The city currently has a 3% ratio out of every 100 units of affordable housing rents. This number is too low and affordable needs defining not according to the other 97% who are way above but to the poverty line which at the top of the poverty line with a subsidy like Section 8 people can still not afford the rents. And these developers are not required to put in enough parking places underground to keep our streets available to park on. In Cap hill you have to move your car every 2 hours. How do you do that from a job you bus to? It does not make sense. And city doesn't give everyone a parking permit. Landlords balk at taking government subsidies yet they like to profit from high rents. If landlord families could afford to keep their properties in Seattle then the family would keep it small business but look what happened to Alki. Look at an old picture with all the small beach houses and look now. That's what greed looks like from a developer standpoint. And it's happening all over this city. And then there's an Amazon metal art blob of wire looking like a catapillar downtown. Could that not have had a corporate building built there above it for Amazon themselves and the other block they own for affordable housing. Seattle city Mayor and Seattle city and King County council are rolling over and not representing its citizens fairly. We as a city can stop issuing these permits to these developer companies from California and elsewhere that's destroying the city as its citizens know it. And if you think this is going to get better in next 4 years you are foolish. Look at Van BC, NY, Cleveland . Hell, we can't even learn from Boston about a tunnel no one voted for. Council approved this because of real estate development lining pockets to gain property views if viaduct crushed. Desperate rich people in west Seattle cutting trees and ensuing landslide possibility. Seattle is nuts and we need to be the bolts to lock it down.
D
Dwight Brisbois
9 years ago
No to HALA up zones in Seattle.
A
Amanda Goodwin
9 years ago
Our landlord transformed his house into a duplex in order to rent out the downstairs. This means that two families live in our small house, and that increases density without a lot of expense and waste. This upzones idea is a very expensive and wasteful way to increase density, and I am sick of it as well.
H
Hannah Olufs
9 years ago
We do not need HALA upzones for affordability. please oppose if you still want my vote.
C
Cindy Jordon
9 years ago
Seattle, especially under mayor Murray has been turned into a constuction zone that supports development that middle and pooer classes cannot afford and rich people do not want to live in. I saw this happen in Cleveland, it turned that city from a bustling metropolis to a ghost town with most of the skyscrapers EMPTY! If we continue on this profit path for mayor Murray's personsl pocketbook, the same will happen here---a dangerous ghost town city. Property values have already started their dissent and will plunge if this is not stopped immediately, many 20 and 30 year old bussiness have already left or folded.
K
Karen Wittenberg
9 years ago
This is not the answer. They are ruining our family-oriented neighborhoods with overflow parking and hi-rise blight. It's developer-driven and contrary to the wishes of residents.
S
Shannon Layden
9 years ago
I am opposed to the zoning changes, which clearly benefit developers and not long standing residents.
H
Hildegard Nichols
9 years ago
All you need to do is look at Seattle with Google Earth - the city center resembles a moonscape, there's nothing green left! It hurts me to think that "The Emerald City" has gone so far off target. Where has the ambition gone to achieve a 40% tree canopy, as was discussed under mayor McGinn? The city needs a better tree ordinance, one that resembles for example Fairfield in California. It is possible to have smart growth, to find solutions that meet both affordability and livability standards. Let's work on that and stop chopping down our last trees!
M
Midge Batt
9 years ago
Amen! Too many neighborhoods have already been negatively changed. HALA and the thinking behind it will destroy Seattle in the long run.
S
Sonja Richter
9 years ago
Seattle is not Seattle any more! Stop all the up zones until better plans can be made to stop making this an ugly, silly city for the rich!
P
Peggy Hanson
9 years ago
this upzoning is about developers' profits, not affordable housing. It will wreck our neighborhood which IS affordable, please stop now.
W
Walter Mason
9 years ago
There are good options with proven results to help address the issues that HALA purports to. Instead we're given a plan with huge neighborhood impacts, that will exacerbate the loss of affordable housing and that's based on unsupported targets with no foundational data. Action is great, but this isn't the right direction.
L
Lorie Lucky
9 years ago
Our infrastructure really doesn't allow for more people, and I really oppose more non-owner occupied housing. But mostly we don't have the roads or bridges for the traffic that will result from the HALA plans.
F
Faye M Garneau
9 years ago
keep tall bldgs. isolated to downtown areas- neigborhoods are for family living for citizens who choose to have families and who choose to live close to neigborhood schools, shopping areas etc .
L
Loretta Sutherland
9 years ago
The "HA Ha" program is nothing more than a give away to the developers. That is why there are so many of them on the city planning committee.
getting rid of the community councils just opens up more of this. The community councils are the WATCH DOGS of the neighborhoods.
R
Ruth Quinet
9 years ago
I'm pledging to vote against Murray irregardless of his vote on HALA, and I'll definitely vote against any Council candidate who approves HALA up-zones.
J
Jason Cope
9 years ago
HALA IS NOT for affordable housing (Only 7% need to be "affordable"? Absolute joke).
HALA IS NOT for livable neighborhoods (no link to transportation, educational infrastructure, trees, etc., etc.).
HALA IS NOT for diversity (will developers allow 7% affordable housing in the most expensive neighbors, or pay into the pot to build them elsewhere and max profits in those high profit neighborhoods?)
HALA IS for developer to make money.
HALA IS for neighborhoods to be completely restructured (does anyone think Ballard is the icon of future Seattle, or a lost battle?) into developer cash grabs.
HALA IS for poor quality structures and shortsightedness. Are those who need affordable housing going to want to be on the hook for units that break down in <10 years?
HALA IS for turnover, the antithesis of community.
I do support affordable housing, higher density, and expanded services to our most needy, which is why I do not support the Mayor and City Council's version/vision of HALA. Developers shouldn't hold the power to our housing future.
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
Increasing density makes sense along Aurora Avenue where along the bus route, but not in the heart of downtown neighborhoods. Also, parking should be required for all new building. We already have people parking on our street from condos and apartments several blocks away who do not have parking.
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
Dear City of Seattle, please stop foresaking the the city in the name of growth. Make responsible choices. One only needs to look at the Eastlake neighborhood to see the devestating impact of irresponsible development. These neighborhoods are the lifeblood of the city, and you know that density does not equal affordability in the long run. You are being short sighted with the very thing that makes Seattle attractive-character, history, and a sense of place.
B
Bill Traub
9 years ago
Leave our historical residential neighborhoods alone! Families bought here to have R1 neighborhoods not multistory monster apartments next door.
The city currently has a 3% ratio out of every 100 units of affordable housing rents. This number is too low and affordable needs defining not according to the other 97% who are way above but to the poverty line which at the top of the poverty line with a subsidy like Section 8 people can still not afford the rents. And these developers are not required to put in enough parking places underground to keep our streets available to park on. In Cap hill you have to move your car every 2 hours. How do you do that from a job you bus to? It does not make sense. And city doesn't give everyone a parking permit. Landlords balk at taking government subsidies yet they like to profit from high rents. If landlord families could afford to keep their properties in Seattle then the family would keep it small business but look what happened to Alki. Look at an old picture with all the small beach houses and look now. That's what greed looks like from a developer standpoint. And it's happening all over this city. And then there's an Amazon metal art blob of wire looking like a catapillar downtown. Could that not have had a corporate building built there above it for Amazon themselves and the other block they own for affordable housing. Seattle city Mayor and Seattle city and King County council are rolling over and not representing its citizens fairly. We as a city can stop issuing these permits to these developer companies from California and elsewhere that's destroying the city as its citizens know it. And if you think this is going to get better in next 4 years you are foolish. Look at Van BC, NY, Cleveland . Hell, we can't even learn from Boston about a tunnel no one voted for. Council approved this because of real estate development lining pockets to gain property views if viaduct crushed. Desperate rich people in west Seattle cutting trees and ensuing landslide possibility. Seattle is nuts and we need to be the bolts to lock it down.
No to HALA up zones in Seattle.
Our landlord transformed his house into a duplex in order to rent out the downstairs. This means that two families live in our small house, and that increases density without a lot of expense and waste. This upzones idea is a very expensive and wasteful way to increase density, and I am sick of it as well.
We do not need HALA upzones for affordability. please oppose if you still want my vote.
Seattle, especially under mayor Murray has been turned into a constuction zone that supports development that middle and pooer classes cannot afford and rich people do not want to live in. I saw this happen in Cleveland, it turned that city from a bustling metropolis to a ghost town with most of the skyscrapers EMPTY! If we continue on this profit path for mayor Murray's personsl pocketbook, the same will happen here---a dangerous ghost town city. Property values have already started their dissent and will plunge if this is not stopped immediately, many 20 and 30 year old bussiness have already left or folded.
This is not the answer. They are ruining our family-oriented neighborhoods with overflow parking and hi-rise blight. It's developer-driven and contrary to the wishes of residents.
I am opposed to the zoning changes, which clearly benefit developers and not long standing residents.
All you need to do is look at Seattle with Google Earth - the city center resembles a moonscape, there's nothing green left! It hurts me to think that "The Emerald City" has gone so far off target. Where has the ambition gone to achieve a 40% tree canopy, as was discussed under mayor McGinn? The city needs a better tree ordinance, one that resembles for example Fairfield in California. It is possible to have smart growth, to find solutions that meet both affordability and livability standards. Let's work on that and stop chopping down our last trees!
Amen! Too many neighborhoods have already been negatively changed. HALA and the thinking behind it will destroy Seattle in the long run.
Seattle is not Seattle any more! Stop all the up zones until better plans can be made to stop making this an ugly, silly city for the rich!
this upzoning is about developers' profits, not affordable housing. It will wreck our neighborhood which IS affordable, please stop now.
There are good options with proven results to help address the issues that HALA purports to. Instead we're given a plan with huge neighborhood impacts, that will exacerbate the loss of affordable housing and that's based on unsupported targets with no foundational data. Action is great, but this isn't the right direction.
Our infrastructure really doesn't allow for more people, and I really oppose more non-owner occupied housing. But mostly we don't have the roads or bridges for the traffic that will result from the HALA plans.
keep tall bldgs. isolated to downtown areas- neigborhoods are for family living for citizens who choose to have families and who choose to live close to neigborhood schools, shopping areas etc .
The "HA Ha" program is nothing more than a give away to the developers. That is why there are so many of them on the city planning committee. getting rid of the community councils just opens up more of this. The community councils are the WATCH DOGS of the neighborhoods.
I'm pledging to vote against Murray irregardless of his vote on HALA, and I'll definitely vote against any Council candidate who approves HALA up-zones.
HALA IS NOT for affordable housing (Only 7% need to be "affordable"? Absolute joke). HALA IS NOT for livable neighborhoods (no link to transportation, educational infrastructure, trees, etc., etc.). HALA IS NOT for diversity (will developers allow 7% affordable housing in the most expensive neighbors, or pay into the pot to build them elsewhere and max profits in those high profit neighborhoods?) HALA IS for developer to make money. HALA IS for neighborhoods to be completely restructured (does anyone think Ballard is the icon of future Seattle, or a lost battle?) into developer cash grabs. HALA IS for poor quality structures and shortsightedness. Are those who need affordable housing going to want to be on the hook for units that break down in <10 years? HALA IS for turnover, the antithesis of community. I do support affordable housing, higher density, and expanded services to our most needy, which is why I do not support the Mayor and City Council's version/vision of HALA. Developers shouldn't hold the power to our housing future.
Increasing density makes sense along Aurora Avenue where along the bus route, but not in the heart of downtown neighborhoods. Also, parking should be required for all new building. We already have people parking on our street from condos and apartments several blocks away who do not have parking.
Dear City of Seattle, please stop foresaking the the city in the name of growth. Make responsible choices. One only needs to look at the Eastlake neighborhood to see the devestating impact of irresponsible development. These neighborhoods are the lifeblood of the city, and you know that density does not equal affordability in the long run. You are being short sighted with the very thing that makes Seattle attractive-character, history, and a sense of place.
Leave our historical residential neighborhoods alone! Families bought here to have R1 neighborhoods not multistory monster apartments next door.