Comments on: Incentive zoning draws a crowd and strange bedfellows

By: SeattleScape » Blog Archive » Incentive zoning: Right solution, wrong problem?

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:34:43 +0000

[...] toward approving an incentive zoning proposal. The morning after the public hearing I wrote about earlier, the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee held a three-hour meeting including a another [...]

By: Jermaine

Jermaine — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:36:49 +0000

I’m an organizer for the Laborers’ Districy Council, and we are very much in favor of development. The more that is built and the bigger it is, the more work we get for our members. Our current and future members live in the areas that are slated for the upzones, and we want certain labor standards attached to the upzones. The contractors that perform the type of construction that will take place in the upzones are shady at best. They’ll pay workers under the table, non-payment of overtime, cheating on “haz-mat” training, etc. Our communities deserve an opportunity to work on these projects, make a family wage, receive family healthcare and a defined pension plan. We will offer training throuhg apprenticeship programs and provide the contractors performing the work with skilled professionals. As it stands now the usual players in the market don’t provide training in any way, which leads to faulty construction and leaky condo scandals. If you would like to discuss this in person we would be happy to meet with you. My number in 206-841-6043

By: Roger Valdez

Roger Valdez — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:10:09 +0000

Leero,

I agree with you about trying to have it both ways. I think the basis of opposition might be the keen interest single family neighborhoods take in adjacent multifamily zones.

At some point single family advocates will have to tolerate more density in NC and other zones that ideally could accommodate more growth. We’ll see how the conversation on the 21st goes.

Roger–

By: leero

leero — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:52:27 +0000

Why would single family neighborhoods be against incentive zoning? Incentive zoning won’t change things in SF zones – it would be in MF and mixed use zones. The CNC should be FOR incentive zoning since it funnels even more of our inevitable growth (moratoria notwithstanding) into urban villages. The apparently sacrosanct SF neighborhoods get to stay the way they are.

We can’t have it both ways. If we want to keep density in our neighborhoods low, we need to increase density in urban villages. If we’re scared of density in urban villages, then we need to provide development capacity in neighborhoods.

Simply saying that Seattle won’t or shouldn’t grow anymore is ignorant at best – at worst its a ploy to increase sprawl, pollution, and traffic in the name of cheap land in the hinterlands for developers.