![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
While I’m not hungover, I’m not feeling very energetic. I had a nice walk with M. I finished off the chicken mole poblano from Plated. Since I finally subscribed to the Seattle Times this week, I’ve been poking around at their coverage of homelessness in Seattle. I’ve also been poking around at their coverage of zoning.
While discussion of zoning and how things got to where they are currently and the resulting impact on where new housing is created in Seattle and at what price is pretty good at pointing out that zoning is a big component in why new housing is created somewhat sluggishly in Seattle vs. need and at a very high and rising price (especially in for-sale housing, vs. for-rent, but in both), there is limited to no discussion about the implications for homelessness in Seattle.
While discussion of homelessness in Seattle is quite good at describing the pipeline problem (basically: there are no affordable units available, and waitlists are getting longer and shelters are full all the time, and encampments / RVs / other extra-legal solutions are accumulating), it doesn’t really get into how zoning is a key feature of the lack of affordable housing.
It’s super easy to say, well, you can’t build your way out of this crisis, because new housing is all way too expensive. And that’s true, up to a point, but the point at which that isn’t true is why is it all way too expensive. The maps showing zoning rules in Seattle make it all very clear: there is no more space within the city limits for single family homes, and the people in those single family homes have been quite effective at protecting the space for single family homes from encroachment by other uses. So all non-single family home housing is crowded into very expensive real estate along arterials / in the most densely built up spaces, competing with all the other non-single-family uses. To be fair, there have been efforts to increase space for multi-family housing, but looking at the maps, and the rapidity with which those newly opened spaces maxed out under the new by right laws indicates just how great the need is for more space to develop / looser rules for developing those spaces.
I note all this, because I have precisely the same frustrations where I live now. I’m not about to start voting Republican (even tho I, like a lot of people, kinda like our current governor), because I have too many values differences with them. But this blue community / blue state tendency to lock the door behind one has been a thorn in my side since I was wee.
I suppose I could go on another one of my We Need BroadBand Everywhere so people don’t feel compelled to pack themselves into cities to have a job / start a company / be a participant in the current economy. And we do. And it would help. I struggled two days ago to explain to someone why it turns out to be so freaking hard to get Broadband Everywhere (pole politics turn out to be even more unwieldy than residential zoning in popular cities). Perhaps another round of link fu is called for.
While discussion of zoning and how things got to where they are currently and the resulting impact on where new housing is created in Seattle and at what price is pretty good at pointing out that zoning is a big component in why new housing is created somewhat sluggishly in Seattle vs. need and at a very high and rising price (especially in for-sale housing, vs. for-rent, but in both), there is limited to no discussion about the implications for homelessness in Seattle.
While discussion of homelessness in Seattle is quite good at describing the pipeline problem (basically: there are no affordable units available, and waitlists are getting longer and shelters are full all the time, and encampments / RVs / other extra-legal solutions are accumulating), it doesn’t really get into how zoning is a key feature of the lack of affordable housing.
It’s super easy to say, well, you can’t build your way out of this crisis, because new housing is all way too expensive. And that’s true, up to a point, but the point at which that isn’t true is why is it all way too expensive. The maps showing zoning rules in Seattle make it all very clear: there is no more space within the city limits for single family homes, and the people in those single family homes have been quite effective at protecting the space for single family homes from encroachment by other uses. So all non-single family home housing is crowded into very expensive real estate along arterials / in the most densely built up spaces, competing with all the other non-single-family uses. To be fair, there have been efforts to increase space for multi-family housing, but looking at the maps, and the rapidity with which those newly opened spaces maxed out under the new by right laws indicates just how great the need is for more space to develop / looser rules for developing those spaces.
I note all this, because I have precisely the same frustrations where I live now. I’m not about to start voting Republican (even tho I, like a lot of people, kinda like our current governor), because I have too many values differences with them. But this blue community / blue state tendency to lock the door behind one has been a thorn in my side since I was wee.
I suppose I could go on another one of my We Need BroadBand Everywhere so people don’t feel compelled to pack themselves into cities to have a job / start a company / be a participant in the current economy. And we do. And it would help. I struggled two days ago to explain to someone why it turns out to be so freaking hard to get Broadband Everywhere (pole politics turn out to be even more unwieldy than residential zoning in popular cities). Perhaps another round of link fu is called for.