hugeasscity

Erica beat me to it, but I can’t possibly not comment on  this bit of Seattle Times lameness regarding Seattle’s proposal to allow “backyard cottages” in single family zones.  The set up of the piece—describing the perceived horrors of the proposal from the point of view of just one person who may or may not ever actually be impacted in any way—perfectly captures the spirit of Seattle NIMBYism and how it impedes progressive policy.  A few whiny big mouths trump the long term interests of millions.  And by not bothering to note any of the big picture environmental and social benefits of backyard cottages, the Seattle Times piece only feeds the NIMBY fire.

If we are looking for painless ways to create a more sustainable Seattle, allowing backyard cottages is 100 percent no-brainer.  But still, the City has to go out and hold 17 public meetings before acting.  I wonder how much all those meetings cost the taxpayers? 

And witness how City officials are obliged to tip-toe around it—a DPD official is quoted as saying “Some people feel the proposal would add density to the single-family neighborhoods, and that’s just not true.”    Huh?  That may be technically correct according to code, but please, the whole idea of backyard cottages is to create more housing units without consuming more land.  The math is pretty much unequivocal about what that means for density.  

But no, dear God no, speaketh not of even the gentlest incremental change to sacred single-family.   And beware the damnable cottage!

Posted by dan bertolet on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.