Outgoing Councilmember Tom Rasmussen unveiled his concept called Neighborhood Conservation Districts, borrowed from other cities around the country and designed to preserve the difficult define concept of “neighborhood character.” Rasmussen justified doing this on his own (Rasmussen is chair of the transportation committee) by saying Councilmembers should be concerned about all issues affecting the city, even if it isn’t their area of responsibility on Council. Rasmussen did the same thing with microhousing two years ago, end-running land use chair at the time Richard Conlin, and more recently with Councilmember O’Brien on single family infill.

Oddly, though, Rasmussen told the 20 or so people as he introduced former Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck, “don’t blame me, this is Peter’s idea.” One wonders how much influence the former Councilmember has had over the proposal and Lund Consulting, a firm hired and paid for out of the Council’s discretionary consultant budget to staff the effort.

The problems with the idea of Neighborhood Conservation Districts are obvious to anyone who is familiar with the existing political environment in Seattle and how difficult and costly it already is to get a building permit. Seattle already has an expensive design review process that adds cost to housing. And design review is a process frequently devoted to explaining to neighbors that they can’t change underlying zoning. Who pays for all the process? Builders, who in turn have to pass that cost on to buyers and renters, which increases housing prices.

The consultant explained that a Neighborhood Conservation District would be defined by neighborhoods themselves, in particular the majority of property owners. An example? A neighborhood of post war bungalows would be protected from infill development that was too “modern in design and materials.” The approval process in a designated district would be governed by a board of neighbors that would preside over “changes to buildings.” Yes, that’s right, not just new construction but things like changes to doors, windows, rooflines, and even landscaping.

Councilmember Rasmussen actually has set aside money in this year’s budget to provide City staff for the boards should he get the proposal passed by the full Council, something he says he wants done and implemented by September this year.

What the proposal smacks of is government sanctioned Home Owner Associations (HOA), the bane of many a home or condominium owner because of HOA’s fussy and fastidious rules about everything from fixtures inside houses to how many Christmas lights are allowed. All this is sure to add to the costs not just of building new housing but to maintaining existing housing costs which, again, will get passed on to renters.

The consultant pointed out that the proposal was a way of protecting neighborhoods that are not historic or landmarked, but have “such a continuity that there is a story to tell here” and have buildings that are in “excellent condition, without any architectural changes.” Clearly the idea of the Neighborhood Conservation Districts is to do what you do when you “conserve” something by putting in a jar of formaldehyde: keeping it the same way forever.

And neighborhood comments and concerns from attendees made it pretty clear that they didn’t think the proposal went far enough. How to does this help deal with the fact that “single-family is disappearing and being replaced by high rises?” And more than one neighbor wondered, including former Councilmember Steinbrueck, what happens to single-family homes that are of “significance” that are in low-rise zones? How does the proposal preserve large houses in multifamily areas?

Not only that, a couple neighbors asked what about the “intangible elements” of character that are not captured by architectural standards. How, the neighbors wondered, can we preserve and control those? In the end the Rasmussen proposal is exactly pointing the wrong direction, attempting to stoke neighborhood desires to keep things the same when change is what Seattle needs to accommodate coming growth sustainably and affordably. Hopefully the proposal goes nowhere and disappears with Councilmember Rasmussen when finishes his term at the end of this year.