The jail and the sex offender thing are poor analogies – the odds of them occuring are infitesmally small relative to a development being built in a zone where it is currently allowed as of right.

I don’t see myself renting or moving anytime soon, and I just hope the owners of the property behind me don’t get greedy and think they can maximize profit by selling to a developer with no scruples about the impact of the eight houses behind this property.

Wedgwood is predominantly a single-family residential community and lacks a large commercial district where there would be a good transition area between 4 story mixed use buildings and single family homes. I think any new development needs to also consider the traffic congestion that already exists along 35th… the street just happens to be an arterial; that doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate place to have this 40′ commercial zoning.

In response to the person who thought I should have considered zoning laws when I bought my house… I was concerned with the normal things people consider when purchasing their first home: safety, schools, location of amenities, neighborhood “feel,” etc. I was concerned that the restaurant behind us wouldn’t leave their dumpster open us to smell. I never imagined that 10 years down the road there would be a development boom with condos popping up all over. No one could have anticipated that. Be reasonable and consider what you thought of when you bought a home (assuming you have). I suspect that if you bought a home and you later found out that the city was going to put in a dump next door, or a low-security jail, or a home for convicted sex offenders, you might be concerned about how it impacted you! If your neighbor said they were going to tear down their house and build a mc mansion that blocked your prime view of the Olympics, but it was in their zoning rights to do it, you would call them bad neighbors. Am I wrong? All I am saying is that you can’t blame someone for not anticipating everything.

The calculus I see is that the city needs to start maximizing residency and services on its main streets more than the owner of a small, single family home needs not to live next to a taller building. That’s the essence of NIMBYism–a tragedy of the commons.

As for the question of disproportionate scale–there is always goign to be some disproportionate scale, and there particularly always will be in times of heavy growth. It won’t be disproportionate for long if the neighborhood and city get their shit together and allow 4 story buildings on 35th, 2-3 story apartment complexes in the block or two to either side, and townhouses in the actual neighborhoods.

The problem, again, is the incompatible zoning, not four story building. The houses directly behind all areas zoned NC2-40, which again are small (less than 1000 sq ft, single story homes) would be directly abutting massive, disproportionately scaled buildings, as we are seeing per this current project.

Are you suggesting that this is reasonable urban planning, and this is what we should expect if we live in the city? I would disagree.

However, I think there remains a strong strain of NIMBYism in the group’s aims and writings. Look at the Wedgwood group’s website, from July 27th:

“If this project goes through it sets a precendent for other properties. Imagine knocking down the Rite Aid, All that Dance, the Windermere Building, the QFC, Wedgwood Broiler, etc.. and replacing their entire footprints with 4 story multi-use properties. No offense, but this would look a lot more like Lake City Way than Wedgwood.”

Dear God, no!!! 4 story buildings on the main commercial strip?!!! Within the city limits of a large, growing city!!! Say it ain’t so!!!

This is what cities have–multi-story buildings on commercial streets. Is a one-story Rite Aid or QFC (with its wasted open space on parking (minimizing density and causing run-off issues) really better than a four-story building that allows more people to live near goods and services? If you want increased transit, you need the density to sustain it. Such developments would help your cause.

I don’t begrudge any neighborhood trying to get something out of its developers, but I find a lot of the pro-density rhetoric from groups like Wedgwood action disngenuous when they consider multistory development on main streets to be some sort of apocalyptic vision.

The developer owns the land and as long as he is within his legal rights, what business is it of you guys to have a say in what goes there?

If you want to dictate what gets developed there, you should have bought it yourself.