Scrunched in Seattle - Micro-Housing

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by tifoso

But we part company when you characterize the battle over micro-housing as one between low income housing advocates and landlords of old buildings. In some cases, that may be part of the conflict. But in most cases, the battle doesn't involve those being displaced but rather the neighbors who remain, both business and residential, who complain about things like traffic and lost parking.

I find this battle between NIMBYs and developers amusing. In some of the recent articles the people complaining about the micro-development next door often have the same issues:

1) They bought a SFH in a neighborhood zoned multi-family ( They knew what they were getting in to and decided to whine about it after developers actually started developing)
2) The multi-family zoning has been in place for more than a decade (plenty of time to move if that's not what they want)
3) Their house only has street parking (oh gosh, you're taking away something I don't even own!)
4) The "free" street parking is already inadequate for both the existing buildings AND the maximum allowed by zoning.

Now if they bought a place in a SF zoned neighborhood and the city re-zoned it, then I'd say they have something to complain about. This isn't true in most cases. The city has plenty of SF zoning as is, something like 90% of the land is zoned SF. It's fine to want to hang on to a SFH in a dense walkable area, but they're kidding themselves if they think the area would have developed like that without up-zoning.

I made the decision to buy in a neighborhood with no multi-family housing. It was a trade off. It's not walkable except to the beach, and it's likely to stay that way for a long time. I'd like it if we could have found a similar house with a lot this size a little further south towards Ballard, but it's not happening. In most cases the increased density also increased the value of their property, so it's not as if they aren't seeing benefits despite the problems.

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by mkarch

I find this battle between NIMBYs and developers amusing. In some of the recent articles the people complaining about the micro-development next door often have the same issues:

1) They bought a SFH in a neighborhood zoned multi-family ( They knew what they were getting in to and decided to whine about it after developers actually started developing)
2) The multi-family zoning has been in place for more than a decade (plenty of time to move if that's not what they want)
3) Their house only has street parking (oh gosh, you're taking away something I don't even own!)
4) The "free" street parking is already inadequate for both the existing buildings AND the maximum allowed by zoning.

Now if they bought a place in a SF zoned neighborhood and the city re-zoned it, then I'd say they have something to complain about. This isn't true in most cases. The city has plenty of SF zoning as is, something like 90% of the land is zoned SF. It's fine to want to hang on to a SFH in a dense walkable area, but they're kidding themselves if they think the area would have developed like that without up-zoning.

I made the decision to buy in a neighborhood with no multi-family housing. It was a trade off. It's not walkable except to the beach, and it's likely to stay that way for a long time. I'd like it if we could have found a similar house with a lot this size a little further south towards Ballard, but it's not happening. In most cases the increased density also increased the value of their property, so it's not as if they aren't seeing benefits despite the problems.

There is a morbid fascination watching these struggles play out. If you haven't done so already and would like to watch one live, go to a council hearing on a contentious issue (the ones dealing with the $15 minimum wage were great public theatre). Good harmless fun and you can say you're getting involved in "the process" at the same time.

Setting aside my cynical nature for just a moment, you make more good points. Anyone concerned about the zoning in the neighborhood where they plan to buy should check it out beforehand. If they don't and it bites them in the backside later, they can be safely ignored. There are enough difficulties surrounding this issue that we don't have the time to consider the complaints of those who are too lazy to do their homework.

You do overestimate the amount of land zoned single-family: according to the city, it's about 65% not 90%. But your basic point is correct: that's a very high percentage. Right now there's some tentative talk about how to increase density in the single-family-zoned residential areas immediately around urban villages. One councilmember said recently that "We need to have that conversation" but added "Please don't tell your neighbors we're (considering any upzones) in single family areas." No wonder: the Councilmember is facing re-election and knows full well that upzoning would be a very hot potato, particularly in a district election as opposed to a city-wide one.

As for the parking issues that you raise, the problems that incumbent residents and businesses complain about can be mitigated if the city does a couple of things: 1) price street parking appropriately and 2) limit the number of residential parking zone permits in the affected area. Street parking isn't free and as you point out it doesn't belong to the homeowner.

Homeowners can see appreciation in property values as a result of increased density. But they won't realize those gains until they sell. And assuming that their taxes increase along with their assessments (they generally do but not always) until they do sell they will pay higher property taxes. So I see some merit to that complaint, particularly for long-time residents on fixed incomes.

But while I understand the concerns, I'm not at all sure how they can be addressed. Stopping or slowing development certainly won't help as it would only exacerbate the local housing market's supply-demand imbalance, which in turn would lead to higher values and higher assessments, not lower. Do we roll back assessments for residents who bought before a certain date as was done in CA with Prop 13? That was proposed here back in the late 80s (if my rapidly dimming memory serves) but it was rejected by voters who (rightly in my view) thought it would create its own set of inequities.

That said, the complaints from those who say increased density raises their assessments don't always resonate with me. For one thing, a lot of them are merely a cover for a resistance to change: "This isn't the same Ballard-Fremont-Cascade I moved here for." For another, values are rising throughout much of this area and not just in areas targeted for higher densities. As long as this area is a national job engine, in particular creating demand for highly-skilled (and highly-paid) people, property values (and the associated taxes) will continue to rise faster than the wages of many who are already here.

[sean98125]

I think that a huge part of the opposition to microhousing and other density decisions that are being made stems from the sense that the citizens of the city really aren't being asked what kind of city they want to live in. There are folks at DPD and SDOT who are making decisions that are forever altering the fabric of the city from a position that they know better than the residents what the city wants and needs. The meetings for public comment on various projects don't cover the fundamental decision of whether or not the city should do something - they just give the public the impression of having a voice by being able to comment on the design of something rather than whether or not it should be done.

Adults don't like being treated as children and having decisions made for them. They want to have a voice, like the generation before us did when they shot down the city's plan for the Thomsen Expressway and the Bay Freeway. SDOT and DPD are telling us that, no, we don't have a choice because we know better than you what kind of city you want to live in.

DPD and the Council are very interested in increasing density and are apparently interested in changing zoning in single family neighborhoods. But the decisions are being made without asking the people who live here what they want.

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by sean98125

DPD and the Council are very interested in increasing density and are apparently interested in changing zoning in single family neighborhoods. But the decisions are being made without asking the people who live here what they want.

Upzoning areas that are largely owner occupied is rarely if ever going to get majority approval if the people living there are given a choice. That's not to say they shouldn't have a choice, just that it's mostly a foregone conclusion. When you look at that from a planning perspective it's a complete crapshoot as to whether a comprehensive urban transit plan can be implemented without upzoning some residents against their wishes. For instance upzoning 3 blocks in each direction around transit stops would make better use of the infrastructure, but then you're almost certainly encroaching on a SFH neighborhood.

Because of this upzoning ends up happening largely in areas where people rent, or just do not live. One of the complaints I've heard about this is that apartments and condos end up along main arterials and residents end up being the 'buffer' between the noisy, high traffic areas and the SFH neighborhoods a block away. For people that would rather rent an apartment or buy a condo in a quiet, residential neighborhood their choices are limited to a handful of old buildings. Nearly all of the new high density construction follows this pattern.

Current residents may not care, but people who would locate there if it was possible do. Big group here would be retirees and down sizers who would prefer a condo but don't want to be in quite as busy of an urban area.