If there is a plot of land and a developer can afford to build a tall building on it, then this bill would allow it to be built.

The fact that pro-density and pro-environmentalists came out against this bill is the bill draftee’s on damn fault. Nanny-state legislation like this threatens a core value system for existing residents who do not see the sense in wiping out the slate clean and willy nilly targeting their property. This is a loser approach.

Everyone I talk to is pro transit-oriented development; so why is this bill failing to gain community support? Because it does threaten property rights, it does echo of nanny-state liberalism (we know what is good for all of you and we’ll make you do it) and it is redundant BS for neighborhoods that are already on the trajectory towards TOD.

John and Bill made very good points up there. And it is frustrating to see a set of behavior from that is very top-down and non-transparent. Did we all vote for Obama or what? We should demand the same from our side of the aisle and hold them accountable as well.

line 9-10. Sec. 1 RCW 36.70A.020 and 2002 c 154 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

line 11. The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations:

page 2, lines 19-22. (6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.

“The right of a government to take private property for a public purpose, usually with just compensation of the owner.”
(The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

From the Futurewise bill, HB 1490: Section 1, sub-section 6:

“Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made.”
(From the text of the Futurewise bill, HB 1490, page 2, 2nd draft)

The proponents of HB 1490 have repeatedly claimed the Futurewise bill has nothing to do with eminent domain and there is no mention of “eminent domain” in the draft bill. By definition, eminent domain IS spelled-out in the text of HB 1490. No further explanation should be required.

Mayor Nickels secretly ordered a “Blight Study” in March 2006. The ultimate goal was to implement Community Renewal in order to gain access to the power of eminent domain.

Now that the Futurewise bill has been amended and density goals relaxed, it’s clear that density is no longer the focus. The focus is the state mandate for increased density within a 1/2 mile zone. The mandate is what Seattle will use as the key to unlock eminent domain. All manner of mischief will result in the transfer of control to the state that the Futurewise bill proposes. This isn’t democracy, folks. It’s how business is done in an oligarchy. Should suit Greg Nickels just fine.

4) Fixed net densities. Out of step with most current TOD thinking. See for example “The New Transit Town” by Dittmar and Ohland. Or look here:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf (the chart on page 15 shows Transit Town data). So urban neighborhoods like Columbia City should only have a net density of 20. Downtown core densities at 60+ ala Belltown.

5) a fixed half mile. we aren’t flat everywhere, we have freeways and other inhibitors to access the station. Consider the capture via a pedestrian walking sheds. So the area is bounded by what can be walked to versus a compass line on a map.

I don’t think Futurewise handled it too well (“stood up”) at Mt Baker. More like deer in the headlights…

1) Frustration with Futurewise and their top-down approach to the issue; folks take their neighborhoods seriously and appreciate being consulted, as opposed to preached to, regarding changes. Many of the arguments above are rational and logical when presented, but Futurewise blew it and handed an opening to NIMBY folks.
2) Concerns about the planning that will go along with increased density. So much of what has been built in Seattle over the last ten years has been low-quality junk – and yes, I know that’s subjective, but really, four or six or eight townhomes with dysfunctional garages and zero street presence? The more progressive folks at DPD recognize this is a valid concern; I don’t know how we address it in this context, but it’s feeding some of the opposition.
3) Lack of positive examples we can point to of family-friendly denser developments. Most people know what they’ve seen – and they’re familiar with, and protective of, “traditional” single-family neighborhoods. I haven’t heard Futurewise speak on this or seen their materials, but part of the challenge here is showing people pictures, as silly as that may sound, of what could be – and joking about 100-story towers may be funny to you, but it’s not going to get you anywhere with people like the ones who will show up at these meetings.

Futurewise reps stood up to some real grilling on HB 1490 but held their ground and passed out informative handouts. Quite a few people fear the density around Mt Baker station could exceed Capitol Hill.

It’s always good for people to turn out and hear one another.

As far as I know.