A Roosevelt neighbor for density

Allison Sliter is a Roosevelt resident who brings a fresh and needed perspective to the ongoing discussion about density at the future light rail station coming there in the next decade. After talking over a variety of related topics I asked her to contribute a post about her perspective on density. The next big thing happening in Roosevelt is Monday, Sep 19 when the City Council will hold a hearing on the Roosevelt Legislative Rezone at the Roosevelt High School Auditorium

At Teddy's in the shadow of density

Last October, I had my motor vehicle amputated.

My husband had lived car-free his entire life, but when we met, I brought a 1985 Honda Accord into our relationship. She was a good car for her age – high gas mileage, small, (mostly) reliable. But she was starting to have difficulties. Living where we do, she got left at home more and more. One weekend, the day before a road trip, she was broken into and the thief damaged the ignition lock, rendering my Honda Accord undriveable. That was it. I called KUOW and had her donated and with a mixture of pride and trepidation, watched her get towed away.

I live on NE 12th, the northern end of the University District, about a block south of Ravenna. We live 4 blocks from a Whole Foods, 5 blocks from a Trader Joes, 4 blocks from a Safeway, 2 blocks from a Walgreens and there are two little convenience/grocery stores on the next street over. Within a 5 minute walk are 15 different bus lines (sometimes more, depending on how fast I feel like walking that day). My husband bicycles to work in South Lake Union, which is less than 4 mile away – approximately a 15 minute ride). We’re a half mile from a post office, a hardware store, a book store, and about a mile from a shopping mall. We’re a little more than a mile from Green Lake, where I run with my girlfriends. We’re about a half mile from the award winning Burke-Gilman Trail. Shopping, recreation, work, errands, all accessible without a a motor vehicle.

And it’s about to get better! We’re getting ready to make room in our neighborhood for light rail. Suddenly the whole light rail system will be open to us. We in the Roosevelt Neighborhood have an opportunity to remake ourselves

I’m lucky that this area had supported dense development for the decades before I moved in – that the large residential population supports such a large commercial environment. Density makes car-free not just possible but preferable with a safe and inviting pedestrian environment. Density makes a transit system valuable. Density also creates vibrancy, activity and neighborhood engagement. Great restaurants, farmers’ markets, street culture – the things that make Seattle distinctive and interesting and a fun place to live.

As important as the environment that density creates, it’s vital to consider what it helps prevent: The “drive till you qualify” sprawlsville that traps people in their cars, creates dangerous road environments for people not in cars, and makes us fat. As long as “affordable” means “far away from downtown” those who would most benefit from active transportation and the savings and the benefits involved are priced out the dense, close-in neighborhoods. You shouldn’t have to be rich to live in a safe, walkable neighborhood.

The biggest, most pressing argument in favor of building “up, not out” is climate change. In most of the country, carbon emissions come largely from electricity production and transportation (with roughly 40% each) and the remaining 20% made up of smaller chunks like industrial pollution, agriculture (cow farts), etc. Here in the Puget Sound area, transportation is more like 56% – our electricity is cleaner than most places and so our tailpipes are a bigger chunk of the problem. Over the last decade and a half, our average vehicle miles travelled has decreased, but the total miles for the region have increased steadily. If we’re ever going to make our climate goals, VMT per capita has to drop more. A lot more. Not everyone needs to give up their cars, but more people have to find that possible.

I’m living proof that a person can have a radical automobilectomy and go on to live a full and rewarding life. I want to make room for lots of other Seattlites to do the same. I live in the Roosevelt Neighborhood, and I’m pro-density.

Crosscut comments: Making my point?

Today, in Crosscut I wrote an article about some of what I’ve learned here reading the code. Crosscut commenters are a rare breed; creatively and obsessively curmudgeoned, they often have good insights, if not into my employment status, into their own condition.

Here’s Stan:

I couldn’t agree more that the land use code is a morass. However, I’m wondering if the author actually lives in one of the condo or apartment pigeon-hole units he seems to be promoting? I’ve heard more than enough blabbering from people who advocate more density, often those with a financial stake in the game. But if you ask them where they live, it’s “Mountlake Terrace” or “Madison Park”… The pendulum evidently has to swing back toward the type of housing the previous generation wanted to clear out after WWII. Single-family homeowners (emphasis on “family” and “owners”) seek to preserve some degree of personal privacy, their own outdoor space/gardens, general upkeep, and overall civility in their neighborhoods, which are threatened by large-scale dense developments, often rentals, with their increase in noise, traffic, crime, etc. I’ll bet if you talked to thse people, you would find that preserving equity is a second tier concern.

.
I don’t think Stan is wrong. It seems like he’s being honest. But he kind of makes my point doesn’t he? Not all single-family homeowners are afraid of a decline in “overall civility in their neighborhoods, which are threatened by large-scale dense developments, often rentals, with their increase in noise, traffic, crime, etc”

But it’s this very angst Stan writes about–density destroying the American dream–that underlies the counterintuitive tendencies we have as a city on land use. Why ruin that dream because someone says it’s better? And besides who are these do-gooders anyway? Why destroy the value of my investment for outsiders?

Am I right? Is Stan right, are we up zone cheerleaders going to bring noise, traffic, and crime?

Formless Code? Land use blog goes to Puyallup

Here I was, lost, wandering around in Puyallup of all places and I saw this out my window.

It looked like a big real estate or farm equipment firm had decided to hold it’s company pic nic in their Office Space like parking lot. It looked pretty crowded and it was noon time. What a generous gesture from the owners of the company to hire all the infrastructure in to give employees the illusion that they were at an Italian wine bar only steps from their cubicle.

But wait a minute. That’s not an insurance agency. It’s a restaurant!

Toscano’s Cafe and Wine Bar seems to be doing quite well. The place looked completely full. There’s no housing here and no other retail. You’ve gotta drive to get here, or work in one of the buildings around it.

Now I know there are a lot of similar things in places all across our region. You can find Chili’s or Keg restaurants galore in shopping mall parking lots. But it’s a rarity to see an outdoor wine bar in the midst of a sea of parking and the big glass windows of commercial office space.

Not only that, right across the street from Toscano’s is farm land.

Here’s a couple of maps for context. The top one is a Google map and the one below it is Puyallup’s zoning map.

Toscano’s is on the upper right side of the zoning map, between a big bland spot and the light brown. The Pink color is General Commercial and the brown is High Density Multiple Family Residential.

Here’s how the code, chapter 20 of Puyallup’s municipal code, describes General Commercial:

(5) CG General Commercial Zone. The CG zone is intended to provide for retailing and other commercial services that serve the large market area surrounding the Puyallup community. Such commercial developments usually rely upon the automobile as their principal source of access. In contrast to the CB zone, some uses in the CG zone may require large tracts of land and involve outdoor display of products for sale (such as automobile sales). The CG zone is also intended to allow some uses which are quasi-light industrial in character. (Ord. 2851 § 5, 2006; Ord. 2563 § 1, 1998; Ord. 2454 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2147 Exh. A, 1987).

Ahhhhh. So crisp, so clear, and so honest. And if you’re not sure what the General Commercial zone means . . .

Whenever a use is proposed to be established for property in the C zones, the planning director shall determine the appropriate classification of the use under the classifications set forth in Table 20.30.010 of this chapter. All such determinations shall be based upon a finding that the use is consistent with the description and purpose for the respective C zones set forth under PMC 20.30.005 and that such uses are similar to and compatible with the types of use examples provided in the definition of the relevant use classification set forth in Chapter 20.15 PMC. All determinations pursuant to this section may be appealed as an interpretation review to the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.87 PMC. (Ord. 2563 § 1, 1998; Ord. 2454 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2316 § 1, 1992; Ord. 2147 Exh. A, 1987).

Not sure what you’re allowed to build in the zone, ask the planning director. Don’t like what planning director thinks, talk to the hearing examiner.

I think Seattle is pathologically incapable of such simplicity. True, Puyallup is light years behind us in terms of density and transit and all the goodies we urbanists actively promote. But is that really so true? Puyallup certainly has a different set of values under it’s code, but in a sense the values are much more honest and straight forward.

Puyallup has a light rail stop and it has a historic downtown. In some ways I think Puyallup has a much more mature perspective about land use than we do. Or perhaps they’re more in touch with the basics of land use. Mix up a wine bar with an out door patio in the parking lot? Sure, why not. Hang a left down the hall way and your in the lobby of a title company, go to the right you’re eating spaghetti and meatballs.

But such a formless code might just be too scary for us in Seattle. Where’s the limits on height? What about parking? What about housing? What if someone makes a bunch of money at our expense? Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria!

I think as consider changing the code around light rail stations we should just have some smart guys sit down with a piece of blank paper and let them write a simple paragraph about what we want to see around light rail, let the Director interpret and implement that, and then, if you’re still not happy, tell it to the judge.

In search of . . . land use Doppelgängers

The Loch Ness Monster. Big Foot. Aliens from outer space. A balanced federal budget. All things that are the stuff of Leonard Nimoy’s In Search Of . . .

While we don’t have the benefit of a group of highly skilled technicians, we do have Charles R. Wolfe an extraordinary photographer and urbanist who has solved one of the great Seattle land use mysteries: are the brainy Mike Podowski of Seattle’s DPD and big time urbanist blogger Dan Bertolet the same person?

Now we know. Or do we? Photos don’t lie. In the photo above we see what appears to be both men, separate, discrete individuals. But the internets are already abuzz with new conspiracies. Are they twins? And who is the father? Has the land use blog stumbled upon some kind of Joseph Campbellesque Star Warsy land use blockbuster? If so, which one is Leah and which one is Luke? And more importantly, who is Darth Vader?

My opinion is that Chuck has discovered the long lost twin sons of the great Robert Moses. In order to keep my ratings up I won’t reveal who their mother is until episode V. Until then, consider this mystery solved. At least for now.

It is finished: The last seven words of the code

Yes, it was all an evangelical ploy. Follow along as I read Seattle’s land use code and the punch line is a reference to Jesus Christ. Sort of. The truth is I am finally done reading the code,  and I can’t resist yet another eye rolling allusion. In Christian tradition Jesus utters seven last words, phrases really, from the cross. His last seven words aren’t “look at the bright side of life.” Actually the last seven words are a profound and amazing liturgical doorway into Easter.

Saint James Cathedral completes the full liturgical use of Haydn’s Last Seven Words at the end of Lent, and if you love Haydn it’s a rare thing to be able to experience the work performed within the liturgy. But be prepared, it lasts several hours and includes sermons on each “word.” If you’re crazy enough to read the whole land use code, or crazier still, read someone else who is reading the code this just might be for you. Here’s a wonderful commentary from Raimon Panikkar, who taught at the University of California of Santa Barbara where I got my Masters Degree in religious studies.  How’s that for a digression?

No, this is really about the code. The last seven words of the code are:

Uses or structures shall not be affected

I can’t think of a better seven words. These words are in the severability section of the code, boiler plate language that makes it clear that if any one piece of the code is ruled illegal or unconstitutional all the other pieces still apply. It’s an old and standard thing to put in legislation as a way to avoid having an entire law or set of laws thrown out just because one section, say single family, gets ruled unconstitutional.

These words stand out because, at first, you’d say “it’s exactly the opposite.” And that would be true, the code governs every aspect of use and structure, so of course it affects uses and structures a great deal. But maybe the last seven words point the way. Maybe the code shouldn’t affect use and structure.  Perhaps the code should only address use. That is, maybe we should see structure as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Heightbulkenscale is the product of a code focused on design standards. What does it look like? How big is it? How many floors does it have? What do the windows look like? All of these mandates about structure get piled one on top of the other. The point of the code should never have been to dictate design standards. Even old school zoning, intended to separate use, didn’t really care about what buildings looked like. The point with Euclidian zoning was breaking up use, not determining what a rendering plant or a single family home looked like. Design standards have become a proxy for fear.

We lost our way, but it’s not too late to follow the bread crumbs back home. How do we do that? Well, I’d say we focus on use and outcomes. Mixing use together is good because it reduces transportation cost in terms of carbon emissions, time, money, and pavement. When I can walk to my job, my stores, and my recreation then I don’t need a car or highways. It’s all right there. That’s huge. Good land use means no more wasteful tunnel debates. 

That sounds so easy, doesn’t it, “focus on use and the future at the expense of rigid standards that express what we fear rather than what we hope.” But letting go of fear is really hard. Change does create fear and even transformative and positive change is a fearful thing. If we truly change the code and make it a document that points the way to what we want rather than a wall to shut out what we fear, it still will make us uncomfortable. I think it’s worth it, and when it comes to land use I always try to look at the bright side of change.

Public record request: Maybe MacGyver can save the tunnel

I decided to do a public records request. It’s a strange thing to do because it makes me feel like a real trouble maker. But I am just wondering how much of the tunnel is going to be funded with government issued debt.

I love debt. I think public debt is a great way to capture future value today, and tomorrow to make big investments in sustainable infrastructure. Value capture is a pretty cool idea, you borrow money, fix a problem, and pay back the loan with the extra money you make or save because of the efficiency.

But the deal is that the project has to deliver some value and the interest rate on the loan has to be favorable. I’ve already wondered aloud about what the State has taken into account how much money they will have to borrow for the tunnel, how much money locals will have to borrow, and whether any of this will be affected by the possible downgrade of the country’s credit rating.

This is a tiny little backwater of the internet, so my concerns are probably a bit hair brained. After all, the Congress passed the increase to the debt ceiling, and just like an episode of MacGyver, Washington DC’s politicians have jerry-rigged their way out of another mess.

But there’s always next week. How will the federal government get themselves out of this mess? Moody’s affirmed the country’s AAA rating but also issued a warning

The outlook for the U.S. grade is now negative, Moody’s said in a statement yesterday after President Barack Obama signed into law a plan to lift the nation’s borrowing limit and cut spending following months of wrangling between Democratic leaders and Republican lawmakers . . .

JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise U.S. borrowing costs by $100 billion a year, while Obama said it could hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. The ratio of general government debt, including state and local governments, to gross domestic product is projected to climb to 100 percent in 2012, the most of any AAA-ranked country, Fitch said in April.

“A downgrade is a sign that Congress is failing to address a real fiscal issue,” Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia.

I’m just curious. So here’s my information request. Will all the latest problems with credit ratings I wrote about over the weekend matter for the tunnel? I’m sure the Washington State Department of Transportation will get back to me with answers soon. Hey, I’m just a philosophy major with a pathological interest in public finance. But more and more the tunnel project looks like it would benefit from an outside consultant: MacGyver, where are you? Stay tuned.

VIA EMAIL

August 3, 2011

Fred Chang
Public Records Coordinator
Washington State Department of Transportation
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2424
Seattle, WA 98104

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Mr. Chang,

I submit the following request to the Washington State Department of Transportation under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW.

I request a copy of the Preliminary Finance Plan for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program that WSDOT has submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. I am especially interested in:

• How much of the financing will be with bonds issued by the Washington State Treasurer;
• Whether the Treasurer has been consulted about the impact of this issuance on the State’s credit rating;
• How much the State expects to pay in interest; and
• Whether any consideration has been given to the possible downgrade of the State’s credit rating because of Federal budget and borrowing problems and its effect on the the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program

Rather than a paper copy, I would prefer a PDF file or other electronic version. I am willing to pay costs of copying to the extent required by the Public Records Act.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

MacGyver

In the Seattle Times: Natural limits of land use

Now that I’m mostly done reading the code (one more post coming on the severability clause) I’m trying to come up with a response to the code. What would I change? Why? What would I keep and why? I’m also trying to figure out what I’ve learned. I’ve learned there are natural limits to land use.

I’ll go into that more later, but in the Sunday Times this blog gets a mention, in and article by Christine Harvey.

Now this isn’t just the usual chest thumping that bloggers do. I’m actually thinking about what I’m calling “the natural limits of land use.” Nothing too special, just one guys thoughts about the code. But Harvey picked up my thoughts well on proposed changes to the code.

Current zoning constrains the natural supply and demand of what makes for a successful project. Outlying areas, where there are many streets with low volumes of foot traffic, are suffering most

Not a total summation of my view, but I’m getting there. The idea is that land use is local fiscal policy. The government can promote good things with relaxing the code, but it has to be careful when it tightens the code because that’s where the government can do harm.

I won’t go further yet. But what I am proposing is the idea that up zones can’t have negative impacts. Down zones can be good, but they are more often bad. Doing nothing is the worst thing of all.

More later, but check out the Times. And this picture is a hint about what I’m thinking.

More bad news for tunnel debt: Seattle and King County on Moody’s watch list

Hit the brakes! Debt crisis could upend tunnel financing.

I told you so. The news keeps getting worse for tunnel supporters. Moody’s, the agency that rates creditworthiness of local government, has put Seattle and King County on their watch list. From the Seattle Times:

For anyone who thought the wrangling over the U.S. deficit and debt ceiling in the “other Washington” didn’t have much to do with this one, credit-rating agency Moody’s had a stark rejoinder Thursday: Think again.

Think again indeed. This is a land use blog. But if we had great land use in Seattle we wouldn’t need the tunnel. The fact is that if more people lived more closely together, in dense walkable neighborhoods, we could start phasing out projects like the tunnel.

And, the debate is sucking the life out of civic debate. For too long now we’ve been wringing our hands over the tunnel and the waterfront, while little has happened to make the big changes we need especially around station areas. We’ve invested billions in light rail as a region and Seattle, the largest city in the mix, still has ridiculously squat heights around station areas.

But maybe the silver lining in all the clouds around the debt crisis is the death of the tunnel project. Seattle will have to borrow money for the repair of the seawall. So will the Port and the State. Seattle is now on Moody’s watch list for a downgrade.

Moody’s warned that if there’s no budget deal and it cuts the federal government’s top-notch credit rating, the equally high ratings of King County, Seattle and Bellevue, the University of Washington and five local school districts would be placed under review for possible downgrade as well.

That at least raises the possibility that the next time the county or one of those other public entities goes to borrow money, it would have to pay a higher interest rate. All now have the highest rating of Aaa, which gives investors great confidence they will repay the debt on time and allows them to borrow money at the most attractive rates.

All of this makes me feel like Cassandra. Or maybe Mugatu from Zoolander.

And Moody’s isn’t just rattling it’s saber either. I think this is very likely to happen. The agency is now suggesting that anything short of a real solution to the crisis is going to result in a lowering of credit. It’s very likely to happen.

Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody’s to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating,” the credit rating agency said in a new report. “The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high.”

It added that “prolonged debt ceiling deliberations” have increased the odds of a downgrade

The tunnel project is already kind of hanging by a thread and there are lots of questions about where the money is coming from. If the cost of borrowing goes up, it’s hard to see how the tunnel projects cost projects won’t completely fall apart. That makes the possibility of overruns even more likely.

And sadly, while the tunnel project’s death would be a relief, it isn’t much of a silver lining. Increases in the costs of borrowing money will monkey wrench a lot of other good capital projects for transit infrastructure. But tunnel advocates need to be asked what are they going to do when there are downgrades in credit for agencies and governments on the hook for costs. Where will the extra money come from?

Bad debt rising: Federal default could doom deep bore tunnel

Tunnel supporters feel the debt limit crisis

It seems very likely that if the federal government defaults, or even if it gets close and gets it’s credit score dinged, the tunnel project up for a vote could be in serious financial trouble. The fact is that the project is very dependent on federal money and borrowed money. Federal money might get cut off as the national government struggles to pay its bills without extra borrowed cash, and state and local government would face increased costs as interest rates go up when their credit ratings get downgraded because of the federal cash crunch. Anyway you slice it, the current troubles mean that even if the project comes in on budget, Seattle may get stuck with what the feds can’t pay, and the State, Port, and City share might ballon as their borrowing costs go up, pushing more risk and costs on city taxpayers. Let’s unpack this.

From the New York Times Q and A on what the pending debt crisis could mean for local governments:

Q. What could it mean for states and cities?

A. States, still recovering from the downturn, could be hurt in two ways. First, if the federal payments they rely on for everything from Medicaid to highway construction are interrupted, states that are still recovering from the recession could face serious cash-flow problems.

A default by the federal government on it’s obligations would profoundly affect a lot of people and organizations. But it could affect the tunnel by affecting highway funds allocated for the project. Now, at first, you might think that federal funds are coming, off in the future. But it’s likely that the Congress is going to play this game again later on. The pressure for a two step vote, one now and one next year, makes the possibility that funds both now and and in the future for tunnel construction might get choked off. That’s a de facto overrun even if the tunnel’s costs are as predicted since the revenues won’t be.

I haven’t seen anything that maps out priorities for who gets paid first as federal dollars get scarce with a default. But it’s hard to see the federal government continuing the flow of cash to a deep bore tunnel in Seattle instead of paying for grandma’s social security. Those entitlements are a significant outlay, but so is all the money that will be borrowed by the state, port and city to pay for the tunnel and seawall replacement. Who gets paid first?

State and local governments are already feeling the pressure of decreases in revenues. But could there be a ripple effect on the tunnel created by a default and subsequent downgrade of the federal government’s credit rating? Moody’s is already reviewing local governments and considering downgrading them if the crisis unfolds with a default.

A Moody’s spokesman said such factors as dependency on federal revenues, reliance on capital markets, exposure to overall economic cycles and cash reserves played into which entities are being reviewed. Nationally, the review list includes 162 local governments, 14 housing finance programs and one university 

The story from Minnesota’s Star Tribune goes on to say: 

“If the U.S. isn’t AAA credit, that threatens everything,” Schowalter said. “If the U.S., which protects and guides the states’ credit, is decreased that is going to have a ripple effect on the economy that is really profound.”

And more from the New York Times Q and A:

Some states are already feeling the effects. Maryland postponed a bond sale after it was warned that its credit rating would probably be lowered in the event of a federal downgrade. California, which typically issues short-term bonds for cash-flow reasons at this time of year, is working to arrange bank loans instead, citing the market uncertainty. Some state pension funds are worried that a default could erode the value of their investments, which are still recovering from losses during the recession.

How could this affect the tunnel? Well there is a lot of federal and borrowed money in the funding stream for the tunnel. The Washington State Department of Transportation’s website shows that

The viaduct replacement projects have $2.4 billion in committed funding from the state gas tax and federal sources. The Port of Seattle has committed $300 million to the replacement program.

The City of Seattle needs to borrow as much at $235 million to fund the seawall replacement, and the Port of Seattle seems to be leaning towards borrowing for its $300 commitment. Taken together, and not including possible state borrowing, that’s about $535 million in borrowing. Borrowing for the project could reach a billion dollars.

Currently, borrowing for local governments with good credit can be pretty low. But even small increases in interest rates for the city or the port could increase the costs by millions of dollars. A couple of percentage points might not seem like much, but when considered along with choked federal cash, increases in state costs of borrowing and perhaps even higher increases in interest rates the costs could start to multiply.

And don’t for get that the state borrows billions for lots of things, not just highways. If the state’s other borrowing costs go up from the typical 4 to 5 percent up to 6 or 7 percent it could cost the state millions in revenue it doesn’t have.

So put it together: less federal money,  and higher interest rates at the state, local, and port level means less cash and higher costs for borrowing money. That spells real trouble for the tunnel project. The federal government can’t pay it’s bills, the state doesn’t have much money, and the costs of borrowing start to climb as credit ratings get downgraded. All of this ought to heighten the worries of Seattle voters considering the tunnel. With problems with toll revenues, sketchy info on the Port’s commitment, trouble with federal money, and higher borrowing costs, all signs point to higher costs for the tax payers of the city of Seattle.

The tunnel project isn’t just unsustainable and bad for the environment, it’s a public finance Frankenstein, assembled from shaky and flaky funding sources. When the federal government defaults, credit ratings drop, toll revenues fail, there’s only one place to go for the extra cash: Seattle tax payers. This is one exit we shouldn’t take.

Note: I love debt and taxes. Nothing in this post should be construed as debt hawkishness. I am a sweet, debt dove. 

Photo credit:mensatic from morguefile.com

23.91 Citation– Hearings– Penalties: Clean up your act!

We most often think getting a ticket when we’re driving. Speeding, making a bad turn, or having a busted tail light can cost money in the form of fines and time if a person feels the ticket isn’t justified. This final chapter of the code is really part of the enforcement of the code, usually called compliance. I touched on it already, talking about how code compliance has affected the arts. This chapter outlines what happens when a property owner violates aspects of the code, falling out of compliance.

The folks in Roosevelt know all about code compliance and enforcement. So do people in Georgetown and South Park, and just about every other neighborhood. This chapter is about that one stubborn property owner that won’t clean up their yard or parks lots of junk cars on the property. At first, you want to ignore it. Maybe it’ll go away. But it gets worse and worse. And soon, it becomes clear, that the property owner isn’t just being messy, he’s actually somehow benefitting from the mess.

Here’s the list of things that a property owner can be cited for:

• Substandard rental housing conditions
• Outdoor storage of junk (inoperable cars, debris)
• Zoning: Use not authorized
• Illegal unit
• Unlawful home occupation
• Parking in required yard
• Vacant building
• Vacant building open to entry
• Tenant-occupied damaged/dangerous buildings
• Just Cause Eviction or Tenant Relocation
• Vegetation from private property/planting strip overhanging or encroaching on street, alley, or sidewalk
• Vegetation obscuring traffic sign/intersection or forcing pedestrians off the sidewalk into street
• Construction without permits
• Construction or mechanical equipment noise
• Clearing or grading without permits
• Tree cutting on a vacant lot
• Tree cutting in an Environmentally Critical Area
• Landslide

But the deal is that, unlike local traffic cops, the folks at the Department of Planning and Development don’t drive around looking for violations. Enforcement is complaint based. Maybe your neighbor won’t trim their hedge or maybe they’re taking a chain saw to an ancient tree. Perhaps you notice a lot of construction going on for a new DADU, but you don’t see any permits posted. Another frequent problem is lots of inoperable cars parked on a neighboring property. All of these require that neighbors file a complaint.

My experience is that these issues fall into three categories: neighborhood feuds, mental health issues, or deliberate and willful violations for profit. Roosevelt neighbors would likely argue that the Sisley properties fall into all three categories. But let me expand a bit.

The feuds tend to be differences in what people consider to be a clean or messy yard. Often these cases are issues of lifestyle preference or even economics. Things can get run down, but it might not fall quite into the category of a violation. People can feel insulted or slighted. Complaining parties can feel threatened or ignored and then things get ugly. Complaints are filed and all manner of invective can be hurled around. But really, the issue isn’t any of the things above, just basic human nature.

The issues related to mental or physical health often arise when a person is old or struggling with multiple health issues. Hoarders often fall into this category. There’s just too many risk factors and the person can’t maintain their home or their property in a way that keeps it in basic compliance. Trees can get overgrown, the structure can start to decay, and junk builds up. Soon, the neighborhood has a serious health and safety issue. These problems usually take intervention from more than just DPD and they can take years to clean up.

Lastly are the folks that decide they are going to run an auto repair and junk dealership out of their single family home. Or a family decides they really want a better view of the sound so they chop down a bunch of trees on their property or on Right of Way. Maybe a person is trying to turn that garage in the back yard into a DADU without getting a permit. All of these fall into the willful gaming of the system for personal benefit. These also can be a big hassle because sometimes property owners will comply just enough not to get a fine or maybe they figure fines are just the cost of doing business.

This last category, spurred the City Council to pass some amendments to the code to turn up the heat on these owners. Now, instead of just civil fines, the violations can be criminal violations.

The changes are directed at repeat offenders who negatively impact their neighborhoods and their tenants with substandard housing; zoning violations, such as auto repair and outdoor junk storage in single family neighborhoods; and chronic vegetation violations that create hazards for pedestrians and drivers, such as blocking views at intersections.

The Clean Up Your Act page goes into more detail about this on the DPD website. But so much of this comes down to resources. It doesn’t take many of these violators in combination with a few dozen of the other categories to stretch enforcement resources thin and then to the breaking point. So it ends up falling on neighbors to be persistent, and that can keep things uncomfortable for years.

Code enforcement on this level runs into some serious philosophical and legal issues that are uniquely American. “A man’s home is his castle!” is an oft repeated bromide in our culture. Code violations of this nature challenge our concepts of privacy and property. When someone takes advantage of those big allowances it makes people really angry, and it can sap a lot of resources trying to resolve the problem. But what’s amazing, as a teacher of mine once put it, “is not that this happens, but that it doesn’t happen more often. Lest you think these things only happen in single family neighborhoods here’s a note that was posted not long ago in a condo building I know.

Something must have set this off. Dogs aren’t covered by this chapter of code, but my point is that whenever you get people living close together it becomes a test of people’s patience. Even in a private setting, governed only by self imposed and private rules, conflicts between people and their expectations of each other are inevitable. It’s why I wrote in something I called the Urbanist Creed:

Urbanists are communitarian, holding that close proximity to one another boosts our best human characteristics: creativity, compassion, and conservation. We come from all across the economic spectrum ranging from homeless advocates to urban planners. But we all want to make our cities better and have idealism about where we live.

This view also fits my theology. The baptismal promise in the Episcopal church includes the following exchange and the end of the baptismal vows:

Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.

Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help

I fail to do this all the time. But it’s hard to pull this off, no matter how hard you try, via the internet or living in a compound in a rural setting. Cities promote conflicts between people and conflict presents us with an opportunity to be tolerant, to embrace differences, and to love one another. As much as we fight about overgrown vegetation, barking dogs, zoning, light rail, heightbulkenscale, or noise from the street, this conflict is an essential to human evolution. Isolation does not breed human progress.

This way of viewing how people evolve over time is not without controversy, nor is the first time anyone has ever thought of it. The via-negativa, the idea that to know God is to know what God is not, can give way to Nicolas of Cusa’s God, a God that is the “coincidence of opposites,” and then to Hegel’s dialectic of self-consciousness and identity through conflict of opposites. But the idea that we gain something from other people — learning from them what we don’t want to be, realizing from them what we share in common with others, or changing through conflict with them — is a powerful and ancient one.

Cities help us achieve sustainability for sure by reducing our per capita carbon emissions, using energy more efficiently, creating less impact on water, and concentrating growth in a way that preserves habitat, open space, and farm land. But living more closely together also forces us to be uncomfortable, and regardless of your theology — or if you even care about theology or epistemology — people get better the more they can learn from one another. In cities we find out what we don’t like, we learn what we should be more tolerant of, and, through conflict, we learn we can’t always be right and we improve our knowledge.

I know that’s a lot to try to get out of the citation section of the code, but, hey, as I’ve said before, it’s my blog!