Remember writing letters? Well, now we have e-mails, and I am sharing an earnest and relevant e-mail exchange I recently had with a single-family neighbor from Ballard expressing concern about the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee recommendations and whether his family will stay in the city. It’s no Reflections on the Revolution in France. But Burke’s most famous and important work was based on letters written between himself and a man with questions about the French Revolution.

The back and forth produced the basis, in my mind, for what could be considered real Conservatism: the idea that we make policy in today’s world standing on the shoulders of the past with a commitment to the generations of the future. As Burke put it,

By a constitutional policy working after the pattern of Nature, we receive, we hold, we transmit our government and our privileges, in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives. The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of Providence, are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order . . . in what we improve we are never wholly new, in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. By adhering in this manner and on those principles to our forefathers, we are guided, not by the superstition of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy. In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood: binding up the Constitution of our country with our dearest domestic ties; adopting our fundamental laws into the bosom of our family affections; keeping inseparable, and cherishing with the warmth of all their combined and mutually reflected charities, our state, our hearths, our sepulchres, and our altars (Reflections pg.28) 

This is why in the land use battles all around us, I have always said we need more process not less, at least when it comes to establishing what we need to do — then we should do it but without hesitation. Burke supported the American Revolution but opposed the French Revolution. I think this is largely a matter of process and persistence of pursuing change within the English constitution pursued by American revolutionaries, whereas in France the rupture with the past was complete and immediately violent. Even Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Neither should zoning. But in Seattle, we’ve mistaken process for doing something, and confused talking with action, and incrementalist for revolution. I spent 5 years of my life doing neighborhood planning in the 1990s, but when we were done we knew where we were going and why. We affirmed the need to welcome growth in urban villages, and we got about the business of doing it. Today, in spite of the many urgent reasons to do something, we have 5 months of good and intense work reflected in HALA but nobody can or will explain what it means and how it will quantitatively help affordability or livability. Some see a radical, revolutionary shift when it isn’t happening.

Big changes are needed, but HALA isn’t that big change. Some reasonable people, on both sides, think HALA is the big change. Anyway, check out the exchange.

———————————————-

Hi Roger,

My name is __.  I’ve read a lot of information about the HALA proposals and the Seattle 2035 plan.  You seem to have a lot of information and thoughts on both.  I was hoping to ask you a question.  I have a good sense of your positions on housing and densification from what I read online.  But so you know where I’m coming from, I’m a SF homeowner and I’d probably be described as a NIMBY.  I live just outside the Ballard Urban Village boundary, so I know that HALA is not currently proposing to upzone my street.  However, the zoning uncertainty right now has still been unsettling because we suspect the city will just try upzoning SF zones again right after passing the HALA proposals.

Sorry, not to play semantics, but when I say “upzoning,” I mean allowing any duplexes, triplexes, or rowhouses in SFZs.  I know the upzone definition is more technical, relating to height, setbacks, etc.  I also know there has been some proposals by O’Brien to allow converting existing structures but not new.

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/9/25/single-family-zones-back-in-the-mix

Do you think these duplex/triplex proposals will have any chance of passing even in my neighborhood?

My wife and I have been wrestling with whether to stay in Ballard or to move out of the city to a neighborhood that will provide more certainty.  The reason is our young daughter.  As someone who moved around as a kid, I always promised to not move my kids once they started elementary school.  Clearly, my story is not as sympathetic as the stories I read every day about lower-income and middle-income residents who have been priced out of certain neighborhoods.  But I think my story is one that is shared by many.  That is, for whatever reason, the uncertainty about zoning makes living in Seattle precarious for everyone, alike.

Should these same zoning laws exist forever?  No.  But maybe until 2035 as part of City’s own Seattle 2035 plan. That is, if the city is pushing HALA as part of the Seattle 2035 plan, it seems only reasonable to me that there should be a moratorium of sorts on another major city-wide upzoning until 2035.  Obviously, there are no absolute certainties in life.  But I truly believe this collective sense of uncertainty is also contributing to some of the low inventory issues right now.  For instance, if we knew today that in 2 years, the City will re-propose city-wide upzoning of SF zones, we’d strongly consider selling now and move somewhere with more predictability.

In fact, we were actually in the process of converting our detached garage into a legal DADU (for future living space for in-laws) last summer when the HALA proposals were released proposing a citywide upzoning of SF zones.  So we’ve tabled this project because we do not want to make a large investment right now if the city tries upzoning SF zones again in the near future (not to mention the uncertainty with HALA proposals on DADU rules).  Even though we disagree on SF zoning, I think reasonable people can agree that certainty is beneficial.

So, for my actual question, what do you think about placing a moratorium of sorts on another HALA-type upzoning until 2035?  As you have written, this HALA process is definitely polarizing and divisive for the entire city.  Does 2035 provide some sort of reasonable compromise?   Or do we really want to go through this upzoning argument every single year?  As a SF homeowner, I know my proposal will be viewed as me protecting my home value for the next 17 years.

Trust me, I understand that I’m lucky.  But it’s my choice that was based on the zoning laws that I want protected.  For me, I’m just not comfortable living in such a densified surroundings that were being proposed for SF zones last summer (never have been and never will).  I’ve lived in dense cities like Boston, NYC, and Seoul – it’s just not for me.  Of course, I could just move out now and avoid this whole discussion.  But this misses the point.  Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you kindly in advance,

___

Hello ___,

You’ve raised a lot of issues here. I’ll try to be as succinct as possible.

First, it is highly unlikely that your lot will be upzoned anytime soon, especially if it is outside the urban village boundary. There is zero support at City Hall for wide upzones to single-family zones.

Second, it’s important that you keep in mind the distinction between HALA—which is a bunch of mostly unrelated policy proposals and proposed upzones included in those recommendations. The neighborhood upzones that have been proposed are currently only aimed at multifamily zones — not single-family.

Third, there is a proposal to upzone single-family lots in urban villages; but you know this would be a substantial increase in the value of those lots, right? I think one of the most persistent worries is that an upzone of a single-family to to L-1, for example, would mean that the owner of that lot would somehow be obligated to build multiple townhouses on it and that it would somehow be like condemnation, meaning the owner would lose value.

True, if you own a lot right next to an upzoned lot, you might have some townhouses built next door—eventually.

Things could change politically in Seattle, but I doubt it. I think Seattle has great potential and it would be unfortunate to lose you to another community. Everyone adds to the strength of our city, and you and your family can be part of that. I hope you stay and get involved in the discussions.

My view is that we need much more density that we currently have, but the original Grand Bargain in our comprehensive plan was that single-family neighborhoods would remain single-family and we’d grow more densely in our multifamily zones. I can live with that. But that isn’t what’s happening; instead we’re seeing a retreat of more density in those zones, and that will simply increase demand for single-family land.

I hope that helps and that you would let me turn our exchange here into a blog post. I don’t have to use your name of course.

Thanks for getting in touch.

Roger–

 

Roger –

Thank you so kindly for your thoughtful responses and explanations.  First, I consent to you using any information in any email for your blogs, except my personal information of family or myself.

I actually didn’t know the strong history behind SFZs and being a force in the 2035 plan. Your assurances actually mean a lot regarding possible upzoning my street, particularly with your insight in City Hall operations.  However, I feel the need to continue voicing support for SFZs in the proposed upzoning areas.

Sadly, as I follow the HALA proposals, I constantly read messaging and mob mentality these days of younger, active residents (I’m 38) vilifying SFZs and homeowners, particularly on social media.  The tone of the conversation has turned so ugly that it’s still hard not to think that an opportunistic politician won’t try to capitalize on this voter angst for “affordable” housing via SFZ upzoning.

I’ve been called everything from elitist to racist (I’m Asian) just for raising concerns about upzoning, as I apparently got mine already (I actually only bought 4 years ago due to massive law school loans that aim still paying off).  So I truly hope the conversation can turn more positive.  Of the current council members, I see Rob Johnson as being the most likely try capitalizing on this political opportunity and populist message in the future.  He seems ambitious and bold enough to do so.  I actually have been communicating with my district representative, O’Brien, and feel like he actually shares my concerns.

I’m not affiliated with any politicians or special interest other than being my block captain.  I should say that my politics have always been blue Massachusetts liberal, even interning for the late Ted Kennedy when I was truly idealistic.  That being said, the city-wide upzoning proposal last summer was particularly disturbing because many elite SFZs would either continue to enjoy de facto SFZ (e.g., Laurelhurst – home of HALA co-chair) or express SFZs via restrictive covenants against MF units (e.g., Olympic Manor and Windermere).  But people don’t mention this.  So only working class SFZs would be effectively upzoned leaving SFZs only for the 0.5%. You don’t have to be in the Kennedy camp to find that message troubling.

I do understand the possible windfall from being upzoned to higher density if my lot had higher potential use.  But I’m truly not motivated by pecuniary gain, as, to me, any upzoning equates to a government taking.  I truly am motivated for the love of my home, neighbors, and neighborhood (as lame as that sounds).  I think many younger homeowners like me share my sentiments, while, strangely, it’s my older neighbors with modest means who would be more likely to sell.  But I’m even more motivated now to stand up against what I perceive as the mob mentality playing political ping pong with my home.

But I truly wish people would stop overlooking the fact that SF neighborhoods are also absorbing growth, fixed stock or not.  My street alone has various multigenerational households, many boomerang kids, and some younger renters who pay very reasonable room rent, not to mention 5 minority households.  I wish this message would be communicated more.

Sorry for my long follow up.  I have a lot of thoughts on the matter tonight.  It’s encouraging to have well informed, articulate people like you involved in the important conversation, even if we may disagree on certain issues.  Ultimately, I hope civility prevails.

Sorry to ask one more question, but will SeattleSmartGrowth be taking any positions on regulating AirBnB rentals in the city?  I know this is complicated but I’d be interested in reading your group’s position.

Thank you again,

____

 

Hi ____,

As for your question about Air BNB, I’m not sure I get what the problem is or if there is one. Frankly, the guys at City Hall are pretty conceptually challenged — their response to just about everything is like fireman to the fire bell. They often spend lots of time processing and slowly strangling new good ideas while acting rapidly to squash ones that are already happen to be working. I need to look at it more closely.

I think the City lacks leadership on these issues now. We live in a community that thinks very highly of its intellectual capacity, often believing that some data and charts and graphs will and can justify a knee jerk policy on housing. In some ways we’ve overcomplicated this — we need more housing to welcome in the many people coming here to work and make a new life for themselves, and for your families future as well. This includes housing for people who are getting older, people with not that much money, housing for people coming out of prisons, and those with addiction and mental health challenges.

We need more housing for all these people, in all parts of the city, of all types, and for all levels of income. More is better. But that means making a lot of people, including you and your neighbors, uncomfortable. That’s just not something the people downtown know how to do while leading; that is, they’ll make you feel uncomfortable long enough to slow down and do nothing. What we need is to have the conversation then make the tough decisions about where and how to grow and do that together, even with people who don’t want more growth. We haven’t figured out how to do that.

Instead, we’ve got a bag of ideas and we’ve pulled the worst one out, Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ), and are marching forward as if there is broad consensus for it and at the same time scaring and worrying families like yours. The truth is that the whole City’s apparatus will be fatigued and absorbed by MIZ for months if not years. Meanwhile the questions of how to create more duplexes and triplexes and innovative solutions in all neighborhoods including single-family will languish.

So the good and bad news is that I think we’re a long way from a substantive and comprehensive discussion about single-family neighborhoods. We haven’t even figured out how to allow growth in the places where it is actually mandated in the comprehensive plan.

I hope the City will slow down and back off the efforts around MIZ and shift it’s resources toward the many other good and innovative ideas in the HALA recommendation and start working with everyone to figure out how we welcome everyone into our city that want’s to live and work here.

Roger