‘We can’t rely on the parking strategies of the 1950s,’ says mayor as city’s parking study arrives

The DPD/SDOT study of the city’s parking policies – and recommendations for if/how to change them – just hit the inbox. Above, read the report. That’s what we’re still doing, and we’ll add toplines shortly. You can also go ahead (after the jump, if you’re reading this from the home page) and read the official news release sent with it:

Today the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) sent a report to City Council containing preliminary staff recommendations to address residential parking issues related to new development. Last year, the Mayor and City Council directed the Department of Planning and Development and the Seattle Department of Transportation to work together in preparing the recommendations for Council consideration this spring.

After a thorough evaluation, DPD and SDOT recommend adding residential transportation options and managing on-street parking more effectively. This includes strategies to address transportation and parking demand, such as requiring transit passes for new residential development, rather than requiring parking in areas well served by transit. Department staff also determined that current parking policy has played an important role to help mitigate some of the rapid rise in the cost of housing construction.

“Seattle is experiencing tremendous growth as our economy continues to expand and add tens of thousands of new jobs. It is our challenge to do more to ensure Seattle is affordable and livable for current and future residents,” said Mayor Ed Murray. “To do this, we can’t rely on the parking strategies of the 1950’s. Instead, we must pursue innovative policies that will give residents more transportation choices and smartly manage our current parking supply.

The recommendations in the report are grounded in Seattle’s urban village strategy and long history of progressive parking policies which have provided increasing flexibility in parking requirements for residential buildings in places with access to frequent bus or rail service, starting downtown about 30 years ago. This series of important policy decisions by past Mayors and City Councils were efforts to promote lower cost, more affordable housing in areas with frequent transit service.

Recommendations include developing legislation and programs to:

· Require bus passes for new residential developments in center city neighborhoods and other areas frequently served by transit, along with car share memberships, bike share memberships, or similar services.

· Remove City code barriers and promote shared parking of underutilized parking spaces.

· Update City code to include improved bike parking for more types of new development and promote guidance for placing bike share stations on private property.

· Review residential parking conditions and the Restricted Parking Zone program to identify demand management strategies in growing neighborhoods.

· Promote garage designs that facilitate sharing parking among different buildings in a neighborhood. This would include providing guidance for optimal access, layout and security.

· Promote transportation options and ensure that our neighborhoods continue to be well served by transit.

Parking construction can cost $20,000 to $50,000 per space. A Portland, Oregon study found that parking can add as much as $500 per month in rental costs to a lowrise apartment building.

Studies, most notably King County’s 2013 Right Size Parking study, have shown that parking is often significantly over-supplied, needlessly contributing to high housing costs. Our current policies and proposed recommendations also help address traffic congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aiding other City objectives.

“This report includes key recommended policy changes that Transportation Choices fully supports,” said Andrew Austin, Transportation Choices policy director. “It is important that as more people in Seattle choose car-free living, we refine our policies to reflect shifting preferences; doing this is one key component to addressing the affordability problem.”

Key findings from the report include:

· In areas where parking is not required, about 3/4 of new developments provide parking (average is 0.55 spaces per dwelling unit), that is, 167 out of 219 projects permitted since 2012. Only about 12% of the 19,000 housing units have been built without parking.

· Development with reduced or no parking is clustering in areas with frequent transit service including Capitol Hill and other neighborhoods such as University District and Ballard.

· Additional bus service funded by voters through Proposition 1 will provide better frequency, reliability, and will relieve peak hour crowding in buses along key transit corridors

· Best practices used in other jurisdictions include: low or no parking minimums in urban neighborhoods; space for car share services; development regulations requiring transit passes for residents and employees; and on-street parking management strategies such as pricing and time limits.

· Parking apps directing people toward parking (E-Park), on-street valets, and coordinated public/private efforts (downtownseattleparking.com) offer promise in matching customers and visitors with affordable off-street parking options in Downtown. This approach could be expanded to other neighborhoods.

The Mayor has directed DPD and SDOT to seek input from City Council, prepare a public review draft ordinance, environmental (SEPA) review and have final recommendations for the Mayor by December 2015.

Two links – here’s the parking report and recommendations; here’s an FAQ.

50 Replies to "'We can't rely on the parking strategies of the 1950s,' says mayor as city's parking study arrives"

  • Jason April 13, 2015 (6:49 pm)

    I have mixed feelings about this, and I’m not going to act like I know what the end result is going to be like I’m sure some of our smarter neighbors will. On one hand I feel like its much more attractive for developers to not be required to install expensive parking garages – this means more jobs, more goods sold, etc. On the other, I’m not so sure it’s going to be saving tenants any money, rent seems pretty high all over the city on these new projects.
    .
    I’m lucky enough to live and work in West Seattle, but even my 4 mile commute seems to be getting more difficult each day, and we live in Seattle so it’s not the easiest place to use alternative methods of transportation most of the year. It’s cold, wet, and full of hills.
    .
    I guess if the goal is to keep everyone in their own neighborhoods maybe that’s cool but I hate going to places around town where I know it’s going to be a huge pain to park and I don’t think I’m the only one that feels that way.
    .
    Hopefully everything works out for the best.

  • West Seattle Hipster April 13, 2015 (7:02 pm)

    Ironic comment by the mayor, as his administration is reverting to traffic capacity of the 1950’s. He mentions tremendous growth, but is not coming up with a plan on how our infrastructure will support this growth.

  • m April 13, 2015 (7:07 pm)

    Oversupply of parking??

  • Bernard willy April 13, 2015 (7:19 pm)

    Parking in cities can be easy or it can be free.

  • No car for you April 13, 2015 (7:33 pm)

    10 years from now it will be very expensive to drive a car in Seattle but for the wealthy who can afford it there will be very little traffic and lots of parking. Unless of course the city decides to ban cars outright within city limits which is entirely possible 10 years from now.

  • whee April 13, 2015 (7:55 pm)

    This city needs a parking diet! Parking calming!

  • Max April 13, 2015 (8:05 pm)

    Oversupply of parking? That one makes me scratch my head a bit. Whenever I hear of a new development that isn’t providing parking, or rather limited parking, I cringe. Especially here in West Seattle, where getting anywhere other than Downtown by transit is going to take an incredibly long time.

    As someone who lives in a newer development building in West Seattle right now, I can assure you almost all if not all the parking spaces are being used in my building. While I realize that is just a small sample, and in West Seattle our needs are much much different than that of Capitol Hill, Ballard and the U District as is mentioned in this release, I still don’t see that being quite accurate.

    My fear with some policy like this, is being a blanket policy that maybe does benefit an area like Capitol Hill but totally ignored the unique needs of a neighborhood like ours in West Seattle. Until there is better transit in and out of our region the cars are going to continue to increase here. Which means more parking, not less.

  • Eric1 April 13, 2015 (9:04 pm)

    The city should make urban villages parking by permit only at night. If you own a house you can buy permits. If yo live in a “zero” or “reduced” parking building, nobody gets an permit. Put your money where you mouth is as they say. If they are truly zero parking buildings “save” their residents money by not providing parking then don’t expect the community to do so.

  • elly April 13, 2015 (9:06 pm)

    They are just going to park on side streets, in front of my house. Like they have been for the last year or so. They are already clogging up the side streets. Isn’t this completely obvious?!? How is the FD able to negotiate single lanes packed with cars on each side? Or how about all cars parked all the way to stop signs making it dangerous to make a turn? All to make it easier on the poor developers. (Its not really about rent control). So lame.

  • WSeaLight April 13, 2015 (9:17 pm)

    Lets put in a park n ride in West Seattle, oh wait… thats what Luna Park and SW Avalon are for!

  • civik April 13, 2015 (9:39 pm)

    Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the city is openly tauting a phone app for finding parking? How are people supposed to use this except by checking their phone while driving?

  • flimflam April 13, 2015 (10:03 pm)

    wow. it seems the 50’s parking strategy is still better than the current “blah blah blah no cars no parking nope not an issue ride bikes” solution.

  • bolo April 13, 2015 (10:13 pm)

    Here I will translate the DPD/SDOTspeak:

    · “Require bus passes for new residential developments in center city neighborhoods and other areas frequently served by transit, along with car share memberships, bike share memberships, or similar services.”
    New residents will be given bus passes* good for 6 rides as move-in incentive. *Taxpayer funded.

    · “Remove City code barriers and promote shared parking of underutilized parking spaces.”
    We will construct mini-viaducts along the curbs of city streets to enable double-decker parking.”

    · “Update City code to include improved bike parking for more types of new development and promote guidance for placing bike share stations on private property.”
    Can we put a bike corral on your front lawn?

    · “Review residential parking conditions and the Restricted Parking Zone program to identify demand management strategies in growing neighborhoods.”
    RPZ stickers to the highest bidders.

    · “Promote garage designs that facilitate sharing parking among different buildings in a neighborhood. This would include providing guidance for optimal access, layout and security.”
    Three 100+ unit buildings get to share one centrally located 7-space parking garage.

    · “Promote transportation options and ensure that our neighborhoods continue to be well served by transit.”
    Paint more bicycle sharrows and construct more bus bulbs.

    “Parking construction can cost $20,000 to $50,000 per space. A Portland, Oregon study found that parking can add as much as $500 per month in rental costs to a lowrise apartment building.”
    Subsidize* developers for their astoundingly astronomical parking space development costs. *Taxpayer funded.

    “Studies, most notably King County’s 2013 Right Size Parking study, have shown that parking is often significantly over-supplied, needlessly contributing to high housing costs. Our current policies and proposed recommendations also help address traffic congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and aiding other City objectives.”
    We refuse to believe that the multiple circling the block in search of a parking space does not contribute to increasingg reenhouse gas emissions.

    · “Development with reduced or no parking is clustering in areas with frequent transit service including Capitol Hill and other neighborhoods such as University District and Ballard.”
    We almost slipped a freudian by starting to say “cluster….”

    · “Additional bus service funded by voters through Proposition 1 will provide better frequency, reliability, and will relieve peak hour crowding in buses along key transit corridors”
    Until the funding runs out again.

    · “Best practices used in other jurisdictions include: low or no parking minimums in urban neighborhoods; space for car share services; development regulations requiring transit passes for residents and employees; and on-street parking management strategies such as pricing and time limits.”
    Bike-to-Go rack in you neighborhood should solve any problems.

    · “Parking apps directing people toward parking (E-Park), on-street valets, and coordinated public/private efforts (downtownseattleparking.com) offer promise in matching customers and visitors with affordable off-street parking options in Downtown. This approach could be expanded to other neighborhoods.”
    We haven’t decided if the parking valets will get $15 minimum wage or get to keep their tips.

    (Just having a little fun. Actually I have greatly reduced my driving by shifting to walking and bicycling.)

  • Jeannie April 13, 2015 (10:36 pm)

    Bolo FTW!

  • sophista-tiki April 14, 2015 (4:31 am)

    bolo’s translation was hilarious, and probably more accurate than you want to admit.

  • WestofJunction April 14, 2015 (6:30 am)

    Actually, what the City is doing is a boon for the developers- less/no parking means more fully rentable space. Then the developers get property tax abatements for setting aside some units as “low income”. So the burden for infrastructure shifts to the middle class homeowners. We get ever longer commute times within the city on SRO busses that smell of old sweat and old ash tray.

  • Bando April 14, 2015 (6:51 am)

    Just the latest in the War on Cars!

  • RT April 14, 2015 (7:55 am)

    Terminal Five…..the new Park n Ride hub

  • Born on Alki 59 April 14, 2015 (8:25 am)

    Don’t forget that developers are exempt from providing any electric vehicle charge infrastructure when zero parking is provided. Smart idea to reduce carbon emission output by our fine mayor. Apparently his green fleet agenda only includes bicycles and diesel based transit while zipcars circle the neighborhoods in search of parking. Vision zero strikes again.

  • A.R. April 14, 2015 (8:48 am)

    If the developers save $50,000 per parking space that they don’t build, maybe they can kick in $40,000 of it for more public transportation.

  • Mickymse April 14, 2015 (8:57 am)

    It’s not a “War on Cars”… It’s asking people to think differently in a new and changing society.
    .
    Parking cannot be both free and easy any more. There are simply too many people.
    .
    If you’re having trouble “finding parking” in other neighborhoods that you visit, have you tried a parking lot?
    .
    If you think you “deserve” a parking permit as a homeowner but apartment dwellers don’t, why aren’t you using the REQUIRED off-street parking space that your house was supposed to come with?

  • villagegreen April 14, 2015 (9:34 am)

    @Mickymse, well said! I’m a homeowner, but the idea that I deserve the parking spot in front of my house is absurd.

  • Plenty of parking April 14, 2015 (10:05 am)

    You know, I’ve heard people in my own neighborhood complain about lack of parking. And then, what happens each night? Everyone parks in the street instead of their driveways and garages. Empty driveways as far as the eye can see.

  • Born on Alki 59 April 14, 2015 (11:54 am)

    Mickymse, no one deserves a parking permit or space. Agreed.
    Who pays for that “required” off street parking space my house was supposed to come with? (I never knew that was a requirement) Thats right, the homeowner does of course. Not only as a cost of the build, but forever taxed as an “improvement”.
    If a single family home is required to have off street parking, why not apartments? If just one 50 unit apartment with zero parking has just 0.5 cars per unit, that would impact on street parking an additional 25 vehicles. Basically the entire block. Multiply this by 3,000’ish units and imagine West Seattle will look next year. Uggghh.
    I’m just not buying the “study” that a parking space would cost an additional $500 a month per apartment. Also a little skeptical the occupants of these new builds will not own a vehicle after a year of Metro.

  • cj April 14, 2015 (12:18 pm)

    I first moved to West Seattle in 2001 and I have to say one of the first things I noticed about Seattle in general was lots of street parking. I ask my self how is this even working? It seemed as though a lot of people just sort of knew the rules and the limits and worked with it, but that has changed. We live with a lot more people who come from areas with much more parking real estate than Seattle will ever have. We are surrounded by water so unless we are going to incorporate floating parking lots this problem will simply grow.

  • 33Pete April 14, 2015 (2:07 pm)

    “I’m a homeowner, but the idea that I deserve the parking spot in front of my house is absurd.”

    Well, except for the fact that: (a) you, as a homeowner, are required – at your own cost (and liability) – to maintain the sidewalk right next to the parking space; and (b) you, as a homeowner, were also required to have already provided at least some parking.

    So yeah, I think the homeowner has a case for preferred use as opposed to say the knowing freeloader in the “zero parking” building who has contributed nothing.

  • Noparkinghere April 14, 2015 (2:20 pm)

    Whoa folks. Not every house has a driveway or parking space or garage. Mine doesn’t. And it is not the only house in north Admirial without access to off street parking. However, I have plenty of neighbors who have garages and driveways, but park multiple vehicles on the street since their garages are used for on site storage. If we look at setting up residential parking permits, homes without any other option should be granted a permit or two. Homes with driveways/garages should be encouraged to use them for their vehicles, or pay higher fees for on street parking. Addressing the notion of accommodating urban population growth: simple solution- we don’t have to make room for everyone who gets a notion to live here. And our fearless city leaders should make more intelligent decisions about where to concentrate rampant expansion, avoiding areas that are cut off from traffic flow options if a bridge goes out or is otherwise impassable.

  • jwright April 14, 2015 (2:27 pm)

    33Pete, why would maintaining the sidewalk in front of my house give me any sort of preferential claim to on-street parking? The sidewalk and the road have nothing to do with each other.

  • 33Pete April 14, 2015 (3:54 pm)

    “The sidewalk and the road have nothing to do with each other.”

    Jwright – by and large, you walk on one (the sidewalk) to get to the other (the parking spot). In other words, I, as the property owner, am the one paying for the maintenance of ingress and egress to the parking spot.

    I, as the property owner, also incur liability for anyone who parks in front of my house and trips on my sidewalk.

    If you are good with random people parking in front of your house, please, please post your address. There’s an RV owner that goes from spot to spot on my street that would love to have a place to park long term. I mean, if you think its great for it all to be wide open, and have no issues with the space in front of your house being used, I expect to see an address (I suspect you won’t post your address because you are all type, no action – its all good when its abstract and you are talking about someone else’s property, right?).

  • jwright April 14, 2015 (4:23 pm)

    33Pete, I still think that a few people might traverse the public sidewalk in front of your house on the way to and from their car makes for a pretty tenuous claim to the adjacent street. Lots of random cars park in front of my house without incident but I can certainly understand the frustration of an RV owner who skirts parking regulations to store their vehicle on the street. I would advocate implementing parking time limits that would encourage efficient use and turnover of street parking and not provide free, long-term storage.

  • skeeter April 14, 2015 (5:03 pm)

    “If we look at setting up residential parking permits, homes without any other option should be granted a permit or two.”

    First of all, if we grant homes without parking one or two permits then we’ll have to grant apartments and condos without parking one or two permits. Unless you can somehow explain to us why a homeowner has a greater right to a public right-of-way than an apartment dweller…

    But the bigger picture is this. Free parking is the problem – not the solution. Issuing free parking permits to anyone – homeowners or apartment dwellers – provides a financial incentive for people to park on publicly owned property. And we’re seeing there is not enough publicly owned property for everyone to park. The only solution is to *discourage* parking on public property. And the only way to do that is by charging a fee.

  • ChefJoe April 14, 2015 (5:30 pm)

    skeeter, as long as you get one “free” RPZ permit for every 3,000 sq ft of land you pay a property tax bill for, I’m ok with that. I’d even be ok if it’s like the metro bus coupons we got with paying car tabs… able to be transferred and redeemed by another.

    Those who already pay the city for the land that provides street frontage should get something for that.

  • Kevin April 14, 2015 (7:41 pm)

    @Skeeter “Unless you can somehow explain to us why a homeowner has a greater right to a public right-of-way than an apartment dweller…” MFTE is why.

  • parker jr. April 14, 2015 (7:42 pm)

    33Pete has some things mixed up.

    The city owns the ROW including the sidewalk.

    The city does not collect property taxes, King
    County does.

    If someone trips on his sidewalk the property owner is not liable unless the sidewalk has been allowed by that property owner to deteriorate into a hazard.

    33Pete’s liability if he does not maintain the sidewalk remains the same regardless of vehicles parked, he is liable for any pedestrian.

    For those homes without on site parking, they have been enjoying less property taxes all of these years of street parking, as all houses built with or with added garages pay additional taxes for the garages.

    The only way to alleviate parking is to fully MONETIZE ALL STREET PARKING with smart technology that adjusts to demand to maintain an average of one space per block as Seattle is starting to do downtown.

    Fair and simple. If you park on the street, you pay for the privilege.

  • Thomas M. April 14, 2015 (8:10 pm)

    DEVELOPERS should be paying DEVELOPER FEES for all the extra load they put on the infrastructure and that includes construction of parking and transit facilities.

  • RT April 14, 2015 (8:21 pm)

    Homes without parking off street do NOT necessarily pay lower taxes, and it’s pretty likely that they do pay more to King County than the average renter, whose rent reflects a percentage of taxes. The problem here is construction of vertical towers without requiring underground parking, reduction of bus routes so riders drive their cars to neighborhoods and park there to be able to get a rapid ride connection, and, as mentioned above, homeowners who do have driveways and garages, but prefer to park on the street. Seattle is composed of satellite communities of varying density. Residential parts of the community are not zoned for multiplexes, but are dealing with significant spillover from ongoing development. If you are digging a hole for a multi unit building, that’s a darn good time to dig a little deeper and add some off street parking. Not everyone can bike, and not everyone can walk to work, medical care, social events. There can be a win win here, but it won’t happen if we polarize renters and homeowners and ignore the flawed decision making of our city and county elected officials, planning departments and the permitting process.

  • parker jr. April 14, 2015 (8:58 pm)

    DEVELOPER FEES would cut housing supply thereby raising costs for all. The fees, if legal under state law, would do nothing to alleviate the problems existing now.

    Much of the extra load is caused by the increase in car ownership during a decrease in car owners, fewer people owning more cars.

    Too many cars have created a situation that we can’t build our way out of.

    What is the point of required on site parking if you can’t drive because the streets are deadlocked with ever more cars?

    The only solution is changing of habits and expectations. Everyone will have to adjust and ‘suffer’ in their own particular way.

    MONETIZED street parking would at least increase availability of on street parking, eliminate ‘car ranchers’ and discourage multiple car ownership.

  • m April 14, 2015 (9:41 pm)

    I’m a homeowner with a garage and off-street parking, but I can’t access it because my alley is unpaved with tremendous potholes. The garage is not used for hoarding purposes. I always park on the street. Most of my neighbors do the same.

    Street parking is public parking – that goes for everyone.

    I’m all for developer fees going towards low-cost public parking garages near their developments that everyone can use. We all should be able to share in the burdens and benefits of development.

  • JetCityGirl April 14, 2015 (9:56 pm)

    Terminal 5 – State of the art Transit Center Station for West Seattle. Parking- coffee shop- vendors-trees. Water taxi and bus transit station and greening. Terminal 5!

  • Joe Szilagyi April 14, 2015 (11:03 pm)

    Before anyone starts tossing out notions like “land owners” or “tax payers” of XYX threshold or any other qualifiers are “entitled to more”, keep in mind that these debates have circled a great number of drains in the past.
    .
    I don’t know of a single major city that has tried to segregate access to public resources – which is what OUR curbside parking is – based on “qualifications” beyond residency. Residency – you live there. Doesn’t matter if it’s a 10,000 square foot house or a 100 square foot micro-pod or whatever.
    .
    Keep in mind my wording – “our” curbside parking. You DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER OWNED THE SPACE BEYOND THE INNER EDGE OF YOUR SIDEWALK OR ROW. Neither have I. Neither have any of us. You own mine. I own yours. All 650,000 Seattle residents do. I own 1/650,000th of ‘your’ street parking as you do mine (0.000000554% for the really pedantic).
    .
    That’s not my view – that’s Seattle law and state law backing it. It’s plastered all over seattle.gov on the SDOT sections. You or I don’t need to like it. Our liking it has no bearing on it’s authority or lawfulness.
    .
    There’s another, even more important limitation, however, on the notion that you can set different rules and standards amongst residents:
    .
    A tiny little law we sorta adopted in 1868. It’s our fourteenth law, you can say, that overrides anything else – including any of our opinions:
    .
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    .
    The bolded part is the important little bit.

  • Bruce April 14, 2015 (11:12 pm)

    If the mayor wants less cars, transit will need to get a lot more convenient, pleasant and comfortable. With all the hills, biking, or walking to a bus stop is not practical. Instead of multiple bus routes that leave West Seattle to go downtown, how about making the Rapid Ride the only route that leaves West Seattle for downtown and using the freed up resources to pick people up at their homes and take them to the nearest Rapid Ride stop and return at the end of their trip, or improve/reinstate neighborhood bus routes that connect to the Rapid Ride? Call it a pilot project, and try it out? Anything less and people are still going to drive and park.

  • Walk and Or Bike April 14, 2015 (11:41 pm)

    “With all the hills, biking, or walking to a bus stop is not practical”.

    Why not? I do both. No problem. Been doing it for nearly 4 decades. Unless you have a disability preventing your ability to move, which would be understandable, this argument is baseless.

  • parker jr. April 14, 2015 (11:45 pm)

    Seattle Codes require the property owners to maintain the alley behind their property.

    M and his neighbors are responsible for cleaning up their alley and filling in those potholes so they can access their garages as intended.

  • ChefJoe April 15, 2015 (8:38 am)

    Parker jr.,
    you’re wrong (and, in my opinion, on a lot more than your last post).

    http://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2010/03/10/what-about-my-alley/
    SDOT is responsible for maintaining the city’s public right of way, which includes those alleys that meet City of Seattle standards. That being said, alley maintenance funds are scarce, so repairs may only be made to address safety and mobility problems. Large repairs and improvements to alleys are the responsibilities of the property owners right next to the alley.

    If you want to report potholes on an alley that is public right of way you can let us know online here or by calling 206-684-ROAD (7623).

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/alleys.htm

  • parker jr. April 15, 2015 (8:56 am)

    Chef,
    Thanks for your correction.
    I was wrong about the alley potholes according to SDOTblog which apparently has lead you to your statement.

    You were also wrong.
    From your cited sdotblog,
    http://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2010/03/10/what-about-my-alley/
    “Large repairs and improvements to alleys are the responsibilities of the property owners right next to the alley.”

    Actually I was right in the context of the post about an unimproved alley.
    Please see http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/alleys.htm for this,


    Unpaved Alleys – Alleys which are not paved to City standards (e.g. dirt and gravel alleys) are not funded for any maintenance, repair, or improvements by the City. Adjacent property owners can maintain or make improvements to the alleys at their expense. All work requires a Street Use Permit.”

    What else am I wrong about?

  • skeeter April 15, 2015 (9:07 am)

    Interesting idea ChefJoe. For every 3,000 sq ft of land you pay a property tax bill for, you get one “free” RPZ permit. That could work well. Owners of single family homes would get a parking pass and folks living in apartments and condos would not. This is such a good idea we should expand it to other public property. Alki Park gets *really* crowded in the summer. Let’s make a new rule that for every 3,000 sq ft of land you pay a property tax bill for, you get one pass to use Alki park for the year. No more waiting for a picnic table on the beach! In fact – you may have solved our school crowding issues too! For every 3,000 sq ft of land you pay a property tax bill for, you can send one child to public school. Good news! Class sizes would drop from 30 to 12 overnight.
    I’m not trying to be a jerk ChefJoe. I just don’t find your idea to be rational – let alone fair.
    Joe S, of course, is correct. All Seattle residents get the same rights/use of publicly owned assets. Arguing anything else is pretty silly.

  • ChefJoe April 15, 2015 (9:58 am)

    No skeeter, the owner of an apartment/condo would be able to get a number of “free” rpz permits based on a measure that approximates the amount of street frontage they provide and pay regular taxes on. The permits could then be sold/transferred/reserved for units in the apartment without neighbors being able to claim they’re “flooding the streets without paying”.

    People who wish to get an RPZ beyond what their property contributes to street frontage in the area would have to be MONETIZED appropriately.

    parker, I provided that link and knew you’d jump to the unimproved alley… it’s technically the city’s job to maintain their right of way in both paved/unpaved cases, but they’re not going to do more than pothole fill paved ones and shirk other repairs to the property owners.

  • skeeter April 15, 2015 (10:47 am)

    Well I see your point ChefJoe but I just don’t agree. The city desires higher density housing. Giving free RPZs to homeowners with more street frontage does not provide an incentive for higher density housing. I think a more effective approach that would provide an economic incentive for desired behavior is to monetize every single parking space on every single public right-of-way.

  • chefjoe April 15, 2015 (12:27 pm)

    See, I think the carrot you offer to placate current homeowners as you head to your goal of monetized parking is you acknowledge the larger parcel they pay taxes on and comp out some portion of rpzs to the homeowner. Not being able to park on street near your home is incentive to use your garage or driveway if available and parking is in demand locally.

  • 33Pete April 16, 2015 (8:23 am)

    I think both sides have made some good points, and certainly I have learned a bit about city codes in the process.

    I particularly appreciate jwright’s civil presentation of his/her views in response to some of my thoughts, including pointing out some of the factual or logical errors (or stretches) in my own thinking, which has led to me taking a second look at the issue. Thanks to the WSB for providing this forum.

Sorry, comment time is over.