Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Police Cutality | They Crushed Darwin, And Now T... »

Monday, December 4, 2006

Re: Mother-In-Law Apartments

posted by on December 4 at 10:49 AM

Hey boss,

Attached accessory dwelling units have been legal in Seattle forever. DETACHED accessory dwelling units are now legal in Southeast Seattle, with the rest of the city expected to follow suit. As I, um, reported in your paper on August 10:

One citizen who testified against allowing mother-in-law apartments warned of “more people, more trash, and more crime” in the city; another said DADUs were being “dumped” on disadvantaged neighborhoods. Nonetheless, the once-controversial legislation passed 81, with only Richard McIver, who predicted “major problems,” voting in opposition.

RSS icon Comments

1

I am dumb.

Posted by Dan Savage | December 4, 2006 10:51 AM
2

Still Dan, your IQ relative to Erica or Josh's make you ready to cure cancer....

Posted by StrangerDanger | December 4, 2006 11:12 AM
3


Oh, boo-hoo, SD.

If you think they are such dummies, read (and comment) on another blog.

Posted by boo! | December 4, 2006 11:18 AM
4

ADUs are legal, but they are supposed to be registered. The registration bureaucracy is more hassle than many people are willing to go through, so there are still a huge number of technically illegal ADUs out there. Even so, enforcement of of illegal ADUs is about one step up from enforcement of marijuana laws. IE: practically nonexistent. The city doesn't actively seek them out, and only enforces the regulation if some nosy neighbor files a complaint. At which point the owner can pay a minimal fine and go ahead and register. So really, this whole thing is a non-issue.

The city rightfully feels there must be some regulation. Some of these ADUs are quaint and cute, but some can be hazards and death traps: basement apartments with low ceilings, mold, and no ventilation; attic apartments that are impossible to escape from in case of fire; houses broken up into a half dozen tiny apartments, basically creating a mini-slum.

If the city keeps the total asshole abusive landlords in line, and ignores the rest of them, that seems like a decent balance to me.

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 4, 2006 11:20 AM
5

that's right. love it or leave it, baby! that's the 'merican way.

Posted by charles | December 4, 2006 11:20 AM
6

Whoa! Wait a minute, Mike. Are you trying to suggest that the Stranger will get its panties in a self-righteous wad on some issue of great principle, and put it all over their cover with exclamation points, and then decide to start selling the exact opposite idea? Are you saying the paper that had its tongue up Judy Nicastro's ass (in their own charming phrase) for years for her noble effort to turn downtown and surrounding neighborhoods into New York, has now decided that it's not such a great idea when it threatens one of their favorite hangouts? Dude. No way.

Posted Nov. 30 at 2:03 pm by Mark D. Fefer

Posted by Read and weap | December 4, 2006 11:35 AM
7

[Warning: Hyperbole Incoming]

Iraq/Bush vs. Capitol Hill zoning/the Stranger

Cluelessness about the details on the ground? Check.

Strident calls for action that will turn out to mostly benefit the rich? Check.

Accusations that the people with opposing views do not have the best interests of the country/city in mind and should consider leaving? Check.

Surprise at the outcome of their actions? Check.

Posted by rodrigo | December 4, 2006 12:43 PM
8

What will we do with the extra 200 housing units citywide? I just don't think our city can handle the growth impacts at all - hey, maybe we should have built that monorail for all these extra people, and built an eight-lane underwater tunnel using the magical fairy gold at City Hall?

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 4, 2006 2:43 PM
9

The Stranger is hypocritical. They go on about how single-family zoned areas protest density, about how selfish they are; and when their hangouts on Pike/Pine are threatened, then they scream.
If you have a home in a single family area, you have some peace. Mostly. Dan Savage knows this, he lives on Vashon, a very high-priced area. Those of us in, say, part of North Seattle, who are trying to maintain a bit of yard and some space from noisy neighbors, would like NOT to have people crammed into our backyards.
Blame developers, and contractors. There are plenty of them out here building illegally, sans permits. We have a shining example right next door, a real estate attorney who's been adding on to his house illegally for more than a decade. Wouldn't you like to hire him as a lawyer? Cheats on his own home turf? Would you trust him to take out your garbage?
Once the tiny little backyard garden patches are gone, we can't get them back. There are some few of us middle class folks out here who'd like to preserve a bit of space between domiciles.

Posted by isabelita | December 4, 2006 6:22 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).