4 ms·

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 tr

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]
- eru 8y ago
  Up. The sky is the limit.
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

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]
eru 8y ago
Up. The sky is the limit.

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