SFG is opposing one-size-fits-all upzones

Yes, developers’ vision for unplanned growth wins unless we change the narrative. Neighborhood organizations have had some impact. The City is on notice to issue truthful Environmental Impact Statements, instead of omitting livability issues.

We are not opposed to growth. It’s in our name (www.SeattleFairGrowth.org) This debate is over where and how Seattle grows, and who has a seat at the table.

1. There is plenty of capacity for planned growth in the current zoning. Only 35% of Seattle is zoned single-family, and the 10% zoned multifamily has a capacity for approximately 10 times as much per acre as single-family zones. Older single-family homes are in high demand and are needed for larger, extended and immigrant families, and all families. We don’t have too much single-family zoning. For-profit apartment developers are building only 2% of their units with 3 bedrooms. We need a plan to encourage affordable single-family units close to transit
2. We are opposed to one-size-fits-all zoning. Seattle was famous for its 20-year Neighborhood Plans that directed 70% of growth under the 2015 Comprehensive Plan into our new (in 1995) Urban Villages. Now the city planners have an ordinance on the table to eliminate any parts of the neighborhood plans that conflict with the HALA Grand Bargain, called the MHA-R. No single-family parcels within any urban village, no matter what the neighborhood plans say. And the coup de gras—the proposed 2018 city budget eliminates funding for the neighborhood plans.
3. Why should historic Wallingford craftsman homes be treated the same way as Lake City, which is begging for development? What happens to our tree canopy when developers build lotline-to-lotline? We need neighborhood plans to guide density.

Sarajane Siegfriedt

Seattle Fair Growth