Here’s a "Reader’s View" editorial from the Seattle Times that I bookmarked a while back and apparently lost in the shuffle.<\/p>\n
In my small neighborhood, I can point out several recent density actions. You decide if they were for the better or for the worse.<\/p>\n
\n
- On the corner of Norman and Bradner in the Mount Baker neighborhood, two single-family houses were razed to make room for 10 \u2014 yes, 10 \u2014 townhouses. These townhouses are priced in the $400,000-plus range. This is affordable housing for whom?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
…
Were bus routes added to handle the new riders? No. Were the streets widened to handle more traffic? No. Were the parking lots in the neighborhood shopping areas expanded to handle more cars? No. Were any neighborhood city streets improved? No.<\/p>\nAs far as I can tell, the infrastructure has not changed to accommodate the increased density.
…
Where are the affordable houses for those middle-income people who can’t afford the median price of a home? What if they prefer not to pay $300 a square foot for a condo? What about the possibility of rent control? How many more people will be homeless as a result of the density building plan?<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe piece is pretty short\u2014I’ve quoted nearly all of it here. Ms. McCarthy doesn’t seem to have a single point she’s trying to make, but is rather expressing general distress at the state of housing and density in Seattle. Obviously I agree that middle-income people don’t really have an affordable option for buying a home in Seattle right now, but I don’t know where she’s coming from with the comments about rent control. Last I checked rent is pretty affordable right now, and despite what the papers say, I haven’t seen it creeping up. It’s certainly frustrating not being able to afford a house, but renting is still a very viable alternative.<\/p>\n
(Meg McCarthy, Seattle Times<\/a>, 03.25.2006<\/i>) <\/p>\n