Wow, today started off so nicely…after a 5-hour red-eye from Seattle I was sitting in the sun riding a NJ Transit train from Newark Int’l to Manhattan’s Penn Station. But then all of the sudden the train literally stopped in its tracks. What was the problem? The conductor announced that a train in front of us was stuck in a tunnel, and that we’d all need to cool our heels for awhile.
(Photo from the train - FYI, that’s not me in the seat)
So…I thought, ”hey, why not fire up the ole web enabled phone and catch up on some news?” And wow, what a post on today’s Hugeasscity blog. (An interesting side note, it took me as long to read the post as it did for the train to get unstuck).
You should check it out yourself, but here’s the quick preview - The Livable Seattle Movement issued a report called Seattle Housing Capacity Exceeds Three Times Anticipated Growth, which really rubbed HugeAssCity the wrong way and compelled them to post an open letter to Livable Seattle.
I was hoping this letter would set the stage for a spirited debate between the two, but this opening salvo from Hugeasscity.com isn’t leaving me too confident that it will happen:
But after taking a close look at your (Livable Seattle Movement) literature, I have actually found quite a lot with which to disagree. In particular, I believe that several of your claims regarding the negative impacts of density are both intellectually dishonest and morally irresponsible. Until now I’ve been inclined to just ignore you. But apparently there are many Seattlites who listen to what you say. So alas, I am compelled to take the time to write this (sigh… precious time I will never get back…).
“Intellectually dishonest and morally irresponsible?” Really? I can understand completely disagreeing with LSM’s position - but isn’t an accusation like that usually reserved for someone malicously trying to spread misinformation (like my old music teacher saying that our band’s popularity would skyrocket if we performed Starship’s ‘We Built this City on Rock and Roll’ in front of the entire school).
But seriously, I enjoy reading the HugeAssCity blog because its where I go to get a better understanding of what the ’density cheerleader’ (HugeAssCity’s words, not mine) camp thinks. But I’ve got to say, I am starting to tire of Seattle’s never-ending ‘Density Cheerleaders’ vs ‘NIMBY’ (otherwise known as ’Good’ vs ‘Evil’, or ‘Evil’ vs. ‘Good’ - depending on who you are rooting for) fighting. I have to agree with one of the comments made on that post who said this is a ‘false conflict’. Unfortunately though, I think it has become a pretty big distraction which keeps us from holding our city leaders accountable for staying focused on the real issue this city faces - investing in the infrastructure, amenities and creative solutions that need to go hand-in-hand with increased density in order to ensure that we are a sustainable and livable Seattle.
Personally, the ironic thing in all this is that I think that at the end of the day both sides have basically the same end goals in mind for Seattle - that we become an affordable, environmentally friendly, family friendly, and transit friendly city. Its just that both sides have very different ways of skinning this cat -who knows maybe this is a good opportunity for everyone to cool their heels and at least start talking to one another.
(FYI - here’s the best constructive criticism I’ve received to date about this blog, where I got called out for temporarily losing site of the reason why I was writing this blog - comment #4).
7 responses so far ↓
1 eM // May 20, 2008 at 9:19 am
my cat takes offense to your morally irresponsible metaphor in the last paragraph
2 Joshua // May 21, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Greg - I completely agree that more constructive dialogue is needed, and that the respective digging in of heels probably often impedes forward movement. That being said, I think it’s a little disingenous to just say Livable Seattle and “Density Cheerleaders” have the same goals and different means and leave it at that. Hugeasscity pointed out some pretty substantial failures in logic in Livable Seattle’s argument that greater density leads to more sprawl. At some point we have to say, “No, that doesn’t work” and, yes, “that does work”. Or, as in Livable Seattle’s case, “That’s an interesting point you have,” and “boy, you really missed the mark there.” Unfortunately, it seems to be more of the latter in their case.
The multi-culti slogan of “everyone’s right, we just need to talk!” only goes so far before it leads to a collective dulling of political, social, and cultural discourse. Let’s avoid that pitfall.
3 Greg // May 22, 2008 at 10:37 am
Joshua - What?!? So does this mean I should cancel the NIMBY/Density Cheerleader healing-retreat getaway weekend I booked over at Ocean Shores? What about the ‘airing of grievences’ drumcircle? Is that not necessary anymore?
My point wasn’t about the Livable Seattle report or the Hugeass’ criticism of it - I was just trying to say that the argument could be made without it getting personal.
I just think that 1) this is a false conflict - almost like there’s some sleeper cell NIMBY cabal out there that rises up to try and destroy all change in the city. I’m not saying there aren’t people who don’t want change, but the vast majority aren’t on the extremes of this debate - they’re just regular people somewhere in the middle who just don’t want shitty things being built. 2) getting personal doesn’t do anything to build credibility - what message does this send to other groups who may have ideas and want to approach you with their thoughts? Has this sent the message that if they don’t say something you like you’ll blast them for it and 3) you’ve got to understand that Seattle neighborhoods are kinda pissed off right now from being kept out of the density discussion during the Nickels era. I think most aren’t mad at growth, they’re not happy about being left outside the debate.
And as far as being disingenous - my neighborhood group and a developer we were fighting against were able to put aside our differences and come to an agreement on something that worked better for all of us - so it can be done.
4 Joshua // May 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I don’t disagree with anything you just said. Good show.
5 Renee // May 22, 2008 at 4:36 pm
sleeper cell NIMBY cabal - That should be on a T-shirt.
6 Renee // May 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Another shirt should say - density cheerleader
Pick the way you feel each morning to decide which one you wear.
7 Greg // May 23, 2008 at 9:38 am
I agree. I always thought NIMBY would make a good brand for a line of tshirts- it would be verrrry ironic if someone wore it out to a late night show at Neumos or something.
Leave a Comment