Is this a news or opinion piece? This is the same lame slanted viewpoint that these same writers pushed over on PubliCola in support of their site's owner and the interests of Dan Bertolet and Roger Valdez who also are employed or consult for development groups. Crosscut should have higher standards than this.

Just like Roger Valdez has succumbed to a blind faith in growth and density "uber alles", Feit and Barnett have an inability to do any balanced reporting on issues of zoning, land use, or neighborhood planning, despite trying to appear to be actual journalists. This is getting pretty tiresome. Please, Crosscut, you need to exercise some editorial control. Otherwise, you are no better than any other media outlet that misues its position to mislead and/or slant.

Valdez has yet to respond to my requests for information about who pays him. Do you know? Is he a developer consultant now? Do you know for whom?

I am the "union representative [who] also invoked the specter of Wal-Mart" at City Council today. Your inference that it was ridiculous to do so comes from your lack of familiarity with the proposed legislation. Walmart is absolutely trying to bring its new smaller footprint stores into Seattle. And while the proposed changes in ground-level commercial uses on Capitol Hill that you concentrate on would not by themselves facilitate Walmart's entry into the Seattle market, a separate section of the bill exempting new retail projects as large as 75,000 square feet from environmental review--part of the legislation until this morning--would indeed make it easier for Walmart to locate in urban centers and station areas.
The SEPA exemption dropped to 30,000 square feet in today's substitute bill; we will have to hope that the super-small Walmarts that are appearing back east don't start popping up here.

Poor Erica! I generally think that the right-wingnuts are America's professional whiners, but then I recall that it's amateurs who compete in the Olympics. So let's say that the wingnuts are the pros, and the "progressives" are the Olympians.

It is quite entertaining to read your laughably biased account of the meeting, which I happened to have attended. Oh yes, I definitely remember the fella who quoted Thomas Jefferson. Your account was, shall we say, rather incomplete. He zeroed in on Roger Valdez, who told the Seattle Times that he advised members of the mayoral advisory committee to keep their deliberations and communications secret for the purpose of avoiding disclosure laws.

If the advisory committee holds its meetings in secret, and creates a secret backchannel to discuss the issues, then how can anyone believe that committee, the city council, or the mayor, the Jefferson-quoter asked. Now there is a progressive. You, Erica, are a "progressive." A complete phony.

To those who've objected to my putting the word "progressive" in quotes, I hope you'll take a close read of the Seattle Times story, and ask yourself how authentically progressive (as opposed to "progressive," meaning Seattle's blend of hypocrisy, stupidity, self-righteousness, and corruption) it is to engineer a secret quasi-government panel, and then keep its communications secret.

Yes, Erica, most people who spoke were against it. There was the 82-year-old lady who's been on Capitol Hill for more than 50 years. There were others who'd been there for 10 years. There was a Buddhist nun who'd lived all over the world and wondered why anyone would want to destroy the most harmonious neighborhood she's ever lived in.

There were several transplants from Chicago and New York, which the "new urbanists" say they are trying to re-create, who testified that they and their visiting friends love the mixture of small commercial strips and tranquil residential areas, all within walking distance. There were renters, and owners, from 30 years old to over 80 years old, many with deep roots and others relatively new. Black, white, and Asian. They like their neighborhood. The ultimate sin, huh Erica?

You didn't want to give them any sort of fair treatment, Erica. Instead, you decided to caricature a cross-section of Capitol Hill as a collection of freaks. Could this be because your last gig, Publicola, was owned by Greg Smith, a developer who is also on McGinn's rubber-stamp arena committee? You "progressives." I don't know whether to laugh or puke.

p.s.: Roger Valdez, who pays you? And when are you going to release the complete record of e-mails and documents from your secret lickspittle committee?

FYI: the female equivalent of a monk is a nun, not a monkette.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto. But if you need me to say nun, fine. She's a nun. I even changed it in the original, just for you. Can be friends now?

p.s.: By the way, just so you know, as a recovering Catholic, I view monkette as a much friendlier word.

This element of the mayor's package of proposals was always included as a throw away should there be the need to divert attention from the more damaging aspects of the package. Council will say they have bent over backwards to appease neighborhood interests by tabling this element of the package while meanwhile gutting SEPA and eliminating parking minimums in large areas of the city.

Hopefully the other two elements of the package of proposals will be greeted by the same level of opposition.

Nice to see that Erica's general sloppiness has been carried over from her previous site.

The link to the Times story (at the phrase "companion piece") doesn't work, of course. If only the links were the only sloppy part of her work.

Finally the Times allows or encourages its professionals to report what is going on at City Hall, all hell breaks loose, which makes Erica, who has had it all to herself, so jealous she loses her cool. When Erica regains her composure she might want to look into why the Times is so on-again-off-again. In my book, sloppiness still beats nothing!

Nonetheless, there for the asking, no charge, is Thompson's less loaded reporting and refusal to be baited. Please also note the specificity, no mention of density vs anti-density. A good reporter explains the connection if seen, unless speaking in code to the troops, which, as I understand, it is not yet cricket.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018268737_council24m.html

Great post; Just walk right past the haters, guys.

Those whom you call "haters" appear to be in the overwhelming majority. If admitting this is too painful for Barnett and Valdez, at least Councilmen O'Brien and Conlin know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

If the "new urbanist" "density" cult can't put its boots on the ground and its asses in the seats, and therefore does not appear to be representative of the populace, why then should it get so much coverage, as if it were?

And a note to Brewster and Copeland: I'll second Veritas' comments above. This is "C is for Crank" editorializing, masquerading as reporting and doing a piss-poor job of it.

So far I haven't seen any evidence whatever of any editorial oversight since these two came on board. Are they special? Have you given them free rein? If it's the latter, then you have whored yourself out for clicks and have damaged whatever journalistic standing you might have aspired to.

Get a grip on these two before they run Crosscut into the ditch like they did with their last gig. Either they're working for you, or you're working for them. Which is it?

Ivan, you know I agree with your view of the "urbanists," but you might want to re-think your suggestion that Crosscut reduce its coverage of them. Fact is, they have great influence with the mayor and the city council. Hiding from their ideas won't change that.

What Crosscut should do, though, is display a great deal more independence. They should immediately require Valdez to disclose all of his business associations, and then disclose them whenever Crosscut publishes one of his articles.

Crosscut should also demand that Valdez, as the leader of McGinn's secret "roundtable," publish all e-mails, other correspondence, documents, and records of meetings and phone calls with people outside of the committee.

Everyone deserves to know who Valdez is fronting for; who got preferential access to the "roundtable"; and the contents of their discussions, reports, and materials exchanged.

Crosscut bills itself as a "journalistic" organization. Okay, Crosscut, what'll it be? Journalists or corrupt "progressive" shills? This is your integrity test, Crosscut. You either have it or you don't.

The Antis always out number the Fors... the power of the status quo is strong and change is risky. I was there too, and applaud those who expressed their opinions in a civilized manner. That was not the case for many, including the man who yelled during Brower's comments. And while I support the proposed changes, kudos to the City Council Committee for listening.

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

Roger Valdez has no constituency? Who knew?

Regulatory reform is a threat to our diversity, and the future growth of Seattle as a vibrant city where all income, race, and ganders can live side by side. I heard many urbanists/ developers arguing how the Regulatory Reform is going to make Seattle better place (Beacon of prosperity), without any evidence or data to support their claim.

Removing the parking requirement is the most dangerous one. Many low income individuals are depending on cars - not by choice, but by economic necessity. Most of the low income folks do not have “fancy jobs” where they can work from home; they have very challenging jobs, and if they report to work 10 minutes late, they may get in trouble. Therefore, this community depends on personal cars for their survival.

If the city removes the parking requirement for the developers, where the rest of us are going to park our cars? The city is pursuing hidden gentrification policy towards the middle and the low income communities under the supervision of Urban elites/Developers/Part-Time Environmentalists..

The city has already extended parking meters from 6 to 8PM, increased parking meters fee, increased VLF, etc. Those ill-gotten so called “public policies” are making this city too expensive to live in. Today, I went to the city council meeting, I paid $14 just for an hour to park my car in down town. Why should I pay $14 to speak to my representatives? The city council must stop the” Regulatory Reform “altogether without any further delay.

You should see what they're planning in Ballard. 14th Avenue W. is a long street, utterly ignored by the city, with a wide median that residents use for parking. The city is going to turn that median into a city park.

You really have to see it to believe it. There is no conceivable justification for what they're going to do, except that someone in the city has decided to make Ballard ground zero for someone's hate-cars agenda.

These people want to turn Seattle into San Francisco, a city of the very rich, and the very poor, and hardly any middle class. And they want to do it by a series of "modest" changes that are in fact very far-reaching, drafted in secret by corrupt, nasty McGinn cronies like Roger Valdez. These people need to be watched closely, and opposed at every turn.

It is time to buy the last of the cheap(er) rental property, move to Burien, and retire well in future years. It will certainly be out of my price range to stay.

Erica and Josh,

Awfully snarky response!

As for Roger...well, he is free to bash "NIMBY single family homeowners"
all he wants.

Just don't act surprised when they bash back. Pretty basic politics.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

Yusuf and anyone else who goes to a City Council hearing which includes public comment: you may park in the SeaPark garage for $3. Just take a copy of the hearing agenda with you to give to the attendant when you leave.

Thanks. I did not know that.

"Thompson's suggestions are particularly misleading"

now that's the pot calling the kettle black....

and shouldn't this have been titled:

Wednesday Jolt: 'Crosscut Pundit' loses fight against neighborhoods...

The Mayor's gentrification agenda is also alive and well in Sodo, with the proposed arena that would wreak further traffic havoc on that essential industrial/manufacturing area, provide a new "amenity" for pro basketball that low to middle income people could largely not afford to enter, and ultimately create an "entertainment district" to shrink the industrial lands base and replace good-paying family wage jobs with low-paying service jobs. What a deal.

If this re-engineering/debasing of the city and economy are indeed to be funded with public resources (bond funds, for a start, but ultimately more), the public deserves a chance to vote. I-91 was NOT that vote; it was a policy decision and a sure sign that the voters demand that pro sports giveaways make some kind of sense. This is a very specific proposal with far greater impact than just whether the venture will "turn a profit" for government.

In July 2011 Chuck Wolfe, a member of the advisory committee, posted a summary of the proposed changes as they were developing at that time. I went back and read his piece this morning and posted a response. However, I realize no one is going to read a response posted now on a story from last July, so I am re-posting it in slightly revised form here.

In planning and urban design, there is a phenomenon known colloquially as "the Trojan horse." Typically, this is a set of Land Use Code changes that are presented as harmless or minimal, but which turn out to have far-reaching implications. I suspect that is what we have here. I have not read the actual new Code language, so my comments rely on the Crosscut presentations made by Mr. Valdez (recently) and Mr. Wolfe (last July), and the discussion in the recent articles in the SEATTLE TIMES.

First, I find it problematic that Land Use Code changes seem to be pushed at least in part for the expediency of creating temporary jobs. It would seem to me that the goal of the Land Use Code should be to produce a quality environment in which we, and those who will come after us, can live.

John Ruskin wrote, "As we build our city, let us think that we are building forever." However, it appears from some of the comments that many of the proposed changes may be driven by the short term goal of temporarily increasing employment.

Several of the proposed changes appear to be based on the idea that "the market knows best." While this kind of conservative ideology has driven one of the national political parties to an extreme, I had not realized it had penetrated urban design and planning thinking in Seattle. The fact that advocates of these changes are willing to sacrifice solutions that we collectively determine serve all citizens to those driven by "the market" seems to me to be highly questionable.

Relative to the proposal to eliminate parking requirements in areas served by transit--"let the market decide" seems to be the mantra (at least as Chuck Wolfe wrote in July 2011). Such an approach, in my opinion, ignores basic economics, and the lessons of the past, which indicate that where feasible, private sector owners/developers can profit by dumping problems into "the common" (the public space we all share as citizens). The history of the market has been one that has always required regulation to prevent the private sector from taking advantage of the common--this is why we have laws about water pollution, air pollution, etc. In the present case, the relevant part of the public sector (the common) is the adjacent and nearby streets which extend into adjacent single-family neighborhoods. Does anyone doubt that many developers are salivating over the proposed elimination of parking requirements? Under the proposed rules, they dump the problem and cost of parking into the public streets and, thus, into adjacent neighborhoods. After all, it's not as if the city is going to establish a regulation that says: "If one owns a car, one is not allowed to rent one of these apartments with no parking."

Once the overflow parking becomes a problem, we cannot go back--the buildings are built, there is no parking--the transfer of costs from private sector developers to the public sector (and those to all Seattle citizens) will be permanent.

In July 2011, Mr. Wolfe wrote that one goal is to provide "more flexibility." One has to be careful when considering what this means. In a legal environment that allowed public officials discretion, and allowed negotiation of many aspects of use, form, size, frontage, etc. (such an environment does exist in some states, but not here), flexibility might be a benefit allowing a tailoring of projects to specific sites, site contexts, and long-term visions for an area through public-private negotiations.

In contrast, the legal environment that exists in Washington, as a result of the state's constitution as interpreted by the State Supreme Court and the State Court of Appeals, does not allow that kind of discretion or flexible negotiation. Courts have held that Codes in Washington must be specific, precise, and measurable, and can only be enforced if the Code language is clear. Thus, when one uses the term "flexibility" in our legal environment, it means only one thing: loosening the rules, creating a lowered standard. This lowered standard is not going to produce much variety of solutions. In the present economic climate particularly, there will be a rush to find the new lowest cost development solutions that produce the highest profits and this is what many, perhaps most developers will build--this will be the "new normal" and, in my opinion, the city as a whole will lose.

In my opinion, the only reason to change the Code, or to loosen the SEPA rules, should be to build a truly better city for all citizens for the long term.

Mr Ochsner's comments are on target in many areas, not the least of which is that due care is required in assessing the costs and benefits of any proposed land use change, especially those that seem bent on overturning the established order of things. Such concern is justified because most planning changes, in Seattle and elsewhere, are driven by a land-based coalition of property owners, developers, realtors, bankers, and their attorneys and architects to intensify land use by pressing for growth at any cost. It is only natural that such tendencies become inflated in a recessionary period and this same land-based coalition, added and abetted by politicians, increases its demand for new rule changes to promote economic activity and increases in development intensity. However, recognizing that such pressures exist is one thing; condemning all land use code change as necessarily flawed because it appears based on market principles and not community concern is equally misguided. Seattle’s current land use code did not descend from Mount Sinai; instead it is a flawed set of rules built over years from the same clumsy process from which all local legislation is constructed. There are many good reasons for change.

Take parking for example. As Shoup and others have demonstrated, minimum parking standards for differing land uses are based on survey data of peak parking occupancy from a limited number of studies, usually in auto-intense suburban communities where parking is free, and then incorporated, typically without analysis, into multiple land use codes based on the presumption that they must know what they’re doing because they put it in their land use code. Such standards are notorious for overstating demand while ignoring the cost of providing parking; instead the cost is internalized in the cost of development raising housing and business costs for everybody. Given this sort of outcome, why not at least look at a market driven system to better allocated parking? Where spillover is a significant concern, the City could consider pricing on-street parking to control the problem. After all, I do not have a property right to the parking space in front of my home; instead I have a spot because of the cost that renters and other homeowners bear to construct off-street parking.

With respect to the Mr. Ochsner’s concern about flexibility, I would only point out that flexibility need not mean a lower standard. In fact, many codes, especially in the environmental arena, include provisions for departure from prescriptive standards when it can be demonstrated using scientific study or objective criteria that the proposed solution would result in an as good or better result as that obtainable following the required rules. Thus flexibility need not result in a lower “normal.” Of course, such flexibility generally comes at higher cost as developers must prove their solution is equal or better than the code-supplied result.

The comments are far better than the Fizz/Jolt's embarrassingly bad journalism. I agree with Veritas and Ivan: Where's the editor?