Written by Renton resident Elizabeth Rogers wrote a guest opinion for the Seattle Times. While I don’t necessarily agree with everyone of her points, I think her theme of concern that Renton and the Northwest are losing their livibility has some merit. Like her, I saw this same trend in California, where I was born.
I think we do have to be selective in the development we encourage, and seek to redevelop aging parts of town ahead of sprawling into natural areas whenever possible.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this topic. Please leave your comments below.
Elizabeth Rogers obviously does not understand the issues she whines about. The policies and politicians she wants are the very root of the problem. Their regulations are what are driving up the cost of housing, espcially the drive by the Democrats for the Growth Management Act. Elizabeth, you can kiss off Puget Sound area livability, because it has been sacrificed by Ron Sims, Gregoire and the others through GMA to save the rural areas outside the cities. Even the leaders of Renton and the other cities in the area can’t do anything about it – they are inside the Urban Growth Boundary drawn by the State and County, and they are required to accept the growth whether they like it or not. It they don’t, the no-growth “environmentalist” organizations sue them to accept the growth. Sims loves it – he will see our area reach the density of Tokyo before he lets the Urban Growth Boundary get pushed out. Talk about a pressure cooker…
And how many kids did you have Elizabeth? Much or most of the growth is our children, not people coming from California. Instead of a building moratorium, which your no-growth friends won’t allow, why don’t you just propose a moratorium on families having more than one child like China has?
Elizabeth, you can save your trees, but your children can’t afford a house, or even a condo pretty soon.
I disagree
I really don’t think the issue is quite so balck & white.
While it’s true that the GMA has some serious downsides (especially with regard to affordable housing and property rights), without it, we’d be looking at suburbs that go on forever, with generic strip malls and a complete lack of identity and uninterrupted open space. Think Orange County. Or even Parkland. We’d also see little investment and rejuvenation in our close-in suburbs, including Renton, and probably Seattle itself.
I don’t know what the solution is to provide truly affordable housing for middle class families… perhaps there really is no good solution in areas like ours, which are very desirable places to live. If home ownership is the ultimate goal for families, then redevelopment of existing areas and infilling is probably the best bet, if it’s done with character. I think we’re starting to see more of that with the newest developments in the East Highlands, and even in downtown Renton. As far as home prices are concerned, that’s a tough one. Hopefully, the real estate bubble has finally burst (in a “softer” way around here), and salaries will have a chance to catch up with home prices. In Renton itself, I’d really like to see more actual condos being built, rather than luxury apartments, which may or may not become condos at some point. I know a lot of young people who’d be interested in buying a condo at Southport or The Landing for $250K or less, rather than paying $1600/mo. for an apartment. Getting young people invested in a condo (with reasonable condo fees) will certainly help them achieve single family home ownership later, if that’s their goal. It’s not an ideal solution, but times have changed… we can no longer just build a new freeway out to the hinterlands and put up cheap crackerboxes on farmland. Even without “the Democrats” restricting development to within the Urban Growth Boundary, there’s a finite amount of land out there before you run into the Cascades or the Sound.
Ms. Rogers is long on complaints, and short on solutions. A building moratorium, so we can do what?!
Livability
The responses to Randy’s entry with the photos from Charlie Conner’s helicopter touch on livability issues that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Elizabeth Rogers guest column
As a California resident of Randy’s hometown since 1960 I feel qualified to comment. Some things in CA changed between 1985 and 2007. Our downtown restoration required years of polls and persuasion by builders and residents to control growth (we haven’t conquered freeway traffic). Patience, persistence, and cooperation helped solve problems, much restoration is complete, and most residents evidently are happy. Our mayor wasn’t opposed, and we made Money Magazine’s ‘Best Small City’ list in 2006. This year I saw few campaign signs and mailers, and no one came to my door campaigning.
During your recent campaign Renton residents saw the power of citizen input. Congratulations!!
Randy’s Mom
Our future in your hands
The GMA does not mandate a lack of creativity and a laser-like focus on cramming tracts of ugly McMansions into older, aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods which still have some trees and natural areas left. The City must begin to encourage growth which supports both new housing and preservation of critical areas; grass drainage swales to reduce runoff; cluster/cottage developments to maximize buildable land while retaining open space- all established strategies which are supported by many studies in municipal planning and used by some of the most visionary towns in the country. Now our new Mayor and Council can show the rest of the region what “Ahead of the Curve” really could mean- imagination and vision, combined with caution, tax incentives, and thoughtful growth. Denis and the Dreamteam: yeah!
D4D
Re: Our future in your hands
Absolutely! I would love to see more cottages developed as an alternative to condos. I grew up in an older town with tiny little lots with tiny little homes (they were originally vacation homes), and such homes are perfect for a lot of people’s needs.