Letter to the Editor: Smart growth is not always extreme growth
Sunday, October 9, 2016
To the Editor:
I recently became aware of Chris Nielsen’s letters criticizing those who he feels have opposed the recent rezone of the 145th Street sub-station area.
I do not know anything about Mr. Nielsen’s background. In reading his letter it seems obvious to me he definitely does not know Janet Way, nor the neighborhoods affected, nor the process we have been involved in, and I doubt he read through the FEIS for the substation area. Mr. Nielsen does seem critical of those whose views are in opposition to his with no room for compromise
The FEIS did state that Shoreline could meet its growth goals without rezoning. That says a lot in general about the City’s ability to absorb more growth, there was already enough zoning in place to take care of the expected population growth for the area.
Residents sought a smaller footprint to the development, sensitive areas be protected, for slower, phased growth and that larger projects be placed where services were readily available. Large scale projects can work; they need good infrastructure but also land that is more readily available; think of Northgate, there was undeveloped land for building large and where Thornton Creek has been allowed to see the light of day.
I’d like to point out to Mr. Nielsen that Janet Way had a hand in the development of that project. She is not opposed to growth, just unbridled growth.
No, we do not oppose all redevelopment with greater density, we oppose giving developers free rein to do as they wish. The rezone seems to have done this.
Smart growth is not always extreme growth, slow growth with thoughtful concessions is not NIMBY. Those who live in growth’s path have a right to direct that growth because we know our neighbors, our neighborhood, and the challenges therein.
Cathy Aldrich
Shoreline
Posts
3 comments:
There has been something that has bugged me about this upzoning fiasco that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on until now. I've honestly tried to take my emotions out of the equation and just focus on facts and data. The pro-upzone side has nothing but emotional arguments, they have nothing but theories that are fringing to the point of them almost coming off as "conspiracies", and one thing is certain... they have nothing but ad hominem attacks and namecalling in their arsenal of "logic", discussion, and debate.
When the pro-upzone side speaks of... "you should have had the foresight to see this coming" .. even though it wasn't part of the ST2 bill. "What did you expect?" when it wasn't part of the ST2 bill. All that comes to mind is extreme victim blaming. It sounds like the good people of these established Shoreline neighborhoods were somehow "asking for it".
"Change is coming... it's inevitable"... when change happens everyday and people move in and out of neighborhoods in organic ways. Neighborhoods will change... with or without massive upzoning along a seven layer dip of developer incentives and giveaways and without having to put a dime back into our communities for twelve years.
These land-use changes and polices are rapacious.
There is an established pattern of intimidation, fear-mongering, and dishonesty that has gone into silencing critics of the upzoning.
The city has yet to prove that there is "overwhelming public support" from within Shoreline for these upzones.
As a resident of Ridgecrest area and an actual homeowner who is losing their house to the Link, first I have to say this whole rezone piece I feel has been badly handled by the leaders of Shoreline. We are not Seattle, nor do we want to become that. With that in mind I do believe some rezoning had to happen, but I am of the mind that Janet and Cathy get that and Chris felt they didn't. I hope our future can include a more thoughtful view with more input and less rhetoric and meanness.
The native Americans had the same reaction when the Norwegian immigrants started clearing Shoreline.
Post a Comment