City War is Peace, and Density is Sprawl.
Anti-growth activist Greg Hill’s op/ed in the P-I today opposing “detached accessory dwelling units” (garage apartments) is riddled with errors, mischaracterizations, and half-truths. I really recommend reading the whole loony thing for yourself, but here’s my personal favorite whopper:
Unlike the neighborhood plans, which call for new residential density to be focused, the DADU concept is for growth anywhere, creating an in-city sprawl that will increase auto-dependency.
“In-city sprawl”? Is Hill kidding? I really don’t even know where to start with this literally nonsensical, dishonest bullshit. (Maybe with the fact that “in-city” and “sprawl” have exactly opposite meanings? Or perhaps with the disingenuousness of using environmental buzzwords to promote policies that lead to sprawl?) More people per square foot is the definition of density. Density decreases auto dependence. The alternative—encouraging people who would rent DADUs to move to the suburbs—would increase it.
Let’s move on:
“Affordability” is the justification for the proposal. Four “affordable” DADU prototypes were built for an average of more than $200,000 each.
To inject a tiny dose of reality: The median house price in King County is $405,000. By that standard, $200,000 is affordable. And anyway, rent is dictated more by the housing market than by what a place costs to build. (If rent is even an issue: Many homeowners say they want to build DADUs for their elderly relatives or teenage children, who would presumably live rent-free.)
The city expects 10 to 20 a year will be built.
Hmm… So which is it, Greg: “growth anywhere” or ten new units a year? Because I have a hard time believing that ten new garage apartments (or even—horrors!—20) will have much impact on the city as a whole, good orbad.
Moving on:
Only one parking space per tenant is required. The young and restless at City Hall say we should live without cars. We should try to drive less, but car ownership is a reality. Seven tenants means seven cars.
And seven cars means seven parking spaces (which I think is way too much, but nobody asked me.) So… What, exactly, is the problem again?
Even the headline is nonsensical: “Don’t Allow Housing Units to Squeeze Out Backyard Tomatoes.” A better headline might have been: “Don’t Allow Homeowners to Subsidize Their Mortgages with Apartments on their Own Property.”
It's like the guy doesn't even know that arterials are zoned with higher Residential or Mixed Use heights, or that Fremont has literally converted more than 100 apartments to condos just in the last year.
Next thing you know, he'll write about how it's cheaper to live in the suburbs, even though your commute costs you $5000 a year when you actually run the numbers, and a mortgage in Seattle is a lot cheaper, considering the fact your property increases in value as well.