I think it’s clear streetcars, and arguably all public transit including Link, “better” streets. They get the ugly, polluting, dangerous cars off of them!

Nothing like they put into roads, however.

Uh, you mean like ZERO?

Eddy, Clibborn and their ilk don’t think about boosting regional transit with state funds. Quite the contrary: these pseudo-Dems are always looking for new ways to re-direct locally approved transit dollars into their floundering state roads accounts.

The state is forced to pay for most of the effects of sprawl, and does chip in help if not a lot of money for many aspects of our transit infrastructure (sound transit was created by the state legistlature for example).

So if it’s everyone’s financial business that we get the best value for our infrastructure, why is it not our legistlative business?

I’m also deeply suspicious of this bill sponsored by legislators from outside the area it will effect. The “feel good” idea is that forcing high residential density is “green” because it means people can walk to transit. My fear is that it will be used to delay or torpedo projects which otherwise make sense. In short, unless this bill addresses a serious shortcoming in the GMA or some other aspect of the already contentious planning process then more red tape is not the answer.

As stated earlier, editorialists such as Erica Barnett at the Stranger have questioned whether the GMA has delivered on its promise. It’s a mixed bag; we’ve done better in constraining sprawl than we would have done WITHOUT the GMA. But we could do much better. And to try to improve on the outcome is not “micromanagement”, IMHO. Rather, we should be trying to set a better, clearer and more results-driven state policy, thus improving on results and, hopefully, shortening the time to realization.

Whether this bill is the right answer (or one of a set of answers) is another question. The devil IS in the details. I’m sure that will get worked out in committee, in discussion with the prime sponsor.

Deb Eddy

> But it meets my requirement that state legislation actually DO something,

Why? The State isn’t funding Sound Transit to any great extent. I think the municipalities in the 48th are far more capable of determining zoning issues than micro management at the State level. I agree the GMA is complex (it’s a complex issue) but passing legislation because you feel a need to do something doesn’t seem like good governance at all.

That means that the ‘allowed net density’, the maximum, must be (at least) fifty dwelling units per acre.

I think the at least is implied. If there’s actually ambiguity there, they’ll deal with it in committee, but I doubt there is.

What do you mean by model?

Obama’s People Turn To EU Bank For Inspiration

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/obamas-team-turn-to-eu-bank-for-inspiration-1514983.html