Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on "Perhaps Unpleasant ... Consequences"


Jamie Pedersen is:

a) full of shit
b) a tool
c) completely disconnected from reality
d) all of the above

You probably already know what answer I picked.

I'm curious exactly which condo developer mogul paid his ass off to oppose the legislation.

Pedersen is such a self-serving piece of shit.

Posted by Gomez | February 2, 2007 11:18 AM

I have a feeling that condo conversions may end up capping themselves. There's way too many being built now as it is.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 2, 2007 11:21 AM

The Rev. Kirlin-Hackett is exactly right. I have no inherent problem with condo development, but what has happened over the past couple years is ridiculous and frightening. Rep. Pedersen, I supported and voted for you. No pull your head out of your ass and do the right thing.

Posted by Hernandez | February 2, 2007 11:24 AM

This is all the market reacting to the height cap on residential apartment buildings.

If we changed zoning to permit four-lot structures to have 100-story residential apartments, with 25 percent for very low income rentals and 25 percent for below median rentals, we could solve it. Which is what Vancouver did decades ago, building giant apartment buildings surrorunded by green space parks.

Time to wake up and smell the growth.

That plus we have to stop whining and discussing and start BUILDING mass transit NOW, not in 20-40 years.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 2, 2007 11:32 AM

Please look south to see just HOW BAD an idea a cap on conversions is.

San Francisco through its rent control and now very restrictive conversion cap has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. In a nutshell, a cap will tighten the condo market - which might be happening on its own. But, if supply of condos is cut then prices go up. This effectively prices some people out and may cause them to stay in the apartment market which will push up rents.

Will in Seattle @4 has a much better plan. Make it easier to build bigger, and thus more profitable, apartment buildings. Messing with the underlying housing markets leads to all sorts of unforseen problems.

Posted by Cameron | February 2, 2007 11:46 AM

The problem, Cameron and Will, is that those apartment towers would get bought up and converted to condos themselves. Developers are sharks and they don't care who they fuck over, as long as they get their money. Trusting the market is like trusting a violent rapist with a knife.

Posted by Gomez | February 2, 2007 12:13 PM

Jamie Pedersen didn't run for office as a lefty fan of government intervention in the housing market. He ran as a corporate lawyer (and friend of big money interests) and a strong activist for marriage equality. His stand on the condo conversion bill should have been perfectly predictable to anyone who voted for him.

Posted by J.R. | February 2, 2007 12:17 PM

Yep, and the divide between just having two classes of people living in Seattle continues. The folks making enough to afford a condo for around $300K or those making under the cap for low income housing. The rest of us are going to be moving to Kent or Federal Way....... (I have to go puke now)

Posted by Andrew | February 2, 2007 12:17 PM

There goes Mr Civil Rights again. Pedersen's a corporate tool jackass. Shame on The Stranger for not calling him on his bullshit during the primary.

Posted by DOUG. | February 2, 2007 12:34 PM

It will probably be high end units, not low end ones, that are candidates for conversion. In other words, the displaced renters are the same folks who, as first time buyers, would benefit for lower condo prices which would result from a larger inventory.

Posted by Condo Lover | February 2, 2007 12:38 PM

Except that's not the reality CL. According to the recently completed study on the effects of conversion by Councilman Rassumsson, the apartment units being converted to condos aren't for the most part "high end", they/re moderate-to-low end, and many of the folks being displaced couldn't afford the $300K+ units that these formerly $800 a month apartments are being "converted" into by way of a few appliance upgrades and a fresh coat of paint.

Posted by COMTE | February 2, 2007 1:00 PM

Unfortunately it's not just high end units. Look at Ballard, all those ugly ass 70s apartment buildings that house mainly little old ladies, are being turned into condos that are selling for $300k & up. It's pretty crazy.

Posted by soupy | February 2, 2007 1:01 PM

None of this really matters since there will be no demand for condo conversions once the bubble bursts.

Posted by Investigatory Journalist | February 2, 2007 1:17 PM

It's pretty simple. Wealthy, middle-aged gays love condos. Pedersen's core constituency is wealthy, middle-aged gays - many of whom are real-estate agents to boot. Therefore, Pedersen loves condos. Foregoing the conversion cap makes it more likely his core supporters can marry each other and live happily ever after in their condos.

Posted by George | February 2, 2007 2:03 PM

Your weird homophobic comment is belied by the fact that Rasmussen and Murray (who support the cap) are gay gay gay w/ a lot of the same constituency.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 2, 2007 2:07 PM

@6 - Gomez, have you ever BEEN to Vancouver BC? I lived in inexpensive apartments there - and know many people who still do.

Wake up and smell the solution.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 2, 2007 4:25 PM

You're assuming that the development, properties and growth will be managed the exact same way, Will. Also, Vancouver is in Canada, which operates under a socialist economy.

Wake up and learn how to think critically.

Posted by Gomez | February 3, 2007 9:20 AM

A cap is a terrible idea. I'll be back with something.

Posted by Colin | February 3, 2007 3:59 PM

@ Will in Seattle:

Will has the right idea. Seattle should skip this step and get with the times. Move to inclusionary zoning. Affordable units INSIDE very tall towers in the city core. Not conversion caps. Not extra money dumped in a fund so we can build more affordable housing in Rainier Valley.

Posted by 98122 | February 3, 2007 4:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).