city needs more housing everywhere, including near the stadiums.

The Port sued the city, and late last year, the state’s Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the ordinance as written on both substantive and procedural grounds. Among other “procedural” findings, the board ruled that the city had done a sloppy job of reviewing the proposal, failing to conduct a separate environmental analysis and bypassing public feedback requirements to push the zoning change through last year. The city appealed on the substantive issues but not the procedural ones.

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

Support PubliCola

Lin told PubliCola the ruling effectively gives the city no choice other than repealing the ordinance; to do otherwise, he said, could put the city at risk of being found out of compliance with the Growth Management Act, threatening transportation and housing funds as well as the city’s Comprehensive Plan. “In my opinion, we have a Growth Management Hearings Board order and there were procedural and substantive issues that they invalidated our ordinance on,” Lin said.

The city, Lin conceded, could try to fix the issues the hearings board identified by a May deadline for compliance. Lin suggested the current council has little interest in taking on that battle, which was contentious enough the first time. The council could also include language in the city’s ongoing comprehensive plan update that leaves the door open to more housing in areas with “urban industrial” zoning, a kind of mixed-use zoning that underlies the stadium overlay.

Lin, who chairs the council’s land use committee, said he’s “open to having that discussion later, although I’m not sure how much anybody else wants to have that discussion,” adding, “It’s not my first priority to put housing [in the stadium district.] I think we should be focused on centers and corridors.” The council will start working to upzone those two types of areas—”neighborhood centers” where lower-density apartments will be allowed within 800 feet of existing commercial nodes or frequent transit stops, and “corridors” where apartments can be built directly on arterial roads—this year.