There have been a couple of comments recently about HB 1490 that basically plead for us not to call people NIMBYs, arguing that people have legitimate concerns, etc, etc.
First of all, we reject the premise that density and walkability make a neighborhood worse. At the same time, people have a different aesthetic sense of this and there’s no moral content in that judgment. But even if you accept the argument that density is an unfortunate requirement of our environmental situation, that doesn’t free people of the NIMBY charge.
Typically, whatever project a NIMBY opposes actually will have negative impacts on the neighborhood. No one’s property values ever went up because a jail or sewage plant was built close to their home. So in a narrow sense they’re entirely justified in opposing the project.
The point of the NIMBY epithet is that from a regional perspective the projects are of critical importance, and have to go somewhere. No one argues that we can get by without having any prisons or sewage plants. The frustrating thing is that those protesting the project typically want the service – we ought to detain dangerous criminals, or treat sewage before it goes into the water supply. They just want someone else to pay the proximity costs of that service.
To bring this back to the TOD bill, in liberal Seattle, no one is going to come out and say that we shouldn’t have more dense neighborhoods somewhere. People can be “pro-environment” and “pro-density,” but the “character” of their neighborhood just so happens to be incompatible with environmentally sustainable, dense development. They perceive those lifestyles as having net costs and want someone else to bear them. Meanwhile there are a very finite number of rail stations where really dense development makes sense, so they are de facto arguing for a reduction in the number of densely constructed units in the region.
I don’t think anyone believes the bill is perfect, and there are people working with Futurewise and TCC to fix the problems that do exist. But there’s also a lot of solid opposition to the bill from people that think higher zoning is Stalinism, or that are “pro-density” but just don’t want it wherever they are. It reminds me of the “pro-transit” people who could never seem to bring themselves to support any transit measure that actually ever went to the ballot.
I’m not sure that increased density = sewage plant, but otherwise well put
Sooo How’s South Lake Union working out for you??
Who lives in South Lake Union?
That seems to be what we get on offer from developers and we end up with what seems to be pretty much a dead zone. I work there and would never live there.
People don’t seem to be able to do infill very effectively. Many areas are hopelessly under built. I’m in the CD but SE is even more so. The zoning is fine enough. Developers built town houses instead of the apartment buildings zoned for. Blocks and blocks of that stuff. Some apartment buildings would have supplied variety and density. Near me there are tons of restaurants that people drive to from other parts of town. Where’s that dry cleaner? Hardware store? Gawd the LA suburb I grew up in with small houses, was more walkable than my neighborhood here. Had well kept sidewalks and lots of stores on the main street.
Maybe we need to turn our sights on developers. They seem only happy building big buildings or subdivisions with 5000 square foot McMansions. What’s built is built. Work with it. Reuse and repurpose. Consider going up on existing buildings instead of tearing down. Consider letting people turn their single family home into a two family home now that families are smaller. Stop building further out of town, But bring more green space into town.
That’s my view of how we can get dense sustainable communities inside the city of Seattle. Does involve new buildings, but people don’t want the developer who demands way more than what’s planned. That’s the subtext of “preserving neighborhood character’ for people in Seattle.
Seattle is zoned for all the growth needed to meet 2040 targets, and is well served by transit throughout town. But, people know what smells like a boondoggle for developers, and have no intention of sweetening the pot.
I will say again what I said before in a different way. The people in Seattle that you objectify as nimbys would have been Futurewise’s natural allies from whom they could have learned much. Stopping further development on largely empty land is a very different game than ignorantly coming in and calling the shots in an area populated with a lot of social environmentalists.
Now if folks want to go after the the people in Bellevue and Redmond, be my guest. The results will be very much the same. Who would be the common denominator in these scenarios?
What? What? You’re talking about an area that’s had new zoning rules for five years and several buildings either nearly finished or just starting construction, and you somehow claim we can’t do infill very effectively?
South Lake Union is just getting started. You can’t possibly be serious in criticizing upzoning there.
And as for Seattle being zoned for all the growth ‘needed to meet’ some arbitrary target? That target is far too low, and has been for some time. That’s what the Reality Check conference was about – we’re already at our 2020 growth targets in a lot of neighborhoods, ten years ahead of schedule.
The center is where the growth needs to be to make that growth walkable and transit-accessible. We have been replacing PARKING LOTS in SLU with new buildings, much as you suggest is a good idea, and then denigrate!
You know a funny thing happened on the way to South Lake Union. There was a project back in the 90′s called “The Seattle Commons”. This would have built a two block wide park from Denny to Valley along the ROW of Westlake. The park would have been financed with a LID and upzoning in the area around the park.
There was a huge campaign to defeat both Commons votes. The opponents argued it would displace affordable housing, displace businesses, was too expensive, was building a front yard for expensive condos, etc. There was also some resistance to trying to fix the Mercer mess in the first go round.
Interestingly enough John Fox was one of the “No on Commons” activists back then. How is their scorecard 13 years later? Well we have lots of high density new development with expensive condos. Businesses have either been forced out or chosen to cash out. Low income residents have been displaced. The LID for the park has been replaced with a LID for the SLUT and a possible LID for the Mercer fix.
If we hadn’t listened to people like John Fox we would have at least ended up with a nice park.
There is a lesson in the commons fight though. The commons was seen as being backed by the Downtown Seattle Association, the political establishment, developers, and large corporations. The anti’s were seen as scrappy neighborhood activists and small business owners. The battle lines looked scarily similar to some of the current civic fights we see in Seattle. Including people like Fox playing gadfly on the side seen as being the “underdog”.
While you aren’t going to please everyone it would seem best to get neighborhood groups on board early in any effort to change the urban fabric of Seattle. The other option is to sell your vision to the Mayor and Paul Allen.
I’m curious, though – what low income residents have been displaced? Do you just mean the old houses on some of those properties? Or do you mean subsidized housing?
Ha Ha Ha we would have ended up with a park like we ended up with the stadium that Paul Allen said he’d pay for. And, we ended up paying for that Mercer Mess — oh the feds will do that now since it’s about all we have queued up shovel ready.
Consider it from the perspective of the property owner. He attaches a particular value to the present state of the property. Alter his property? He will value it differently.
He will only complain under two conditions: 1) he values the present state of affairs more, and 2) no one offers to compensate him for his loss.
This suggests that the owner who complains believes individuals in the region only want something if he pays for it and they do not.
If the project is critically important to individuals in the region, shouldn’t they offer to compensate the owner for his loss?
Erick, I am not sure what you’re talking about. People are only selling if they want to.
Buy the NIMBYs out of the neighborhood. NIMBYism is only a problem when the proponents of the project are unwilling to compensate the individuals in the community who dislike its effects.
The term NIMBY is B.S. Sure neighborhood groups can be stupid and abusive, but so are the folks calling for a deep bore tunnel through downtown Seattle – and that doesn’t mean the neighbors or the downtown folks don’t have a technical point.
What the term NIMBY does is undermine a group of property owners to express their rights to determine the future of their area. There is only one alternative, emminent domain, and that is one you want to use wisely.
FWIW, all you do with arguments like this is make the case for the private automobile and furthering the development of enviro-facisim. And you are doing that for free, ‘we’ don’t even need to pay you a dime for your intellectual property services.
Funny thing that, about blighted property, real or intellectual.
That’s the strange thing about this debate. We did decide how to use our property in the future. We used the best democratic tool we have, the ballot. With that we decided where transit stations would be built, which necessarily increases the density there. Allowing a few property owners to keep zoning restrictions put in place at a time when a mass transit station wasn’t planned for that area seems like not just a terrible idea, but places democracy on a lower peg than property rights. And that’s not even framing it strongly enough, since we aren’t even touching people’s properties – it places democracy on a lower peg than the feelings of those that own property.
Indeed, in fact, people who are choosing to sell are making handsome profits, as their values skyrocket when they’re near future stations…
Uh… I didn’t see any eminent domain for SLU. Those people happily sold their property for huge financial gain…
The term NIMBY doesn’t take anyone’s rights away; it just calls out the fact that they’re pursuing a narrow self-interest over a greater good that has broad consensus.
The regional value of things like the deep-bore tunnel is very controversial, so I’m not sure that even applies.
I don’t see why it’s “fascism” to allow someone who buys a piece of property to build what they want on it. There are times the state has a legitimate interest in limiting that, but this pretty far from Mussolini.
I am not sure I understand your property rights argument. Are you saying the landowner of the parcel next to you has the right to build a nuclear waste storage facility?
Let us assume that a project will violate no one’s property rights. The project will also compensate everyone fairly. If this is the case, why involve government?
Erick,
Are you saying the landowner of the parcel next to you has the right to build a nuclear waste storage facility?
I clearly state in the comment that the state sometimes has an interest in zoning. I’m merely defending the concept of an upzone against the charge that it’s “fascist.”
The assumption that everyone is compensated “fairly” is a pretty strong one, as “fairness” is something that’s inherently an outcome of negotiation.
I am far less certain of that assumption than you. Consider a law like eminent domain. It exists to take something without negotiation. I do not think that is fair compensation.
DO YOU BELIEVE ROOSEVELT IS GOING TO TAKE 50 UNITS PER ACRE?
I saw the abusive neighborhood politics that got them their station and I don’t think they will. Sure, Roosevelt does have a nice business district, but it is also completely single family once you get a block or two away AND it’s walking distance from the UW anyway.
This is a group of power mad hypocrites who want to code enforce their UW student neighbors out of this UW area place. They also want the taxpayers of this area to spend an extra $100 Million to serve their abusiveness. definitely NOT build a vibrant, dense urban center.
The place to have done that was Greenlake – cheaper to service (cut and cover down Ravenna), a better regional destination, NOT walking distance from the UW, AND a better place to densify.
Uh, yes, I do believe Roosevelt is going to take 50 units per acre.
The blocks between 65th and the high school are already owned by a developer who plans to build mixed use similar to Dwell… a property that’s well over 50 units per acre.
I don’t think you realize that you’re fighting a battle that you lost a decade ago. Rosevelt’s growing. Or did you prefer the slumlord and his Nazi enforcer? Those weren’t single family homes…
There have been a few buildings put up in Roosevelt that are much more than 100 units/acre.
I doubt the sincerity of your argument, considering you’re advocating less density near the university where there is more demand and advocating more density in a further-flung area where the demand is not as high.
That being said, do you even know what 50 units/acre looks like? 220 units an acre can be made with 8 stories on a solid Seattle block.
Mr. Tooley,
Roosevelt is not required to take 50/units acre under the latest draft of the bill, although I suspect it will anyway.
Yeah, Roosevelt’s already zoned that high along the arterials anyway.
Much higher. I think six stories of mixed use is more like 75~100 units/acre.
Uh? I most certainly do believe that the Roosevelt Neighborhood will take 50 units per acre. In fact they are already doing it under existing zoning laws and it is a very good thing.
That said the neighborhood is certainly going to change. But any NIMBY who honestly prefers the block after block of rotting and rat infested Sisley slums to new, multistory, mixed use housing certainly doesn’t have the best interests of the neighborhood at heart. The neighborhood will be different, but it will certainly be better – and all this is happening now without this bill.
This bill really isn’t aimed at Seattle neighborhoods where it will (mostly) have only minor affects beyond what is currently allowed. It is mainly aimed at suburban neighborhoods where densities are low and there is a temptation to accommodate SOV commuting by building P&R’s around stations. That is the real target of this bill….
To be cynical, since Sisley owns these large swaths of rotting blocks and doesn’t intend to sell the land and instead lease them out to developers for 99 year periods, I have very little hope for good redevelopement. Most of the incentives are perverse and we have the track history of how they have been managed over the last 30 years.
You can pretty much bet the farm that whatever zoning is approved will be maximized to his benefit. This is obviously a special case compared to the general question of zoning within Seattle around the other stations but is the overriding theme to almost all of the neighborhood’s planning.
Ben
Ben, Sisley already sold several blocks, as far as I know.
I’ve been folllowing this pretty closely and from what I’ve gathered through the news reports and at the land developement meetings, RDG has signed an exclusive agreement to lease and develop all of the properties but Sisley has retained ownership.
See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325710_roosevelt31.html
Ben
Okay, that’s July 2007 – I was told there was a sale by a relative of the (supposed) new owner in September of 2008.
Have you heard anything since that article?
Actually, lots of great stuff is built on land that has long-term leases. Case in point: downtown office towers on UW land, I-90 office buildings on DNR land, and yes, the private sector: the Quadrant Lake Union Center (Adobe, Google, Getty, etc.) on land owned by the Burke family.
In fact, I would argue that a smart developer would build the same caliber building on 99-year leased land that they would build on fee-simple land. Leases vary greatly, but any developer wants to maximize return and essentially nothing in commercial real estate is amortized over more than 20 years or so. Sure, as the lease runs into the final years the managing company may not invest so much, but the first 70 years or so should be good. Also, some landowners end up selling to the lessor eventually anyway.
I may not be a big fan of Sisley in general, but he does wish to build lots of density and I doubt that he would prevent a lessor from doing the same. Thus, to me it does not matter who owns the land, only what they want done with it over the long term.
Housing incentives targeted for the most part up near area median income is a tax subsidized greatly profitable opportunity for all developers, profit or non-profit. When the housing market tanks, oh boy you can rent for above what is out there on the open market. Do it in a depressed area where the median income is lower then the area median and you are raking it in.
Housing programs we pay for have got to go deep. This bill leaves out 30 percent of the people completely. The dishwasher working in those restaurants you want to patronize. Sorry, good luck finding a place in Puyallup. Guess you will have to buy an old junker if you want to get to work.
How’s that working for saving the environment?
Upzoning is tax-subsidized? How do you believe that?
The government says: You developer can tear down that building of cheap apartments and build way more than the current zoning, if you also build some for 80% of area median income. Then you can rent out these units for prices that are set to 30-35% of the income of people who make 80% of median. The state idea is to throw in 10% at 60% of median which is the level the whole thing should start at in my opinion. But, the state should not mandate this, just allow the tool to be used.
So the developer gets all the market rate stuff they wanted, and usually they go for even more, plus Seattle goes further and will give you a chunk off the property taxes. These programs were called ‘workforce tax abatement’ and ‘workforce incentive zoning’ and they left out many of the people that keep the machinery of the city running like LPNs and beginning teachers, guess they were expected to either figure it out or move into the projects.
People move in under the program, There are other places available for that rent on the open market because in Seattle median income is lower than the rest of the region and rents tend to be lower, too. But, this is a brand spanking new building.
The housing market tanks. People who are part of the program like where they are and stay. They pay the same percentage of income, even though market rents are going down. Eventually they may move somewhere cheaper.
It might equalize out over time, but the point is this is NOT the income levels we need to subsidize and we are subsidizing.
I do like inclusionary zoning for everywhere served by transit. Two low income duplexes go down and are replaced with four townhomes in my neighborhood served by four buslines that go in all directions? I’d like one of those available for sale to someone at under 80% of median income (sale is usually higher) If the builder got a little something I’d be fine. I bet he’s wishing he had that available now that he is carrying one of those townhomes for nearly a year. And, the neighborhood isn’t happy that there is an empty house. I’m not in a transit station area and I’m not even in an urban village.
Or, my friend the developer. He owns an old apartment building with an empty lot next door. He wants to build for the zoning it’s got two bus lines running by in either direction. Even, at a stretch walking distance to Broadway and downtown. He rents low to young people. He would have built if the tax abatement was for lower incomes and covered the area this is in which is supposed to be a ped zone. As things stand, he isn’t doing anything.
He said these laws work for big developers, for profit and non profit who do big developments on big plots of land with big investors from places like China.
State level — standards, fairness, enabling locals to do what’s best. Detailed programs? Especially based on what Seattle’s done? Uggh.
Sorry Wonk, I just don’t buy it. As a college student, I found apartments for cheap in both the U-District and on Capitol Hill every time I searched. Believe me, I was poor, but I was even more cheap than I was poor.
As for developers of low-income housing, I have not found them to be “making a killing” after looking at some confidential financial statements over the past year. Quite simply, development is expensive and very low-income housing providers have extra costs that we do not consider.
In other words: people don’t like change, especially in their neighborhoods.
Reminds me of Belmont, a small suburb south of San Fran. The good citizens there kept on complaining about their grownup kids not being able to afford to live in Belmont. They also kept on blocking higher density in Belmont’s small downtown, which is on the choo-choo line to SF and SJ. The rezoning would have been from almost no units to a few, as most buidings were single story commercial.
Yeah, the thing is, if you block higher density, you end up with million dollar houses instead of $300,000 condos. Affordability? Hmm….
Seattle IS zoned almost conpletely at the levels desired. Seattle HAS incentive zoning that automatically upzones for modest production at 80% of area median (which is much higher than Seattle median) incomes. And, forgives a portion of property taxes on those for a period of years. Builders are consistently not building or building below the level zoned for.
To what ends do you need to go to get the slumlord you describe to do the right thing that the people already said they wanted years ago? Well, they hostage holding builders seem to come back saying let me go even bigger and higher. Let me ignore any design standards. Gee a few apartments for 80% of median (actually ends up being a guaranteed above market income when the housing market is down). They they cry that they have given all they can. This is true for the for profit and non profit developers. Then the city comes back to the taxpayers and asks for money for roads and parks money and anything else that might make it a decent neighborhood.
That’s real life on the ground in the real city.
Uh, if Seattle’s already zoned almost completely at the levels desired…. why do you care?
And roads? You get that the roads to serve, say, a hundred people, are a lot cheaper to maintain in the city (where they’re already built, I might add) than to build new in the suburbs?
Your arguments just don’t make any sense.
- The bill does not define the transit stations it does include precisely enough.
- The bill does not include legitimate transit station for which TOD planning should be done, i.e., the race to exclude ferries and streetcars because of all the mess of specific stuff.
- The bill builds on the stupid incentive junk (noted above) that Seattle does which does not provide housing to all income levels, and enshrines that stuff in state law.
Yes, there should be standards and protections and enabling (not mandating) of things like inclusionary zoning that apply to ALL of the urban growth area, not just station areas. There could even be measures that say y’all provide housing to all income levels wherever there is mass transit and y’all figure out out locals.
Yes, there can be $$ targeted specifically to those densities in the partner funding package being developed. Heck the state can divide up the pie any way it wants, based on these priorities.
Seattle should provide housing to more income levels, you’re right – but blocking density DOES increase housing costs. You’re fighting for perfection where you will only get some progress.
I think the bill includes light rail and commuter rail. I don’t see any problem with starting there.
How does the bill define transit stations now? Can you copy the wording you dislike?
8 (2) A major transit station includes any of the following within an
9 urban growth area:
10 (a) Stations on a high capacity transportation system approved by
11 the voters and funded or expanded under chapter 81.104 RCW. For
12 purposes of this subsection (2), streetcars, including streetcar
13 systems expanded under chapter 81.104 RCW, are not considered a high
14 capacity transportation system;
15 (b) Commuter rail stations;
16 (c) Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways,
17 but excluding stops in a streetcar system; and
18 (d) Stations on bus rapid transit routes that operate on exclusive
19 rights-of-way for sixty-five percent or more of a route.
20
Umm BRT stations in West Seattle? Monorail? When is a rail station a commuter rail station? Centralia to Oly?
Technically, if you really really mean just Sound Transit, then b, c, d should be sub items to that covered by 81.104. Or, just list the names of the included stations. Excluding from good planning practices in order to push a bunch of other stuff is truly troubling.
California:
(b) For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Bus hub” means an intersection of three or more bus routes, with a minimum route headway of 10 minutes during peak hours.
(2) “Bus transfer station” means an arrival, departure, or transfer point for the area’s intercity, intraregional, or interregional bus service having permanent investment in multiple bus docking facilities, ticketing services, and passenger shelters.
(3) “District” means a transit village development district as defined in Section 65460.4.
(4) “Peak hours” means the time between 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., inclusive, Monday through Friday.
(5) “Transit station” means a rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, or bus transfer station.
They define specifically and mandate that TOD planning be done in these areas. They put other things into other sections of the codes. They put densities into funding packages.
Maryland:
Property this is adjacent of the passenger boarding and alighting location of a planned or existing transit station; or
Property, any part of which is located within one‐half mile of the passenger boarding and a lighting location of a planned or existing transit station;
Is planned to maximize the use of transit, walking, and bicycling by residents and employees; and
Is designated as a transit oriented development by:
–The Secretary in consultation with the Secretaries of Business and Economic Development, General Services, Housing and Community Development, the Environment and Planning; and
–The local government or multi‐county agency with land use and planning responsibility for the relevant area.
Put the decision on the state+locals to decide if it’s really a transit station.
Reading over people’s comments, we seemed to have veered from “density where it is objectively desirable” to “any amount of density any where is always desirable”. Perhaps that is just what comes across in the excitement of discussion.
The urban village program specifically designated areas for increased density, after much consultation from local residents. And that’s how it should be…with a deference to the local neighborhood.
For myself, I choose to live in a neighborhood that is upzoning, and I fully support that policy in this location. There are other neighborhoods where I would physically fight the same policy. So I wouldn’t consider people’s concerns with gentrification to be automatic or even likely NIMBYism. I would encourage us not to conflate the two.
What I hope we do is step back and remember what we’re all in this for: a city that’s alive. From Boeing engineers in their coveralls to the twentysomething “Ikea set”, from Lake Union dot.com middle managers to our red flannel “Mountaineer” friends…that whole big beautiful mess of humanity that makes a city. A community. That rejuvenates itself, and changes over time, yet despite that change, a constant thread of continuity can be traced back across its history. In my snotty elitist opinion (LOL), few “cities” in America can claim to be anything but dead.
Now I think rail & density zoning-where warranted-can serve that purpose…but again I would never confuse the means with the end goal. I’m not interested in density uber alles (nor would that be warranted, because ST, even when current plans are fully built out, is actually a modest system compared to other cities).
Oh My Zach, I think I’m in love. I’m finding this whole thing difficult because I’ve been the one arguing FOR sound transit with people who were already incredibly cynical about what Seattle does, who at Democratic Party meetings heard the promos from the Mayor for ST2 with stone faces. Then to see the State come along and mandate stuff we know is screwed up but focus it in even more in just those locations….these discussions should have been happening a long time ago.
I’m a believer. I want a network of rail throughout the state to revitalize small towns. In my wildest dreams, high speed rail coast to coast to get us out of airplanes. I want that 520 bridge to be built rail ready. I want the chunnel to be rail supportive. Look my Dad took the bus to work in Los Angeles by choice and moved us to Maryland to be able to work on Metro. While we have incredible political and generational differences, I talk with him about this stuff and he is aghast.
He’s also aghast, not at what Maryland did or did not build at the Metro stations, but that they lifted the sewer moratorium and let McMansion subdivisions be built and built 6 lane roads (and started a new freeway) to support them instead of building a cross county Metro line. All the small towns and farms in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, except some designated historic or heirloom, are gone as far as I can see. They COULD have built that new Metro line, with stations where the towns were. Two reasons they did not – Reagan and Bush. I can’t stand it if this region and state end up the same.
The ideal model in my head for human life is a network of small compact cities and towns, each surrounded by farms and open space. Locally self-sustaining. Ways to get around if you need it, but 2 hour commutes are anti-social and anti-family. So, this stuff goes way beyond the narrow view of ‘what about those transit stations’? It all has to do with developing community, economic development, a good life, and sense of place and belonging in the places where people already do live and work.
Hello CriticalWonk, I totally agree.
And you do a good job of pointing out the political aspect of it: I think rail was held back for years in this region, precisely because would-be supporters were afraid it would open the door to indiscriminate calls for density. That probably describes most of the pro-bus crowd, and we’ve only just won them over in the most recent election.
People, you are forgetting the basic premise: why did light rail stations (and rapid bus stations) get sited where they are in the first place?
Answer: Because there was a naturally occurring level of density and the presence of a major circulation node. So if it was naturally occurring, why must we take the idiotic “next step” and say, ‘we aren’t doing enough there, we need to do more!” and then mandate this crap.
This is guilty-before-innocent legislation and brings no good faith to the table.
TOD is a naturally occurring trend; this bill will do nothing but take advantage of a liberal populace who loved transportation projects well.
Bonafide,
Have you ever been to the Rainier Beach station? Even now there’s nothing that could remotely be described as “density.”
How can TOD occur “naturally” if the zoning doesn’t allow it?
http://joe-urban.com/archive/nimbys-beware-you-might-get-what-you-ask-for/
Oh, and criticalwonk and others who in the end, I probably agree with on the meta’s involved here, but disagree with the angst you purvey about this bill: It’s easy to avoid conflating NIMBYism from opposition to gentrification in the debate over this bill. Fox and SDC represent the latter. Local home owners seeking to protect the windfall of homeownership in the vicinity of these new stations represent the latter. Separating them doesn’t seem to have prevented either from relying on falsehoods about the bill and utterly vile complaints about boogeymen like envirofascism in shouting about their opposition.
Yes, I’ve been to the Rainier Beach station. Directly to the south of it is industrial land, but the surrounding areas at the station are all zoned NC3-40/NC2-40…so the zoning already exists, and the density will naturally occur, as it is demanded.
It doesn’t have the density now because 1) the train isn’t online yet 2) that is a major hotspot for gang violence 3) the market doesn’t demand it yet. Where are people going to walk to there? The utility line? The auto wreck yard? Up Beacon Hill?