This was written as a Facebook note in September of 2009. I’m reposting it because it is worth noting that I have always been deeply opposed to the sentimentality of the single-family neighborhood. This is why, as I’ve posted elsewhere, I find it discouraging to see the critique of single-family highjacked by the social justice crowd. The dichotomy I draw between the fictional characters Howard Roark and George Bailey is still an interesting one, but one that I might reexamine. In the years since I have written this, I have, perhaps, drifted more in the direction of Roark (see my post on why and how I am a conservative), although I am not a libertarian. That’s probably enough commentary. Enjoy!

Where are we headed?

I’m not sure.

The Seattle City Council is planning on allowing single family folks to build cottages in their backyards.

I am sure that we will have a great debate about the cottages, led, I’m sure by those who fear for their privacy and way of life. It looks like to me another battle between those who see the big picture and those who want to focus on their own backyard. I am biased. But I have done some research.

There have been 17 of these things done in Seattle already. These are permitted, legal and up and up cottages. I drove around last fall and checked them out. Where I was able to, I took a picture. Take a look at a few:

I found the DADUs (Detached Accessory Dwelling Units) in all kinds of neighborhoods. Rich. Poor. In between.

From whence does the opposition to the humble DADU come from? Mainly from the likes of Knute Berger who wrote of the great Lesser Seattle martyr Edith Macefied :

People like Edith Macefield who want to live quiet lives and be left alone are now the equivalent of squatters — they occupy space that has a destiny, a “highest and best use” that doesn’t include people who want to live their lives in peace.

Here is Edith’s cottage:

And here is Thomas Jefferson’s:

Each is a paean to the single family home, the individual with their God given individual rights in the face of the collective. Why do we live in America, after all, if not to have our own version of Monticello. Never mind that Jefferson was a slave owner and authored the first legislation to nullify federal law in favor of local, state rights. As many Americans achieve woke status, perhaps they’ll turn an eye toward Jefferson’s views on secession and nullification.

Think of Gary Cooper as the hero of

The Fountainhead,

Howard Roark. Roark was Ayn Rand’s view of the heroic individual standing against the state and the collective. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have said it any better than Roark.

The Fountainhead is a story about an architect who stood up to the monster of society. A rugged individual. So rugged that when his vision was changed he blew up the building he designed. On trial for the demolition he stands alone before the jury. Here are the words of the super individual on history:

“Every new thought was opposed, every new invention was denounced. But men of un-borrowed vision went ahead. They fought. They suffered and they paid. But they won…His truth was his only motive.”

“He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not. With his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was able to achieve the things that are the glory of mankind.”

“The mind is an attribute of the individual, there is no such thing as a collective brain.”

Roark, Rand, and Jefferson find the ultimate expression of freedom in the experience and accomplishment of the individual. These are, usually, the foes of change, growth and more people moving in.

But let’s hear another voice in black and white. Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey standing up for the good of the collective brain. Here he is in this clip from It’s a Wonderful Life.

“You, you said that they — What’d you say just a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even thought of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what?! Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they’re so old and broken-down that — You know how long it takes a workin’ man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about, they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn’t think so. People were human beings to him, but to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they’re cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you’ll ever be.”

Rabble. Collective brain. Society. Community. Density.

George Bailey is the voice of another American tendency, the one that looks out for the other person, the one that makes a sacrifice and the one that sees opportunity in the common good. This is the tendency we need to tap into as we look at growth and new people coming into our city. Sappy yes. But it’s our kind of sappy.

The two most hallowed American documents, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, have ensured that we will forever be pulled between “certain inalienable rights” and “we the people,” between what’s good for me and what is good for all of us. Living our lives in peace, as Berger suggests, is one advantage. What about choice and variety. The City has rightly focused on the idea of choice in the cottage discussion. If people want to be left alone they shouldn’t live in the City.

We’ll hear complaints and worries and fears. Data will be stretched to its breaking point to prove that privacy will be lost and property value will be lost, and most of all parking will be lost. Parking that great entitlement of all Americans. If Thomas Paine was alive and writing today he might argue that your parking space was certainly one of your natural rights. Parking is the third rail of Seattle politics because taking it away means reclaiming public space for strangers.

But the fact is that in all of the 3 years that backyard cottages were allowed in the southeast only 17 projects were permitted. 17. Seventeen.

The City is now proposing–sit down–50. Fifty. Fifty! Fifty cottages would be allowed city wide. Opposition to this program exposes ugly side of the American tendency, the one that stands against the good of the whole in favor of the individual. Keep them out! I got here first! Not things most of us would say to another person in the face.

But nevertheless the American dream of a big house with pond and a garage is something we’ve subsidized and supported with our tax laws, zoning and political rhetoric for five decades. The environment has suffered as a result. And, perhaps, so have people. Each of us in our Monticello with our car parked out front have forgotten about the good of the “collective brain.” Many good people trapped in the thinking of the last five decades will be outraged about the infringement on their American dream coming in the form of the cottages. Their outrage is understandable but still worthy of disapprobation.

The cottage concept is a good one. Nobody’s going to get hurt. Maybe some parking spots will get filled with strange cars. Maybe there will be some noise. In the end we will welcome some new people into Seattle, some single family homeowners might make some extra money from collecting rent and we’ll all find the world didn’t end because of the cottages. On the contrary our lives will be improved, our sense of community enhanced and we’ll have the advantages of more people to watch our streets, spend money in our local businesses and stand up for our neighborhoods.

Am I discursive? Yes. Is this a rant. True. I think so. Nevertheless,

WE can do better than get all hot and bothered about 50 freakin’ DADUs. Resistance to the DADUs is born of fear and fear is not American at all. Or maybe it is.