Seattle wants to eliminate single family zonings to increase diversity

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for clear, simple, statements of facts.

And for taking time away from your work to do so.

You're welcome. Now, please, pretty please, don't move to Seattle

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for clear, simple, statements of facts.

And for taking time away from your work to do so.

You're welcome. Now, please, pretty please, don't move to Seattle

I'll try not to take that personally, LOL.

Best.

I didn't say that is all the article is about. I just showed some of the content in the article that shows that this isn't as simple as zoning.

I didn't make the article a racial article or the zoning rights issue a racial issue, the article did a fine enough job of doing that by itself.

I'm not opposed to zoning right changes or using certain zones for apartments, duplexes or any other type of housing.

I am opposed to the article implying that the committee is leaning heavily towards making housing a social justice issue with an underlying theme that single-family homes are racist when they don't need to.

As Seattle sits currently they have the room to add plenty of housing without changing zoning laws as stated by their own study.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

So you understand the situation in Seattle better than its residents, one of whom has kindly answered questions for us?

Your PC use of the phrase "social justice" does not deflect from the fact that you see this as an ultimately racist issue.

That is not what the article says.

That is not what the citizen's commission suggested to the city administrators and planners.

That is not what actual residents of Seattle believe or feel.

Looks to me like the graph done by the city shows Seattle has more than enough room for growth WITHOUT zoning ordinances being changed. Even after their targeted 20 year goal, they can still expand double+ what they did in the previous 20 years.

Your PC use of the phrase "social justice" does not deflect from the fact that you see this as an ultimately racist issue.

I didn't jump to that conclusion, I read the original article and the words of the people involved. Again, here ya go...

The draft report notes that “Seattle (single-family) zoning has roots in racial and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city’s goals for equity and affordability.”

So you understand the situation in Seattle better than its residents, one of whom has kindly answered questions for us?

So you are from Seattle? Or not? Only you can have an opinion on the matter being from outside the city? Is that what you're saying?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for clear, simple, statements of facts.

And for taking time away from your work to do so.

You're welcome. Now, please, pretty please, don't move to Seattle

My fiancé is pushing me hard to move to Washington or Oregon. If I do move, blame her. Thank you for your input as well.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

I have not disputed what Seattle residents have said.

You have.

You defended your opinion about building out when you were informed by a Seattle resident as to why that was not accurate.

I pointed out that most of you were focusing on the wrong kind of "diversity" in the article ... the whole question is not about some kind of arcane racial issue (which none of have been specific about) but rather about land use.

That harmonizes with what the article and JadeStar has said.

/shrug

Why do you want to make it about me?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

I have not disputed what Seattle residents have said.

You have.

You defended your opinion about building out when you were informed by a Seattle resident as to why that was not accurate.

I pointed out that most of you were focusing on the wrong kind of "diversity" in the article ... the whole question is not about some kind of arcane racial issue (which none of have been specific about) but rather about land use.

That harmonizes with what the article and JadeStar has said.

/shrug

Why do you want to make it about me?

What Seattle residents have said? Come on, you seem like a smart guy. We had one member of the board give her input(and it was fantastic input) and we know which way Seattle leans politically so to dismiss this and say this isn't a racial or social justice issue is foolish, especially when it is brought up in the article. Again, not by me, but by the article.

I bring the building "out" as a topic because Chicago has done it beautifully. Maybe Seattle isn't as viable, I can understand that and maybe I am not correct on that being viable. I do understand Seattle citizens wants to stay centralized, but that is not always possible or logical. Strangely enough, Seattle's own development study shows that currently as zoning stands, it is possible to keep current standards and build more than enough housing centralized. So the changing of zoning laws to me seems like they are trying to bring more subsidized housing, governmental money into the local economy.

Land use shouldn't have articles were members are talking about racial issues/words (however you classify single-family) and social justice. It should be a pretty boring article talking about ordinances and zoning procedures and square footage.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

It is "brought up" in the article; it is not the focus of the article.

The article is about proposed rezoning. The second article linked from the Times is about the reaction to the first.

Yes, Seattle residents: you do surely realize that the Commission mentioned in the articles, the one that has made these recommendations, which includes the one regarding Single Family Homes, is comprised entirely of SEATTLE CITIZENS, right?

That's what I'm referring to. Along with JadeStar's comments, comments made by city officials, etc.

It is clear that Seattle does not intend to implement a wholescale removal of the zoning regs for "Single Family Homes" (which is a very specific set of requirements (also linked) which are not the most compatible with the facts of a growing Seattle.

I mentioned long ago in our discussion, and I'm very glad to honor it now: if you want to focus on social justice warriors and or racial issues and or a war on the middle class and or government overreach etc. etc. ... then that's fine.

But the focus of the Commission's report, the first article, the second article, etc. is zoning and a more efficient use of land.

That's my contention. You have yours. I think we're really clear on that between us.

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for clear, simple, statements of facts.

And for taking time away from your work to do so.

You're welcome. Now, please, pretty please, don't move to Seattle

My fiancé is pushing me hard to move to Washington or Oregon. If I do move, blame her. Thank you for your input as well.

All the cool kids move to Portlandia... Just sayin'

Build out you say?

Welcome to Seattle

a reply to: CB328

Useless laws

Useless government
Useless citizens

Useless life

a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for your explanation...and I agree that is what is happening in Seattle. I live in downtown Seattle...I have been at my place for 19 years...it is home!

a reply to: CB328

The Feds were offering up funding for cities that would do this.

The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.

Methinks Seattle sees dollar signs.

I live in Oregon.

I think the crazy comes from something in the Starbucks.

originally posted by: ketsuko

The Feds were offering up funding for cities that would do this.

Can there be any doubt that the Imperial Federal Government HATES achievers?

a reply to: Seamrog

I am British.

I live in a multi-ethnic, racially diverse environment by the shores of the River Thames. I love that aspect of life here. I can walk down the street and see influences of cultures ranging from the Far Eastern, to the Northern European, and all bound together with red, white and blue parcel tape. I get on with everyone I meet, and they with me, and I do not have a problem with any of it at all.

I think there are some knuckledragging scum around who probably do not like it as much as I do, but I pay little attention to the insecure prattle of right wing elements. They will only concern me when they threaten to tear asunder that which has been wrought on this, my beautiful nation, and at that point, I will pay very particular, and not at all pleasant attention to them, such that they will seek to avoid my scrutinies.

a reply to: beezzer

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beezer you hit the nail on the spot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, you are right, but this serve another purpose, this in the inner cities that once used to be what people called the poor areas, will increase the taxable revenue for the local government, look at NY, once the took away the poor areas in the name of improving living space, they turned around into highly pricey housing that only the few could afford it.

I see it as an approach to clean certain areas of undesirables. The more expensive housing in one given space the more taxable revenue.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Have you been paying little attention to Rotherham, and Brimingham and Stoke-on-Trent and Ashton-under-Lyne -to name only a few?


Hmmm.


Will you have this same pleasant attitude when the dhimmitude comes to you?


And it IS coming.