<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Slog - Comments on &quot;Growth Is Coming and With It Change.&quot;</title>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change</link>
<description>For those who are still mad at Roger Valdez, former head of King County&apos;s tobacco prevention program, for pushing for (and rigorously enforcing) Seattle&apos;s indoor-smoking ban, here&apos;s something to put on the plus side of the ledger: An op/ed he wrote in today&apos;s P-I, which makes the case that everybody just needs to calm down about the pace of change in Seattle. And he has some smart suggestions for keeping the things and places that make neighborhoods work, without opposing development as such. Where will all the new people live? Where will they park? Are they going to be noisy?...</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:40:02 -0800</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:10:27 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Comment by Zander</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>  Erica wtf?<br />
  For starters this guy lives on Beacon Hill which is way down the list for neighborhoods that have densisity or have undergone much change.<br />
  Secondly, you should have caught on that he contradicts and negates himself.<br />
  He starts his second bullet point with this:  "We could use our land-use code to create incentives for developers to preserve existing uses, such as community arts and cultural venues, in exchange for increasing the number of units they can build/"<br />
  He ends his third bullet point with this:  " Why not set aside the code and allow developers and neighborhoods to work together toward projects that are profitable and promote neighborhood character."</p>

<p>  He is both for and against having a code.<br />
To say that constant change is here to stay is a cliche and should not be congratulated.<br />
</p>]]></description>
<author>Zander</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072315</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072315</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:35:21 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mr. X</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Shorter Valdez:</p>

<p>STFU and make my consulting gig(s) running City pseudo-public involvement "processes" manipulated to ram density down your neighborhood's throat easier...</p>]]></description>
<author>Mr. X</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072324</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072324</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:32:30 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Kaypro</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Zander @ 1 -</p>

<p>Please elaborate on the ass-in-head first point of yours. How exactly does living on Beacon Hill immediately discredit one's comments--whatever those might be--about city planning?</p>]]></description>
<author>Kaypro</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072353</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072353</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:52:10 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Zander</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Kaypro-</p>

<p>  I actually believe people should live the life they advocate whether they live on Beacon Hill or not.<br />
  Were you unable to find the contraditions in Valdez' piece?  <br />
  BTW I am guessing you meant head-in-ass but maybe you are way limber than the rest of us as well.</p>]]></description>
<author>Zander</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072366</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072366</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:10:01 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by AJ</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Condos create future incentive towards height and density. Apartment buildings and such in the future will have to be built to similar standards.</p>

<p>In short, no more fucking townhouses. </p>

<p>All the city needs to do is to stop suckling at the teats of the developers and mandate a minimum amount of affordable apartments in each development or the funding of a certain amount so agencies like HRG can start building more places people can live. We really need more housing in the 40-140% of median income range. Right now we're building townhomes for the 250-300% range. And their footprints are eating up potential density!</p>

<p>Not cool.</p>

<p>As far as feelings of community? Not the developers' problem. Keep your neighborhood vibrant and force the condo set to assimilate or stay inside all day.</p>]]></description>
<author>AJ</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072397</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072397</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:49:19 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Will in Seattle</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Sigh.</p>

<p>You know, if we just zoned for 40 to 100 story tall inexpensive residential rental apartment buildings surrounded by greenspace mini parks instead, it would be a LOT less disruptive.</p>

<p>Build them where transit stations are.</p>

<p>NEXT!</p>]]></description>
<author>Will in Seattle</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072694</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/growth_is_coming_and_with_it_change#c1072694</guid>
<category>City</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:10:27 -0800</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>