Comments on: HB 1490

By: Op-ed: What to Expect in Olympia - Seattle Transit Blog

Op-ed: What to Expect in Olympia - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:47:45 +0000

[...] up on last year’s transit oriented communities legislation we will continue to push for a combination of planning measures and incentives that promote [...]

By: Clark County Transit Investment District - Seattle Transit Blog

Clark County Transit Investment District - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:01:50 +0000

[...] (by me) in all the HB 1490 noise was Senate Bill 5540 (and companion House Bill 1677), which permits Vancouver and Clark County to [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:39:36 +0000

Yes it is, it beats belltown and the u-dist by a bit

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:08:19 +0000

Yea, I don’t understand why this is “bad”?

Oh and isn’t Capitol Hlll already the densest area North of San Francisco?

By: MZ

MZ — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:51:21 +0000

“John Fox, of the Seattle Displacement Coalition, said that mandated density could leave already congested Capitol Hill, the University District, Roosevelt, Northgate and other neighborhoods around Sound Transit stations denser than any area north of San Francisco.”

You can tell how auto-centric John Fox is…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:35:10 +0000

The senate bill is essentially dead to, since both chambers need to pass the bill.

By: john

john — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:19:06 +0000

Does this mean the companion bill in the Senate is dead also? Is there any alternative TOD bill or bill with TOD provisions that will occur this year?

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:01:22 +0000

I’ve heard Tukwilla not really doing anything about the zoning around S. 154th had something to do with why many felt legislation was needed on the state level.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:16:34 +0000

I think an “tax incentives”-style bill would have been better. And we need the state to give the GMA real teeth, not perform top-down planning on small communities.

If you don’t like incentives, you can inversely give permitting penalities to builders who make poor use of space.

By: Transit Voter

Transit Voter — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:13:37 +0000

Yes, the bill was badly crafted, in no small part because sponsors kept the drafting circle too tight. There’s a lot of folks in Seattle neighborhoods who are comfortable with higher densities around transit stations, but supporters failed to reach out to them and bring in their support and their ideas.

With a little broader base, some of the initial drafting errors could’ve been avoided, and some of the reflexive nimbyism could have been avoided also. A good idea badly done.

By: Keo

Keo — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:54:05 +0000

This shouldn’t even be an issue. The cities should have already implemented similar requirements on their own accord.

By: Concerned

Concerned — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:30:07 +0000

I’m sorry it was so badly crafted. Was improving but too late because the education bill had to get in so that the state doesn’t lose a bunch of federal money.

People coming from a urban planning place still need to get it together.