12 Replies to “HB 1490”

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

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

    1. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. “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…

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

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

Comments are closed.