No more ‘single-family’ zoning? Name change proposed by West Seattle-residing Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda

We reported briefly via Twitter this morning that citywide Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, a North Delridge resident, is proposing what could be seen as a step toward getting rid of single-family zoning, which she has long opposed – changing its name. From the news release we just received:

Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda (Position 8, Citywide) announced legislation today that will change the name of single-family only zones, a recognition that the term “single family” as used in Seattle’s zoning code is a misnomer, inaccurately describes current uses, and has roots in exclusionary practices.

The legislation, co-sponsored by Councilmember Dan Strauss (District 6, Northwest Seattle), is in response to the Seattle Planning Commission’s repeated request since 2018 to change the name of single-family only to “Neighborhood Residential,” as laid out in their Neighborhoods for All report. The Planning Commission has reiterated this call in their recommendations for 2019/2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments and in their recommendations for analysis for the 2020/2021 Comprehensive Plan update.

“Seattle’s neighborhoods have always been more diverse than the single family only designation would have us believe—from some of the longest-standing and beloved neighborhood businesses, to brownstone apartment buildings built before tightening zoning restrictions, connected housing with shared courtyards, that all allow for residents to live near schools, parks, and services our communities rely on. Changing the zoning title can help reflect the diverse housing we need across our city to support community well-being, walkability and affordability in Seattle, and create a more equitable and inclusive Seattle to accurately reflect our diverse neighborhoods,” said Mosqueda.

“Language matters. ‘Single family’ zoning may seem to some as merely a planning term, but we know historically it has been used to further exclusionary practices and discriminatory policies of the past. If Seattle is going to be an equitable and just city, then we must also apply that same lens to our zoning code. After years of discussion, we are acting on what we know is right to undo the legacy of exclusion that exists within our planning documents — starting with how we talk about our neighborhoods,” Mosqueda concluded. …

The City Council requested this zoning name change be studied by the Executive every year since 2018 in the Comprehensive Plan Annual Docketing Resolution. This proposal would finally implement that recommendation by first amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan to make the change, and then follow with changes to the land use code.

This change will touch many elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including: (1) the Future Land Use Map; (2) the Land Use, Housing, and Parks and Open Space elements; (3) seventeen neighborhood plans; and (4) the Housing appendix.

These proposed changes can be seen on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee website at: The City Council’s Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will hold a public hearing to receive input on the preliminary proposal on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:30 AM. Councilmember Mosqueda intends to formally introduce legislation in August as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan update.

See the proposed legislation here. The announcement also notes this would change official neighborhood plans around the city, including, in West Seattle, those for Admiral, Morgan Junction, West Seattle Junction, and Westwood Highland Park.

While this is a proposal to change the zoning type’s name, not the zoning itself yet, it’s been a hot topic in this year’s mayoral and council races, with most candidates voicing support so far for ending “exclusionary zoning.” Mosqueda said during this morning’s council briefing meeting that potential future zoning changes could come in 2023 and 2024.

76 Replies to "No more 'single-family' zoning? Name change proposed by West Seattle-residing Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda"

  • David Boneham June 28, 2021 (1:23 pm)

    This makes sense. My own situation is that I have a 100% military disabled veteran living with  my wife and I. That vet and his wife are part of our household for the past five years. They are related to us and that makes our household “multi family” not “single family.  Neighborhood residential is simply a more accurate name for what already happening around West Seattle and elsewhere.

  • jack June 28, 2021 (1:26 pm)

    Well, that will fix everything…..right?

    • Rick_WS June 29, 2021 (9:03 am)

      it sure will jack – language, bad or good,  fixes everything!

  • Joe Z June 28, 2021 (1:29 pm)

    Before anyone gets up in arms about this, I live on a block that was upzoned to “residential small lot” in 2019 which means 2-3 units are allowed in a lot. Nothing has really changed from this except a few people have added detached ADUs (which was part of a different piece of legislation). There hasn’t been any negative impact. The city desperately needs to change all single family zones to the RSL designation. 

  • Victoria June 28, 2021 (1:41 pm)

    The idea that single family zoning is discriminating while condo’s and apartment building are not is not correct.  Redlining neighborhoods were never based on the single family designation but on desirable neighborhoods.  This proposal completely ignores the vital roles these SF lots plan in preserving our tree canopy, bird/insect habitat, and management of our storm water  run off.   And on today when temperatures are over 100+, it is critical Seattle starts a serious effort to protect these vital green spaces.  On average, over four billion gallons of storm water are processed to SF lots annually.  The proposal that Seattle simply cement over the city to provide housing would turn this into an unlivable place.  In addition, before any consideration of her proposal goes forward, a study needs to be done about how SF housing is actually providing housing for multiple generations in a single home.  

    • JVP June 28, 2021 (5:31 pm)

      I have a completely different take. I believe the existing single family zoning creates urban sprawl. 

      Rather than 1 new megahome on a redeveloped lot, how about 2-3 modest homes, cottages, etc. It really depends on how the council  writes the code- and I’m admittedly not optimistic that this bunch has the real world experience or pragmatic point of view to do a decent job. 

    • JohnW June 28, 2021 (5:41 pm)

      Sorry Victoria but the history of Seattle redlining is available to see in public records.  
      Redlining was established to prevent certain peoples from enjoying the Post WWII American Dream of a single family home.
      It was deplorable, and the use of “desirable neighborhoods” is in denial of the racial and ethnic prohibitions we once allowed.
      And to be accurate, the other issues are ‘red herrings’ with the favorite false claim of tree canopy.  
      All current canopy studies show no significant changes in Seattle’s tree coverage. 
      The charge about ‘storm run-off’ is a whopper as only homeowners without knowledge would attempt such a falsehood.
      It is the existing single family housing stock that was allowed to dump their storm drains into the sanitary sewer.  
      I see the irony of the fact  that the old stock of Single Family homes is the cause of our sewage overflows (this was  after the SFRs stopped dumping their sewer directly into Puget Sound!). 
      The lauded SFR homes of yore were not all bird sanctuaries, rather West Seattle was famous as a “suburb” of Seattle where expansive lots covered with perfect green lawns all fertilized and pesticided to the permanent detriment of streams,  wildlife and Puget Sound.

      DADU’s also require protecting existing trees when possible and restoration with appropriate trees when removal is unavoidable.  
      DADU’s limit the hard surfaces of the yard, unlike the SFRs.  
      They are required to utilize storm retention and ‘rain gardens’ that few SFRs now do.
      They are Seattle’s responsible future.

      • Kevin July 6, 2021 (8:40 pm)

        JohnW, you certainly aren’t a recognizable, constant comment poster that I’ve seen on WSB. Yet, here you are posting on this thread like it’s your job. I suspect a special interest group is providing you some money and talking points. 

  • Kram June 28, 2021 (2:22 pm)

    I’m much more interested in the actual zoning designations than the name. My guess is the time for protecting over 165,000 single family (sorry, neighborhood residential) homes is coming to an end.

  • WS Resident June 28, 2021 (2:28 pm)

    Wow, Now I see the benefit of our $120,000+ Council members salaries.  After “years of study” and annual reviews they might change the single family residential name that is used throughout the country to “neighborhood residential”. How much will that cost to change out the language in every zoning document and map etc?  And when it’s all done, drop the “neighborhood”  out of the name because everywhere is a neighborhood and just call it “residential” instead.  That way nobody will know if it’s a high rise area or allowing a tent city because homeless people are residents as well.  And I am not sure how a “single family residential” designation is discriminatory. Perhaps it’s because ordinary taxpaying homeowners  don’t want to have 6 different families with 10 cars living in the small house next door because that will hurt neighborhood property values and quality of life?The City Council should continue their annual reviews and studies until 2050 on this groundbreaking piece of legislation.  This will give them something to do instead of dealing with the hundreds of real priorities and problems that our city faces.

    • Jon Wright June 28, 2021 (3:04 pm)

      This post complains about “allowing a tent city” and the undesirability of “6 different families with ten cars living in the small house next door.” It does not come across as being particularly compassionate. For folks that are on the margins, sharing a place with other families might be their only opportunity to be housed. Seattle is a big city now and this notion of the sanctity of single-family neighborhoods is horribly outdated. The reason the Council is stuck taking tiny measures like this is because so many homeowners have a conniption fit if you even make the slightest hint that you want to increase density in “their” neighborhood. Even though this is largely a symbolic gesture, if it gets us the slightest bit closer towards creating more housing in Seattle, I think it is a good thing.

      • The Self June 28, 2021 (7:18 pm)

        It’s good you think it’s a good thing. Others disagree. And that’s just fine. I for one would like the freedom to buy property based on what’s important to me. As opposed to you making up the rules for me after I purchased the property and paying the taxes to fund your priorities rather than mine. Make sense?

    • Derek June 28, 2021 (4:23 pm)

      Shame on this post. And rude to the houseless community. 

    • Rick_WS June 29, 2021 (9:16 am)

      Derek, Post that IF and ONLY IF you have have lived through a family member’s addiction and demise.  Otherwise, you lack perspective.  Homelessness is complex,  but the individuals experiencing it must want to fix their situation before any entity can help them.  It may take  hospitalization, or rehab, or re-training but it isn’t in anyone’s interest to just let them go on living without a home.  So, what do we do?   you seem to be good at criticizing.  Provide some better answers or DEMAND them from our politicians.  In my estimation the current slate of City council people, not a one has a clue

  • Mel June 28, 2021 (2:36 pm)

    Imagine if they put this much effort into things/problems really impacting our city….

    • WS RESIDENT June 28, 2021 (4:13 pm)

      Oh, if only… one can only imagine actually having a competent city council that priorities things actually impacting our city… 

    • WS2021 June 28, 2021 (4:32 pm)

      Because housing issues are definitely not something impacting Seattle right now, huh?

      • Bronson June 29, 2021 (6:49 am)

        Zoning nomenclature is not a housing issue. 

  • WS Resident June 28, 2021 (2:42 pm)

    PS – drop the “residential” designation as well.  Calling it residential is hurtful because it is certain to exclude somebody somewhere. After all, this is Seattle.  Let’s just change the zoning to “Do Whatever You Want” because apparently words matter to the Council but the consequences of their actions don’t….

  • Quiz June 28, 2021 (2:51 pm)

    Oh, good grief.

  • MacJ June 28, 2021 (2:53 pm)

    They should just do the thing. Changing the name is a waste of time, and we need to drive the cost of housing down now, not later.

  • anonyme June 28, 2021 (3:42 pm)

    At least now we know what Ms. Mosqueda and the City Council have been doing since 2018.  NOTHING.  The evidence is everywhere.  Garbage in, garbage out.

    • Derek June 28, 2021 (4:25 pm)

      I have enjoyed this council a lot more than past city councils. I think KOMO has done a good job making boomers think every minor inconvenience in the city is the fault of CC. Good grief already.

      • Mel June 28, 2021 (7:11 pm)

        Millennial here. I don’t watch Komo and I think our city council is incompetent.

        • Rick_WS June 29, 2021 (9:18 am)

          Thank you Mel!– aging boomer

      • Marcus June 28, 2021 (8:21 pm)

        Derek, I’m a millennial, have never watched Komo in my life, and agree with Anonyme 100%. Our city has much bigger problems to solve; quibbling over terminology gets us exactly nowhere.

    • Rick_WS June 29, 2021 (9:19 am)

      Thank you and AMEN!

  • Kram June 28, 2021 (3:55 pm)

    Victoria; Seattle has incredibly strict storm water rules. So strict that some apartment projects don’t move forward because of the high cost. Water retention, permeable surfaces, none-potable onsite storage, storm storage and water mitigation plans that are down to the square inch. I assure you that the city by no means wants to ‘cement over the city’. You are required to have a certain amount of permeable surfaces and landscaping. It’s a large part (and expense) of apartment projects and even affects their design.

    • dhg June 28, 2021 (5:54 pm)

      No no no, the amount of “permeable” surfaces is a tiny fraction of the amount within a single family residence.  Units comprised of 30 condos will have a bare strip of 3 feet around one edge of a building.  A single tiny tree in a pot is not a replacement for a yard.

      • JohnW June 28, 2021 (8:24 pm)

        Comparing one SFR land usage to 30 condos as a solution to climate change?  
        I am glad we are finally realizing that it was the historical SFR’s that got us here to this place.  
        The need for change has never been more pressing.

      • Kram June 28, 2021 (8:24 pm)

        Please read before posting. You couldn’t be more wrong. Read some Seattle storm water code for fun. Source: I’m in construction, you obviously are not.

  • My two scents … June 28, 2021 (4:07 pm)

    I can see it now – Mosqueda and the rest of the Council will also take this naming convention change ( in addition to setting up zoning revisions) and proclaim how much they are doing to fight for the community in spite of opposition from big business and self-interests.

  • Rcl June 28, 2021 (4:28 pm)

    All I wanna do is make pizza for my neighborhood legally 

    • ! June 30, 2021 (7:51 pm)

      : )

  • Azimuth June 28, 2021 (4:50 pm)

    Single family 5000 is meaningless anyway. A developer is building 3 housing units on a lot next to my house. Can’t wait.

  • Flivver June 28, 2021 (4:51 pm)

    Jon Wright.  Let’s say this passes and developer say’s they’ll be building 250  low cost apartments next door to where you live. Tell us why you’d be happy with that. My bet is that you and all the other “compassionate people” will be singing a different tune if YOU are impacted with the influx of people and cars. And yes, in the REAL world a MAJORITY of people will have cars and will be visited by friends and family that will arrive by car.

    • Reed June 28, 2021 (6:13 pm)

      Don’t get angry at the city and developers, get mad at your neighbors for selling out.

      • r June 29, 2021 (9:21 am)

        Take your cash and run from the insanity!

    • JohnW June 28, 2021 (6:21 pm)

      Flivver is in denial of the future and the inevitable change that we are tardy in addressing.    Has Flivver noticed any positive  change in automobile capacity the last 20 years?In 20 years, does Flivver believe we will still be increasing our individual car ownership?  West Seattle’s reigning champ of car ‘s is Arroyo Heights/Endolyne neighborhood with an impressive “922 cars for every 1,00 residents.”  I am excited that Seattle residents have started reducing the number of cars.  Studies showing the car ownership rate has “dropped dramatically’ the last few years and the trend continues. The provocative statement that, “they’ll be building 250  low cost apartments next door to where you live,” is so highly unlikely that I fear it is little more than a “dog whistle.” 

  • East Coast Cynic June 28, 2021 (4:59 pm)

    What’s good for West Seattle is good for North Seattle neighborhoods as well:  I look forward to neighborhoods such as Wedgewood, Laurelhurst, Hawthorne Hills and Maple Leaf subject to the same neighborhood plans.  The political class around here always has the guts to subject south/sw/se neighborhoods to upzoning, homeless housing, low income housing, drug treatment centers, etc, but leave most of the north seattle neighborhoods untouched.  Hopefully, the politics are changing and all neighborhoods get their “fair share”.

    • WSB June 28, 2021 (5:11 pm)

      If you look at the linked page, you’ll see the other neighborhood plans listed. I only mentioned WS because that’s what we cover.

      • East Coast Cynic June 28, 2021 (6:10 pm)

        Thank you, however, none of the North Seattle neighborhoods I mentioned are among the neighborhood plans to be amended!  Too many donors to the council in those neighborhoods?

  • StopCuttingDownTrees June 28, 2021 (5:06 pm)

    The tens of thousands of wealthy homeowners in Laurelhurst, Magnolia, Windermere, Admiral, Beach Drive, Lincoln Park, Seward Park, Madrona, Leschi, Ravenna, Madison Park, etc, will put an end to this NONSENSE.

    • KM June 28, 2021 (5:26 pm)

      Instead, we’ll just cut down trees (and build more roads) in the suburbs. But hey, literally not in my back yard, right?

      • StopCuttingDownTrees June 28, 2021 (7:01 pm)

        The amount of trees that would be cut down to make room for beehive-density would turn West Seattle and all the other leafy Seattle single-family neighborhoods into a  Southcenter-like concrete jungle. On top of that, many Seattle residents will flee to new suburbs a short drive away. Density causes heat domes and decreased quality of life for areas affected by heat domes miles away. 

        • KM June 28, 2021 (9:43 pm)


  • Seek_Peace June 28, 2021 (6:11 pm)

    Cities are for density.  Hence the word “City” is used to describe that gathering of people to live in one area.The challenge many cities face is the look and feel of the the density. 

  • Mike June 28, 2021 (6:14 pm)

    So my property value is going up? Sweeeeet!

  • Irene Wall June 28, 2021 (6:53 pm)

    Yes, your property values might go up, but so will  your property taxes. Meanwhile nearly every park in West Seattle  (and throughout the city) is zoned SF (“Single Family”) so Mosqueda’s “innocent” little word game turns parks into “residential zones” but for whom?  Her approach is deceptive and simplistic. Changing the use and development standards in ALL SF zones – for which  this CP amendment is but a staking horse -should not be made until citizens see the environmental evaluation of such sweeping changes. If this has been in the works since 2018, where is the analysis to support it beyond the so-called exclusionary zoning red herring?  Meanwhile developers still gobble up existing affordable housing and produce overpriced townhomes apace. If we really want to be a city with a population well over 1 million, we better demand a more detailed Comprehensive Plan (not just bland policy statements)  and face the truth of what that will entail. 

    • JohnW June 28, 2021 (9:35 pm)

      “Unlocking single-family zoning in Seattle could kill the Golden Goose that makes Seattle attractive to natives and newcomers alike.”  

      Such was Irene Wall, the long time Phinney Ridge anti-urbanist’s prediction in a 2008 opinion piece for The Daily Journal of Commerce.  
      Nearly a decade later, we still have our Golden Goose and she still warns us our sky is 

  • dhg June 28, 2021 (7:14 pm)

    The fact that single family is exclusionary is, by itself, not a bad thing.  The reason the city created zones was to create exclusions.  Industrial is exclusive, multi-unit is exclusive. Without exclusions we have Texas (where residences live right next to gas cracking plants that explode on occasion).  The more relevant issue is what are we going to do with our zones?  Single family dwelling produces beautiful neighborhoods for a limited number of people. It provides a massive greenspace for wildlife.  The greenspace contributes to the eco system.  I don’t want to see it changed and I don’t want the City wasting time on changing denotation.    

    • JohnW June 29, 2021 (7:20 am)

      Redlining  or “exclusions by race” is the subject at hand.  
      Revisionist historians be challenged!  
      Single family dwellings do not create “massive green space for wildlife,” unless that wildlife is chiefly voles and moles.  
      Too many Seattle SFRs are surrounded by lawns and remain tree-less.
      And that green space is primarily  the non-native and environmentally disastrous  turf lawns Seattle SFRs are (in)famous for.

  • TJ June 28, 2021 (7:23 pm)

    “Sprawl” is how we are building more houses with yards. The “American dream” of home ownership is still alive for most people in this country. Always has, always will. It is a strange view some have looking at these comments that dense city life should be for everyone. Well don’t push your values on others who want to own property. Live your life how you want, others will live theirs. That is what this country is about. And btw, if you want cheaper housing then trying to cram it in Seattle isn’t going to create it.

  • Auntie June 28, 2021 (10:27 pm)

    Developers crammed two very narrow townhomes onto just barely legal lots with no yards in the middle of a greenbelt area and sold them for almost $1 million each. Yes, that’s the way they create affordable housing for more people. Not.

    • JohnW June 29, 2021 (7:36 am)

      Auntie please share the location. of these townhomes if you expect anyone to believe you.  
      The descriptions – “middle of a greenbelt,” and “no yards” indicate outright fabrication by Auntie,  while Auntie’s “two very narrow townhomes” comment is confusing in bias and definition.  
      Could it be just two motor homes that are squatting? 

      The addition to the housing stock does undeniably lead to additional housing and addresses the housing shortage.  
      Why such opposition to others getting a home like the ones that we have? 

      • Auntie June 29, 2021 (9:51 am)

        These homes are in the Longfellow Creek watershed area on a dead end road. There is about ten feet between the homes (or whatever the minimum allowable is, I haven’t measured) and about the same behind the homes where there is just a retaining wall holding the hillside back. Like I said – no yards. The point I was trying to make is that putting up those homes provided affordable housing for nobody. I don’t consider over $800K affordable in anybody’s book.

        • JohnW June 29, 2021 (1:06 pm)

          Thanks for responding to  walk-back  your “no yards” falsehood.
          “Longfellow  Creek watershed area?”  
          Can you be more vague?  
          Admitting the  claimed houses separation is about “ten feet” reveals a lot.  
          That is the required separation in Seattle established with early building codes for fire safety, though old neighborhoods like Madrona have 1900 era houses with near zero separation.  
          The vague and misleading information Auntie provides, now reveals that the houses do indeed have yards.
          Just like the SFR codes require.
          The “ten foot” area also behind the homes is certainly false, as is the lot size both which have defined minimum requirements.

        • anonyme June 30, 2021 (7:50 am)

          This is happening all over West Seattle.  On 40th in Arbor Heights, what appeared to be two houses were built on what may have been a double lot.  It was only as the project wrapped up that it became apparent that there were six units.  The structures fill the entire space, and there is no parking except for a pad in the rear of the complex.  I walk past there almost every day and there was never a Land Use notice that would have alerted neighbors that a six-unit housing complex was going in.  The combined value of these units is well into the millions, so once again – apparent zoning exemptions, no affordable housing.

          • JohnW July 1, 2021 (1:59 pm)

            I checked out anonymes claims on 40th Ave SW 
            One of the homes is currently listed at $479,000 which is indeed affordable housing.  
            Anonyme’s description of the value of these units is into the millions is accurate while totally misleading.
            These redevelopments in areas with old SFRs exhausted poorly maintained and poorly constructed bring in new homeowners that are reviving the community.  
            Archival photos show the former SFR had a barren front yard little foliage and no significant or native trees.

    • Ice June 29, 2021 (8:20 am)

      the current zoning laws in place pretty much disallows low-cost housing. Everything is either an apartment or a single family home (townhome). Actual low-cost housing  like quadplexes, cottages and cooperative condos are illegal in the vast majority of the city.

      • Irene Wall June 29, 2021 (1:59 pm)

        That’s not true.  Seattle’s Homestead Community Land Trust is developing two affordable condo projects in Phinney Ridge on NC2 (Neighborhood Commercial zoned) lots. The reason that cottages, etc. are not being built is that developers make more money building expensive townhomes in NC and all the so called L1,2,3 (lowrise) zones and the city’s own mistakes in creating minimum density regulations which discourage the types of lower density housing you are asking for. A good example is the huge lot just off Aurora that was formerly the Putz golf range. That is a Commercial zone and the developer has proposed two 50-unit each apartment buildings and 236 townhomes. This lot could have (should have ?) been used for truly affordable housing but that is not what is happening.  The point is that even Commercial zones are being used for housing.  The city has plenty of capacity for housing under the existing zoning, but profit incentive still rules and any new construction is costly.

        • JohnW June 29, 2021 (2:50 pm)

          profit incentive still rules and any new construction is costly. Excellent!
          I think we have arrived at a point we can all agree.

          I believe housing is a right and that truly affordable housing should not be the burden of the private sector.

          Acknowledging that new construction is costly is a relief, but changing the enormous for-profit building industry to non-profit is an idealistic stretch that even Seattleites will reject.

  • wetone June 29, 2021 (7:00 am)

    Please hurry and change the zoning so we can turn are nice Single Family rentals with big yards (grass,plants,trees) into townhomes/row house’s without us having to spend the money and effort to have re-zoned, as would be required  today. Then we can sell it all and get out of here quicker. 

  • CeeBee June 29, 2021 (8:03 am)

    Typical tactic – exhaust everyone over the naming of something (noble!  aspirational!) and then when the time comes to make the real zoning changes, no one will be interested in participating in the discussion.  I have never understood why we don’t have a longer view with our Comprehensive Planning, we should have had a 50 year plan to move this city into the future.  The city had a good basis with the Neighborhood Planning, but did not follow up by supporting those plans, particularly in places they promised they would like South Park, nor did they go the next step and create more areas of neighborhood planning to shift land polices towards more equitable development.  Just like the new branding of the  15 Minute City, grocery stores don’t magically appear and the city has no power to force the commerical markets to excute the dreams of policy makers. If we were thinking in a longer frame, we could define the new locations for multifamily, expand in a predictable way the boundaries of existing Urban Villages and incorporate in a holistic manner concepts like density on transportation corridors (so that both the service and the density arrive at the same time). But to change the name and claim that the right thing has been done is either a short sighted, empty gesture or someone is playing a long game and hoping people will exhaust themselves on this topic and not pay attention when real zoning decisions are put forward.

  • Owl Lovers June 29, 2021 (9:53 am)

    A few months ago we received a letter in the mail asking if we would consider selling our property, clearly from a developer/real estate investor.  The letter explained that due to our large lot, it could be easily subdivided & was likely worth much more than what we assumed (which is incorrect, we know how much a developer could make if they tore down our old house, clear cut the wooded lot, & built 3 or 4 new homes). 

    I don’t really care what you call our zoning, I like my house, I like my trees & all of the wildlife that comes thru … it is a gem in West Seattle, as I’ve heard from many people who walk past our house everyday. 

    And for those, like us, who appreciate a heavily canopied lot/neighborhood, hearing the owls every day, our large lot will not change for the next 100+ years, that has been written into our estate/will.

    • Auntie June 29, 2021 (10:22 am)

      Hooray! A kindred spirit. I was lambasted when I said I was leaving my double lot in the greenbelt area to the Parks Dept. so that it can revert to greenbelt. They said I was selfish and should let it be devloped. Sure, by developers who just want to make their big bucks and run off to the next development, once again providing affordable housing for nobody, just money in their pockets. Remember what Joni Mitchell said, “don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone …pave paradise to put up a parking lot…”

    • JohnW June 29, 2021 (12:31 pm)

      Owl Lover, 
      With such a love of your land, have you ever considered donating it to Seattle as Auntie here claims to be doing?

  • Jennifer Scarlett June 29, 2021 (1:47 pm)

    Upzoning has caused demolition of affordable units, displacement and hardship for low income diverse communities.  It only benefitted people who owned property (had equity) and were ready to sell.  Speculation drove up prices and now we all pay higher rents and taxes.  This is a out profits and tax revenue.  Has ZERO to do with real equity and affordability.  The Central District, Othello, Beacon Hill, Rainier and South Park are all areas that were predominantly diverse AND single family zoned.  Former red-lined areas as well.  Upzoning pushed residents out, or they decided to sell  because they wanted to live in a neighborhood again, with trees and sunlight.  Hiding a redevelopment scheme behind “equity” is pretty low.  This heatwave should have all of us looking at Seattles inadequate tree protections.  Also, I watched a pla ning meeting a few months ago where Mosqueda did not even know South Park was an Urban Village.  She voted to upzone us and remove ALL our SF, but she doesnt even know? So much for her equity lens.

  • Kate Martin June 29, 2021 (8:58 pm)

    What problem is this proposed legislation trying to solve? What does a menu of solutions to solve that problem look like? Who are the stakeholders? Who benefits? What is the impact and cost of the proposal? 

    • JohnW June 30, 2021 (9:55 am)

      Kate Martin,
      so many questions, all lacking answers.
      Assuming you are the same Kate Martin running for a Seattle City Council seat, please comment on what your proposals are for Seattle’s housing crisis?  
      Do you support zoning changes?  
      Do you believe zoning is a holdover and obvious example of systemic racism?
      How would you address the homeless issue?
      How do you respond to neighborhood activists like Irene Wall who oppose zoning changes?

  • anonyme June 30, 2021 (7:38 am)

    Any discussion about the need for housing should also address the issue of human overpopulation.   This planet does not have infinite resources.   For the sake of all living things “build it and they will come” should not be the policy we embrace.

    • JohnW June 30, 2021 (3:26 pm)

      So, let’s reduce housing to limit population?  
      The fault of the “build it and they will come” suggestion, is that “they are already here.”
      We are building to humanely house living people. 
      Human compassion should precede any discussion of overpopulation theories that were defeated by history – as Paul Ehrlich’s classic of 1970’s doom -“THE POPULATION BOMB”

  • ! June 30, 2021 (7:59 pm)

    I personally like this idea, and I hope it is proposed with some zoning changes, like increased density or the addition of small businesses (neighborhood cafe anyone!?) Only wish this could be done without so much hoopla and waisting everyone’s time. 

  • DRC July 1, 2021 (10:47 am)

                   What a waste of time and money ,she is a No vote gawd help this city

  • Sarcastic Observer July 1, 2021 (5:58 pm)

    Anonyme is correct. There are too many people. Any solution that does not address overpopulation is just whistling past the graveyard.JohnW, what about having compassion for the salmon and orcas that we are quickly driving to extinction because of the continued population growth here in Seattle?

Sorry, comment time is over.