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.

It's because of people like Greg Hill, I guess, that we have these politicians like Peter Steinbrueck, Nick Licata, and Richard Conlin who take hypocritical, schizophrenic stances concerning transit and density. At least with those councilmembers they're doing so as a political stance; Greg Hill must actually be sincere in his hypocrisy.

The thing about the DADU fight is that it's totally symbolic. As long as the owner has to live on the lot, the city's numbers are right: there will never be more than 20 DADUs constructed each year.

For those of you who missed the neighborhood planning process, the fundamental promise the City made to get the Complan and neighorhood plans passed was that new housing would be concentrated in designated urban villages with mixed-use zoning in order to focus growth away from existing single-family neighborhoods (and, by the way, existing zoning was said to be more than adequate to meet Complan growth goals - now called targets - without additional upzones)

Greg Hill doesn't agree with your rather simplistic views on land use (eg - density in Seattle prevents suburban sprawl, tearing down existing lowrise apartments and building upper income units makes housing more affordable, people who live in the City don't need cars, etc etc), but that doesn't make him a liar, disingenuous, or any of the other nasty names you are calling him.

BTW - Greg Hill rides his bike to more public meetings than just about anyone else out there, so he puts his money where his mouth is where alternative transportation is concerned.

And unless any of you are architects by trade, as Hill and Councilmember Steinbrueck both are, you might want to consider the fact that they are both much better educated on these matters than you are.

I just don't see how you can say that allowing ten to 20 new units citywide qualifies as "concentrating" new housing anywhere. I would understand your objection if we were talking about hundreds of new units concentrated in a single neighborhood, but allowing a few units scattered here and there is not development run amok. It doesn't even qualify as density.

p.s. Aren't you supposed to be on vacation?

It's the principle of the thing - this proposal really is duplexing (what are two houses on a single-family lot if not that?) by another name, and if it goes forward in SE Seattle, you can bet your bottom dollar DPD will make a concerted effort to duplex single-family property citywide.

BTW - I actually testifed in support of ADU's at a public hearing many years ago when they were first legalized (and there are still thousands of them out there that have never been propertly permitted).

As I said, if this proposal were more carefully drafted to allow existing structures, that might be one thing, but it's not (and if you think DPD will deny future occupancy permits because the main unit isn't owner-occupied, I've got a $5 billion waterfront tunnel to sell you!)

I totally agree on mega houses - but it's a completely different problem.

As I understand them, megahouses are usually very large single structures built on an existing single family lot to the absolute limit of what is legally permitted, and that do not meet the requirements of ADU's (which include separate entrances, utility billing, a minimum number of off-street parking spots, etc).

To me, the key concern that megahouses and DADU's (as proposed) give rise to is that they both involve setbacks from the adjacent property owner's lotline . I may be wrong, but I'm inferring that part of what you and most people hate about megahouses is how they overwhelm adjacent properties and block light, etc. Greg Hill is absolutely right when he says that the DADU proposal could have the same results for those who live next to one.

If a homeowner wants an owner-occupied DADU, but their lot is 3600 or 5000 sf, they are likely to build it far enough from their house to maximize the privacy of their portion of it, so it is likely that DADU's will be built as close to the neighboring property line as possible. Look at the apartment buildings being built now - do you think DADU's would be any more architecturally sensitive?

It seems to me that the practical effect of this proposal is that as a neighbor to a DADU on most city lots, you'll have two structures expanding over time rather than one (and check in with me in 10 years, because I'll eat my hat if the City is still enforcing the owner- occupancy requirements for these small new apartments once they've been built in single-family zones).

I can't really speak for Greg Hill, but I do know him well enough to say with great confidence that he is way not down with anyone parking on a planting strip, especially a Hummer - it would block a whole lot more of the sidewalk than any other vehicle.