Councilmember Sally Bagshaw last week sent a letter to Mayor Murray asking him to direct the Department of Planning and Development to undertake a tower spacing scheme for downtown similar to the program implemented in South Lake Union. What tower spacing does is mandate allowing only one residential tower per block. This is a recipe for reduced housing options downtown by limiting the potential of housing throughout downtown. Suddenly buildable property that could have been housing ends up staying a parking lot. This means reduced housing options for people with more money to spend for housing, money they’ll spend competing against people with less money for scarce housing.

Here’s a key paragraph from the letter.

Downtown has since experienced greater than anticipated growth in residential uses in both DOC1 and DOC2 zoned areas. This pattern of increased residential use in our urban core merits further study by planners to determine how to support growth while simultaneously preserving livability for workers and residents.

Livability here really is code for views, especially views from the million dollar condos at the Escala (one is being offered now for $1.8 million). This whole letter writing excercise has me worried because it reminds me too much of a similar letter written by Councilmember Sally Clark at the end of 2013 to “fix” problems in the low-rise zones. That letter sparked one of the most disastrous episodes in Seattle land use memory: the DPD’s proposed “fixes” to the low-rise zones which didn’t fix anything unless you were an angry neighbor upset about seeing “too many buildings and not enough sky!”

For her part, Councilmember Bagshaw has been resentful of my challenges to her efforts here on behalf of her well heeled constituents in an election year.

Your tone is becoming significantly more strident and less helpful. Your assumptions are just that.  Assumptions. I am happy to work directly with Matt and Peter, and by this email will encourage them to continue this conversation with me to address the concerns raised by downtown residents and builders.

By assumptions, Councilmember Bagshaw is referring to my pointing out that it really isn’t fair that some rich neighbors worried about views and being able to see the sky is the basis for those people to get special treatment from Council and DPD staff, especially when we’re going to lose housing supply because of it. And she’s talking about Matt Roewe a brilliant architect who has been a long time champion of density and Peter Steinbrueck former City Councilmember and land use chair. Here’s what sparked her response. I wrote:

But we don’t need this now. And regardless of your motivations, there is no doubt that this is being pushed largely by residents of those buildings that will lose views. Peter Steinbrueck was employed by the Mirabella for the same reasons. Peter, have you been hired by any of these resident groups? That’s not bad, just asking.

The HALA proposals are still settling in as is the Grand Bargain. It makes no sense to me to begin traveling down this road now. Please let the HALA process move and let this follow.

Furthermore, I place less value in the views, light, and air of existing residents than I do in the many people who want to live here. We’re in a housing crisis remember? Why would we privilege some comparatively trivial things to housing?

Strident? I’ll let you and the dictionary be the judge of that. And is former Councilmember Steinbrueck, the “expert” that Councilmember Bagshaw is relying upon to propose tower spacing in the employ of wealthy Escala residents? Yes, he is.

 

Yes I represent a growing collation of downtown residents who love highrise living and  the urban environment, but are unhappy with the seriously flawed development standards that allow overcrowding in parts of downtown.

 

And who lead the Council process to develop those development standards that Steinbrueck now characterizes as “flawed?” I hope this doesn’t sound strident but, well, it was Peter Steinbrueck. Yeah, that’s right. Do a tour on the Seattle City Council, goof up the code, then come back as a hired consultant for a sitting Councilmember pandering to wealthy, entitled neighbors to “fix” your mistakes. I can’t wait for Councilmember Clark to come back as a consultant to “fix” what she started in the low-rise zones.

Oh and is having fundraisers in the Escala, hiring a former Councilmember as an “expert” in the employ of Escala kosher with Wayne Barnett at Seattle Ethics and Elections? Sure!

Yes, Roger, it is. The ethics code expressly excludes campaign contributions from the section covering gifts.

This is the Seattle City Council that is supposed to preside over solving the housing “crisis” and implement the Grand Bargain with rezones all over the city. I think you’ll see why I might sound, well, a little strident.