6 ms·

Frankly, good. If the Eastside cities can't or won't step up with building more affordable housing and public services, then I'm glad Microsoft is willing to k

Frankly, good. If the Eastside cities can't or won't step up with building more affordable housing and public services, then I'm glad Microsoft is willing to kick in its money. It's a shame that the counties and cities in the region, by and large, aren't willing to acknowledge that this is a regional problem but Microsoft putting up the money at least removes the "but we can't afford the taxes or find the money elsewhere" excuse. This isn't the first time Microsoft has put its money where its mouth is for its community. They've done a lot for transit in the region, too. I don't mind so much that they are studiously avoiding the region's most populated city. Not all of the affordable housing and public services needs to be concentrated solely in Seattle. The rest of the region should have these things, from mental health services to public health facilities to shelters to affordable housing. Concentrating them in Pioneer Square around the Union Gospel Ministry isn't the way to go.

opportune 8y ago
I know this will sound very NIMBY, but while I believe Eastside cities should contribute municipal funds to alleviate the affordable housing shortage that is truly a regional problem, I don't know why they need to build those in the Eastside area. The Eastside has, to my knowledge, basically never been a cheap place to live. It was a middle class suburban area that transformed into a very wealthy suburban area with denser parts that are also very wealthy. Maybe some small pockets of people were gentrified out, but what you're talking about seems to basically be just moving the people gentrified out of Seattle into an even wealthier area for some reason. It's also very car centric and spread out, which isn't so great for poor people that don't own cars. Sure the Eastside rail is getting built but that will only cover a limited part of the region. But of course, like I said, they should still help solve the problem monetarily.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  One thing I didn't see you address is where you think affordable housing should be built. Do you have any thoughts in this regard?
  - opportune 8y ago
    By areas with high density and good transit. So, mostly Seattle and the Western/Central part of Renton, also Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Redmond. Last time I drove around Georgetown I noticed lots of unused space, maybe there's a reason a lot of affordable housing hasn't been built there, but it seems underutilized if it's not actively being developed for affordable housing I'm not in principle against low income people living on the Eastside. In fact, I think most of Bellevue, Kirkland, and the area surrounding the Bel-Red corridor should be upzoned and get more infrastructure - then low income people could actually live there
    - Jach 8y ago
      I don't think we'll see them in downtown Bellevue anytime soon. Too many "Homeless Shelter Yes, Eastside No" signs next to the roads on the way in. I'm just a transplant and won't be here forever (10 years so far though), so I have little stake in the matter, but it seems clear most people on the Eastside want it to keep being "nice" even if that unfairly prices people out. I like things "nice" too and appreciate the car culture here. Of course I might be mistaken and the Seattlefication will continue. I have a friend who thinks Bellevue's about 10 years behind Seattle in things, Redmond another 10 years behind Bellevue, maybe we'll see Issaquah become the new Redmond.
      - cbHXBY1D 8y ago
        There are homeless in downtown Bellevue. Yes, nothing compared to Seattle but I see dozens of homeless each day. I've gotten to know some and they take the 550 to get away from the camps in Seattle.
    - bch 8y ago
      The bigger density (building up) I’m told is capped by air traffic of Boeing Field.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- cworth 8y ago
  You said it yourself. Why should the Eastside get to avoid having homeless and subsided housing in their backyard? Certainly the employers of Eastside residents have contributed to the rise in Seattle home prices.
  - throwawaysea 8y ago
    Because that’s what their constituents want. Why do they have to get Seattleized?
    - jonknee 8y ago
      Because the Eastside doesn't exist in a vacuum?
      - throwawaysea 8y ago
        That doesn’t seem like a valid reason to me. Nothing is in a vacuum - so what? Eastside cities’ residents want a certain degree of density, safety, cleanliness, etc. They also want to avoid losing the ability to have fast point-to-point on-demand transportation (i.e. driving private cars on roads that aren’t overcrowded), which enables them to live better lives by being able to quickly zip between work/schools/activities at a moment’s notice without dealing with the waiting times and schedules of mass transit. That’s the lifestyle they have now and the lifestyle they want to sustain. I don’t think that should be demonized - people have different wants and needs, especially if they are raising children. They also aren’t obligated to make their locale affordable to those who want to move there. After all, we are talking about one of the most desirable places to live, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that it is expensive as a result. Why should that necessitate a slide towards heavy urbanization? I realize some people prefer that denser life and might benefit from it (particularly if they are new transplants) but it’s not for everyone and I don’t think a community is obligated to make accommodations just because others now want to live in a particular location at a price point that makes sense for them. America has many places to live, and jobs are more available than they have ever been historically. Lastly, cities surrounding Seattle also aren’t obligated to absorb the large homeless population Seattle has, which let’s face it, is enabled by lax enforcement of laws. A lot has been written (and is plainly observable) about the permanently homeless in Seattle who refuse all services and drug dealers operating out of roving RVs. For example take the recently swept Northgate homeless camp - an article I read stated that just one of that massive cluster of campers accepted services from the Seattle navigation team. And recently a lady was pricked by a needle at Northgate mall, not far from this camp. Is it really surprising that people in the Eastside don’t want to welcome the same squalor into their neighborhoods?
- loeg 8y ago
  The eastside was rural until a few decades ago. Like, farms, cows, trees. It being expensive is a recent phenomenon.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Even Bothell had a major GTE Mobilenet (now Verizon) site 30 years ago.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >what you're talking about seems to basically be just moving the people gentrified out of Seattle into an even wealthier area for some reason. So it's making the wealthy pay the price for the zoning policies and real-estate speculation they created.
- jtmcmc 8y ago
  Only renewing and building up economically depressed places is a huge issue of gentrification and inequity. Why should it be so that only the poor should be radically impacted by necessary city changes? A really prime example of this is NYC construction post-war where robert moses demolished many homes of people of color to build various highways or in the bay area where the construction of above ground bart majorly impacted the overwhelmingly black section of west oakland. I'm not saying that we shouldn't build transit, or new construction but to only build it in economically depressed areas - which are often ghettoized places for ethnic minorities - seems fairly wrong. This seems to be a major part about why many people who are advocates for the poor have an issue with new construction - because it results in displacement of people who can't afford it
jseliger 8y ago
The big issue with affordability in the area concerns zoning: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to-end-single-family-zoning-could-change-affordable-housing/398420/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to.... Right now, you can put a lot of money into affordable housing, but without substantially increasing supply, you are going to raise overall prices. LA has the same problem with its attempts to "solve" its homelessness problems, which are at their root zoning problems: http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-f...
- techsupporter 8y ago
  I completely agree. However, Microsoft can't pour money into changing zoning (at least, not in a direct way like this). We absolutely do need to be fixing our zoning, both in Seattle and on the Eastside. The problem is, it can't just be one city or a few cities doing it. We need the region to pull together. Right now, there's a huge gulf between people who want this to happen and people who are, for their own reasons, vehemently opposed. You can see some of this divide in this very thread, with words like "Seattlized" being thrown around.
  - eru 8y ago
    Why can't it just be one city? Becoming Manhattan was a huge boon for Manhattan real estate values.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Manhattan becoming Manhattan at first required inhumane levels of crowding, in tenements that would only have a single bathroom per floor. Today’s Manhattan is well below population peak.
      - eru 8y ago
        Historically that's probably true. These days, we are much richer and we already know how to build high rises.
rlabrecque 8y ago
Taking that express bus from downtown Seattle to Redmond which had free wifi was awesome the first time!
kerng 8y ago
Yeah, very different behavior compared to Amazon. I start liking Microsoft a lot recently.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Opinions of Microsoft have been changing in the past few years and I think they will continue to change in a positive way in the next few years. The stock is a good buy.
  - ryebreadistasty 8y ago
    I disagree. Anything a corporation does they do because it directly benefits them, in this case they get more people moving close to their HQ and it's good publicity. In the case of their Linux support it's death by a thousand paper cuts. Pretty simple.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      Are selfless acts the only possible good acts?
    - amf12 8y ago
      > I disagree. Anything a corporation does they do because it directly benefits them, I don't understand why people want corporations to behave like non-profits. It's a corporation whose sole aim is make profit. But that doesn't mean they can't do something for goodwill that actually benefits the community. > In the case of their Linux support it's death by a thousand paper cuts. What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community?
      - ryebreadistasty 8y ago
        >I don't understand why people want corporations to behave like non-profits. It's a corporation whose sole aim is make profit. But that doesn't mean they can't do something for goodwill that actually benefits the community. Because people act like they're altruistic and nice when the reality is that they're not. I'm not gonna suck your dick because you pulled a PR stunt, I don't swing that way. >What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community? On the surface level more support for linux is good thing, but like all corporate-developed software it eventually becomes bloated and unstable and dies a slow death.
novaleaf 8y ago
I'm in Woodinville. The northern east-side has a growth moratorium due to lack of road capacity. I'm not sure if road expansion is voted down or some other issue, but I'm glad there's no growth until then, as there are some pretty terrible traffic conditions in the area.

opportune 8y ago

I know this will sound very NIMBY, but while I believe Eastside cities should contribute municipal funds to alleviate the affordable housing shortage that is truly a regional problem, I don't know why they need to build those in the Eastside area. The Eastside has, to my knowledge, basically never been a cheap place to live. It was a middle class suburban area that transformed into a very wealthy suburban area with denser parts that are also very wealthy. Maybe some small pockets of people were gentrified out, but what you're talking about seems to basically be just moving the people gentrified out of Seattle into an even wealthier area for some reason. It's also very car centric and spread out, which isn't so great for poor people that don't own cars. Sure the Eastside rail is getting built but that will only cover a limited part of the region. But of course, like I said, they should still help solve the problem monetarily.

techsupporter 8y ago
One thing I didn't see you address is where you think affordable housing should be built. Do you have any thoughts in this regard?
- opportune 8y ago
  By areas with high density and good transit. So, mostly Seattle and the Western/Central part of Renton, also Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Redmond. Last time I drove around Georgetown I noticed lots of unused space, maybe there's a reason a lot of affordable housing hasn't been built there, but it seems underutilized if it's not actively being developed for affordable housing I'm not in principle against low income people living on the Eastside. In fact, I think most of Bellevue, Kirkland, and the area surrounding the Bel-Red corridor should be upzoned and get more infrastructure - then low income people could actually live there
  - Jach 8y ago
    I don't think we'll see them in downtown Bellevue anytime soon. Too many "Homeless Shelter Yes, Eastside No" signs next to the roads on the way in. I'm just a transplant and won't be here forever (10 years so far though), so I have little stake in the matter, but it seems clear most people on the Eastside want it to keep being "nice" even if that unfairly prices people out. I like things "nice" too and appreciate the car culture here. Of course I might be mistaken and the Seattlefication will continue. I have a friend who thinks Bellevue's about 10 years behind Seattle in things, Redmond another 10 years behind Bellevue, maybe we'll see Issaquah become the new Redmond.
    - cbHXBY1D 8y ago
      There are homeless in downtown Bellevue. Yes, nothing compared to Seattle but I see dozens of homeless each day. I've gotten to know some and they take the 550 to get away from the camps in Seattle.
  - bch 8y ago
    The bigger density (building up) I’m told is capped by air traffic of Boeing Field.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
cworth 8y ago
You said it yourself. Why should the Eastside get to avoid having homeless and subsided housing in their backyard? Certainly the employers of Eastside residents have contributed to the rise in Seattle home prices.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  Because that’s what their constituents want. Why do they have to get Seattleized?
  - jonknee 8y ago
    Because the Eastside doesn't exist in a vacuum?
    - throwawaysea 8y ago
      That doesn’t seem like a valid reason to me. Nothing is in a vacuum - so what? Eastside cities’ residents want a certain degree of density, safety, cleanliness, etc. They also want to avoid losing the ability to have fast point-to-point on-demand transportation (i.e. driving private cars on roads that aren’t overcrowded), which enables them to live better lives by being able to quickly zip between work/schools/activities at a moment’s notice without dealing with the waiting times and schedules of mass transit. That’s the lifestyle they have now and the lifestyle they want to sustain. I don’t think that should be demonized - people have different wants and needs, especially if they are raising children. They also aren’t obligated to make their locale affordable to those who want to move there. After all, we are talking about one of the most desirable places to live, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that it is expensive as a result. Why should that necessitate a slide towards heavy urbanization? I realize some people prefer that denser life and might benefit from it (particularly if they are new transplants) but it’s not for everyone and I don’t think a community is obligated to make accommodations just because others now want to live in a particular location at a price point that makes sense for them. America has many places to live, and jobs are more available than they have ever been historically. Lastly, cities surrounding Seattle also aren’t obligated to absorb the large homeless population Seattle has, which let’s face it, is enabled by lax enforcement of laws. A lot has been written (and is plainly observable) about the permanently homeless in Seattle who refuse all services and drug dealers operating out of roving RVs. For example take the recently swept Northgate homeless camp - an article I read stated that just one of that massive cluster of campers accepted services from the Seattle navigation team. And recently a lady was pricked by a needle at Northgate mall, not far from this camp. Is it really surprising that people in the Eastside don’t want to welcome the same squalor into their neighborhoods?
loeg 8y ago
The eastside was rural until a few decades ago. Like, farms, cows, trees. It being expensive is a recent phenomenon.
- masonic 8y ago
  Even Bothell had a major GTE Mobilenet (now Verizon) site 30 years ago.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>what you're talking about seems to basically be just moving the people gentrified out of Seattle into an even wealthier area for some reason. So it's making the wealthy pay the price for the zoning policies and real-estate speculation they created.
jtmcmc 8y ago
Only renewing and building up economically depressed places is a huge issue of gentrification and inequity. Why should it be so that only the poor should be radically impacted by necessary city changes? A really prime example of this is NYC construction post-war where robert moses demolished many homes of people of color to build various highways or in the bay area where the construction of above ground bart majorly impacted the overwhelmingly black section of west oakland. I'm not saying that we shouldn't build transit, or new construction but to only build it in economically depressed areas - which are often ghettoized places for ethnic minorities - seems fairly wrong. This seems to be a major part about why many people who are advocates for the poor have an issue with new construction - because it results in displacement of people who can't afford it

jseliger 8y ago

The big issue with affordability in the area concerns zoning: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to-end-single-family-zoning-could-change-affordable-housing/398420/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-a-seattle-plan-to.... Right now, you can put a lot of money into affordable housing, but without substantially increasing supply, you are going to raise overall prices. LA has the same problem with its attempts to "solve" its homelessness problems, which are at their root zoning problems: http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-f...

techsupporter 8y ago
I completely agree. However, Microsoft can't pour money into changing zoning (at least, not in a direct way like this). We absolutely do need to be fixing our zoning, both in Seattle and on the Eastside. The problem is, it can't just be one city or a few cities doing it. We need the region to pull together. Right now, there's a huge gulf between people who want this to happen and people who are, for their own reasons, vehemently opposed. You can see some of this divide in this very thread, with words like "Seattlized" being thrown around.
- eru 8y ago
  Why can't it just be one city? Becoming Manhattan was a huge boon for Manhattan real estate values.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Manhattan becoming Manhattan at first required inhumane levels of crowding, in tenements that would only have a single bathroom per floor. Today’s Manhattan is well below population peak.
    - eru 8y ago
      Historically that's probably true. These days, we are much richer and we already know how to build high rises.

rlabrecque 8y ago

Taking that express bus from downtown Seattle to Redmond which had free wifi was awesome the first time!

kerng 8y ago

Yeah, very different behavior compared to Amazon. I start liking Microsoft a lot recently.

matte_black 8y ago
Opinions of Microsoft have been changing in the past few years and I think they will continue to change in a positive way in the next few years. The stock is a good buy.
- ryebreadistasty 8y ago
  I disagree. Anything a corporation does they do because it directly benefits them, in this case they get more people moving close to their HQ and it's good publicity. In the case of their Linux support it's death by a thousand paper cuts. Pretty simple.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Are selfless acts the only possible good acts?
  - amf12 8y ago
    > I disagree. Anything a corporation does they do because it directly benefits them, I don't understand why people want corporations to behave like non-profits. It's a corporation whose sole aim is make profit. But that doesn't mean they can't do something for goodwill that actually benefits the community. > In the case of their Linux support it's death by a thousand paper cuts. What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community?
    - ryebreadistasty 8y ago
      >I don't understand why people want corporations to behave like non-profits. It's a corporation whose sole aim is make profit. But that doesn't mean they can't do something for goodwill that actually benefits the community. Because people act like they're altruistic and nice when the reality is that they're not. I'm not gonna suck your dick because you pulled a PR stunt, I don't swing that way. >What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community? On the surface level more support for linux is good thing, but like all corporate-developed software it eventually becomes bloated and unstable and dies a slow death.

novaleaf 8y ago

I'm in Woodinville. The northern east-side has a growth moratorium due to lack of road capacity. I'm not sure if road expansion is voted down or some other issue, but I'm glad there's no growth until then, as there are some pretty terrible traffic conditions in the area.