More NIMBY

To augment the previous post, a few other NIMBY topics:

toddstanfield.com
cascadiareport.com
seattleworks.typepad.com
seattletimes.nwsource.com
seattlest.com
seattleweekly.com

Obviously, it is an issue AND we do tend to navel-gaze on this topic.

NIMBY

We folks in the greater Seattle area like to be nice. Generous, caring, proactive… we like to think of ourselves this way and have this ideal reflected in our community: support of a wide range of social safety net services, tolerance of diverse lifestyles, environmentally sound urban planning (e.g. “density”), mass transit. We also, however, like our lives to be nice: pretty, quiet, safe, comfortable… with nooooo threat to our property values.

As a result, we often find these two goals to be mutually exclusive, or at least we perceive them to be. We say (and we vote) that we want such services as housing for chronic alcoholics, methadone treatment centers, domestic violence shelters, and temporary, sanctioned camps for the homeless. But it can be a struggle to find a neighborhood that will welcome such a service with a warm embrace. We don’t want to think of ourselves as prudes, so don’t outright ban strip clubs. But, there is a push to corral all the existing strip clubs into one low income neighborhood. In a misguided effort to protect the delicate sensibilities of the local children, there was even an outcry about the name of a new pet store in the Wallingford neighborhood, called High Maintenance Bitch. (Honestly, if there is any appropriate use of the "B" word, this would be it!)

The zoo (the ZOO, of all non-controversial organizations) is getting severe push back from its neighbors because it wants to build a few outbuildings on its property and a parking garage to prevent parking sprawl into the neighborhood. When the proposed garage was to be on the south end of the park, the neighbors on the north end supported the proposal, but the southern neighbors fought it bitterly. Then, the plan changed for the structure to be on the north end. Well, surprise, surprise… now the north end neighbors are up in arms and the south enders think a garage is a splendid idea.

Granted, it is not as pure and simple as this. But, it is the gist. And it is the hypocritical tradition of this otherwise progressive town. We support all things good as long as our own neighborhood is not impacted. "Not In MY Back Yard!” is the common hew and cry.

Oy. As Popeye used to say, “This is embarrasking.”

A P-Patch Post

Winding your way over the hills of Seattle, weaving through the neighborhoods, you will inevitably happen upon a small or large plot of land, sometimes in the most incongruous place, overflowing with dahlias and raspberry canes, bok choy, pea vines, and heirloom tomato plants. This is one of the many P-Patches in the city, small urban farm plots tended by local residents

There are well over 50 community gardens available to all residents and another 15 or so specifically for low income housing residents. Many P-Patchers are first generation immigrants and the produce they raise is a significant source of their families’ food. Community Urban Gardening has been a growing tradition in Seattle for over 40 years.

From Historylink.org on the origin of the P-patch tradition in Seattle:
"In 1922, Italian immigrant Ernesto Picardo bought four of the blocks and began raising vegetables. In 1965, the last Picardo retired from farming. Darlyn Rundberg saw the Picardo farm going unused and she envisioned a community garden. With the help of City Councilman Bruce Chapman, she got the city to lease the land and to pay the outstanding taxes of $688. Three acres were turned over to the Puget Consumers' Cooperative and the plot became the 'P' Patch. By 1971 there were 180 plots being cultivated. The land was purchased by the city in 1973 and the program expanded." In 2001, the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods had 38 P-Patches with 1900 plots and 4,600 gardeners on 12 acres of land.


Each P-patch has a different personality based on its location and gardeners. Some are very tidy, ornamental, and artistic. Some are purely utilitarian agriculture. Some are populated by folks wanting the simple opportunity of digging in the dirt, puttering around. Others are a mix of all the above.

The program is supported by both the City of Seattle which helps manage the sites and recruit/organize gardeners, and a non-profit land trust called
the P-Patch Trust which acquires land for the program and works on community development through the program.

The Price of a Little Piece of Paradise

A report has been released by the research firm Demographia on the relative expense of home-ownership in cities across Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US. The major cities in Cascadia were rated as some of the most unaffordable in the study, which based its rankings on median home prices in each city relative to its median income.

The report concludes that the cause of unafforability of housing in the high-ranking cities is what they call "land use planning excesses." These include:

1) Land Use Policies that Produce Unaffordability, such as land rationing (urban growth boundaries and infill requirements), extravagant amenity requirements, excessively high infrastructure fees and approval processes that are unnecessarily lengthy and complicated.

2) Ignoring the Economic and Social Dimensions, by which they mean governments imposing restrictive planning policies without fully considering the ultimate impacts on the economy and quality of life.

3) The Emerging Costly Reality of Land Use Planning, by which they mean that restrictive land use policies compromise the competitiveness of urban areas, leading to less economic growth.

Their conclusion is that land use planning erodes (or, as they stated, "destroys") housing affordability. Demographia is self-monikered as "pro-choice" with respect to urban development. This is another way of saying they are a property rights advocacy group. So, the conclusions should be looked at carefully (skeptically?), based on the implicit mission of the organization's work. And, although the research seems to be sound, the scope of factors they consider are very narrow. Cascadia Report highlighted some factors omitted by the report that should be considered when calculating affordability, such as interest rates and robustness of economies as well as other considerations such as efficient public transportation that frees residents from the need for private cars, thus lowering their living expenses.

Further, although the findings of the report may be accurate, the benefits to the long term health of a city through policies and codes to contain urban sprawl, protect environmental health, and maintain cautious review of building and development applications for safety and quality of life standards are effectively dismissed as beside the point.

Yes, living in the cities of Cascadia can be expensive. Part of the cost does have to do with urban planning demands and development restrictions, and the report makes many valid points. However, there are great benefits that come with many of the expenses incurred by urban planning and oversight. If Cascadia were to focus on affordability to the exclusion of concern for the environment and other assets, the livability would erode and with it the economy of the region as its attractiveness to residents and business alike would be "destroyed" over time.

As a final consideration, it should be noted that lowering government-imposed costs on development in a region with a robust economy and high livability would not necessarily make the area more affordable. It is a supply and demand world, and the developers here would likely just reap a greater profit on development leading to equally "unaffordable" homes that are less sustainable and degrade the livability of the region.