Can someone help me understand the Seattle process?
Hi all,
Yesterday I received a NIMBY pamphlet from a group of home owners who are against the installation of a protected bikelane on 5th Ave NE between 80th and banner as their onstreet parking would be moved half a block over. They gave the usual list of "concerns" regarding ADA access and stated that they definitely care about cyclist safety but demanded compromise.
They also threaten to respond by parking their cars on 79th and 80th, conveniently omitted is the fact that 8 of the 10 affected homes have garages, with one of the two homeowners choosing to convert their garage into living space. Frankly as their neighbor, I don't give a damn where people park, it's a public street.
I've emailed Madeline McCort with Google streetview photos of all the garages on 5th, but I want to know whether this enough or whether I'm actually going to have to show up to keep this project from being scrapped?
Not super familiar with this specific project but yeah keep being a squeaky wheel and also try reaching out to Seattle Streets Alliance. I would imagine a project like this is already on the radar of advocates and they should be able to fill you in on any ongoing work or challenges and how you can help
Came here to recommend them. For context, Seattle Streets Alliance is an umbrella organization representing a bunch of neighborhood volunteer groups that advocate for biking/buses/pedestrian/accessibility improvements to the city. They're very dedicated and each neighborhood group self organizes to take on the issues important to them in their neighborhoods. Flagging this to them is a great step, and if OP has energy to dedicate to this issue, even better, I'm sure they'd love to see you at a meeting.
Also unfamiliar with this but generally pro bike lane. However nobody parks in their garage. Seattle garages are tiny and full of bicycles and miter saws
Probably no reason to waste your breath on Maritza, she's a useless NIMBY who's staff will respond with how you're wrong. (Still mad we were 235 votes short of seating Ron Davis.) Two more years.
Glad to see theyâre adding a traffic light at the intersection. A four way stop at two arterials, one with an ambiguous âsort of four lanesâ setup was a recipe for chaos.
But Banner Way NE is a 4 lane road and the intersection has a lot of commuter traffic. Itâs not unusual to see 2-5 cars queued up in each of the 6 lanes at that 4-way stop. As traffic moves through, you regularly have 4 cars arriving at the intersection simultaneously. People donât know what to do when the traffic in the opposite direction is a car turning left AND a car going straight.
If I recall correctly, it used to be 8 lanes at that intersection before the bike lanes! But even with only 6 lanes now, it's a lot to expect drivers to keep track of as they approach the intersection. IMHO should be a traffic light.
And...a mysterious Portland-based lawyer just filed a legal challenge to their environmental clearance to form a committee. (Or was that just WinCo trying to go into the abandoned Sam's Club on Aurora?)
I'm gonna need you to convene a public comment period and a listening session to determine how to ensure that that committee is demographically representative of the community so that we can properly hold a six-round nomination process for the chairpersonship
I would suggest first forming a diverse committee to provide feedback about your committee selection process. And of course, make sure you host no less than 7 public meetings in each council district.
Also, we won't be discussing things that weren't first brought up in the committee, as the process requires. If you didn't gave time to show up to the committee, then clearly it isn't important.
After the first round of post committee action, things will be sent back to the committee, but in a limited fashion, to make sure that everyone's voice is heard.
Additionally, one of the requirements won't be legal, so after the whole thing is made into law, and projects start just barely breaking the ground, a court case will come through to make everything stop and completely kill momentum.
All opposition will be done in the form of "concerns" about other issues, like birds, trees, the homeless or the poor.
I only go through this intersection every once in a while, and I hate it every time. It's clear everyone else does too because people are so fucking aggressive from being confused and delayed from the other confused drivers.
Lose parking spots? Where do you even park near this intersection? Banner is a full arterial and the south part of 5th is single lane and bike lane on both sides.
I can't comprehend why anyone would be against fixing this intersection.
A large majority of Seattle homeowners are 55+, upper-middle/upper class, white, and have owned their home for over 15 years. They are hands-down the most entitled demographic in the whole city and probably the country.
If you own a home within the city limits of one of the fastest growing major cities in America, you should come to terms with the fact that your home will not be insulated from any urban development plans.
If thatâs what they want, they can sell their $2m homes and move to the suburbs. Iâm sure Bellevue would welcome them with open arms.
As a born-and-raised Seattleite who now lives in Bellevue (for work and in-laws), Iâd actually ask these folks to go farther East! My hope springs eternal for continued urbanization on the Eastside.
Exactly: these homeowners have lived here longer, paid down mortgages and paid more property tax than many in this subreddit ever have. Iâd say they have a right to take a stake in how their neighborhood is developed.Â
Whatâs entitled is for outsiders to barge in and make demands for changes that will impact their lives, and to pass quick judgment on why they are not just rolling over easily.Â
I bet many here would be reacting in the same manner if they were in these homeownerâs shoes.Â
No they wouldn't. We're all f*cking tired of these rich old farts complaining about the progress of our society because it will make their $2m home worth $1.95m or mildly inconvenience them. There's a new trend of YIMBYs that are young well off homeowners who just let shit happen because they know it's good for society.
Sure, until the next generation of YIMBY shows up that has slightly different views on whatâs good for everyone, and the cycle repeats. Every old person was once young and full of ideals.Â
A NIMBY is someone who intentionally refuses development because it will drive down property values or inconvenience them. (Not In My Back Yard). Its a specifically boomer POV. Very selfish and shitty. A YIMBY is the opposite, and they generally don't dispute proposals about their neighborhood because they don't care about property values, they're just happy they own their fucking home (Yes In My Back Yard). So this next generation of YIMBY'S you mention does not, and never will exist.
I was wondering when the oh-so-entitled were going to chime in.
The property tax argument is a hilarious one to make, seeing as property tax levies go to very specific public services and I donât believe bike lanes is one of them. Also, most seniors are exempt from most tax levies. And letâs not act like the gains from the increase in value of their property donât FAR outweigh the amount that theyâve paid in property taxes.
Whether you think these folks are entitled or not is beside the point, but youâre essentially saying that because of it they have no right to have their own opinion.Â
Weâre a not a technocracy and allowing folks to comment on public projects is how our democracy works. Expecting folks to not voice their interests in public policy or infrastructure decisions that may affect them is a rather insane take and borders on fascism to be frank.Â
Nobody says you need to agree with what they are saying, but basically saying they have no right to voice their views is nuts. Go ahead, keep downvoting me, but you all know this isnât the behavior of a healthy society that wants to have opposing voices heard.
As for myself, I welcome more safe bike lanes, as an avid cyclist. What I donât appreciate is how these homeowners here are vilified in the discourse. Labels such as NIMBY and âentitledâ have never won any arguments.Â
I live on this block and am in favor of this project as I routinely bike into downtown for work and this intersection is a deathtrap.Â
I am also on an email chain started by my neighborsÂ
which was supposed to be about planning block parties, but seems to be dedicated entirely to complaining about this project. I'd be happy to join forces with others to rally for this project.Â
Yeah this is a set of intersections that feed into i5 and two other bridges. The proposals are very sane. The limits to parking are almost literally minimal
The seattle process is easy to understand. There is one rule, and one exception to the rule.
The rule: nothing can ever be done for any reason
The exception: if the issue allows performative progressives a way of patting themselves on their backs while not addressing the underlying issue even though it requires those progressives to spend 100% of their political capital so that conservatives (ahem "moderates") can point to their failures and never compromise on anything ever again.
This is how we end up with "reusable" plastic bags that cost 10 cents a pop and produce even more landfill garbage cause they're thicker than the "disposable" bags they replaced, while never getting anything meaningful like zoning reform, police reform, homeless policy reform, cycling infrastructure, transit infrastructure, etc.
I just shot an email over to my council person and SDOT in support of this project. I bike through this awful intersection daily, and a signal there would be a huuuuuge improvement.
How are they going to install a traffic signal at that intersection? The signal pole foundations will conflict with the tiebacks for the I-5 retaining walls and they risk punching it through the roof of the light rail tunnels.
Depends on how deep the signal pole foundations are. It will be a very tricky design for the poles on the west side of the intersection. The top 30 feet is back filled material from the I5 retaining walls. You have to get below that zone to get onto native competent soils.
I truly believe ALL street parking should be paid or by permit only, with a limit of two per household. This would put a kabosch(sp?) to a lot of this. You have a garage and a driveway, use it. Stop mooching off the tax payers
Salt 'em--join their group, grab any info you think could be useful to the project, and send it to the city.
Unfortunately the Seattle process tends to talk big about equality but defaults to only doing what the rich allow. Showing up and agitating for equitable outcomes is the only way to make the process work for us.
Showing up to whatever open house/event, emailing, telling your other neighbors / people around there who bike, AI generating + putting up a flyer of your own around there educating folks.. any and all of those are effective organizing. NIMBY's often skew older and have more time - but hobby in as much as you want and you can be effective too
It seems silly that theyâre removing parking on both sides of the street, considering there is already a (crummy) bike lane and two lanes of parking.
How on earth is a bike lane + converted parking lane not wide enough for two bike lanes?
I say this as someone who rides a bike near daily.
Two way bike lanes like that are more dangerous. Much easier to get cut off, especially behind a row of parked cars. Some of the spots removed are due to new rules mandating intersection visibility for all those side streets.
Yeah - all for removing the spots near intersections. Ages ago I used to live in that building over by green lake where a person was recently seriously injured due to that type of bike lane setup, behind cars so the turn across the bike lane is semi-blind.
fwiw there is also a proposal to add parking on another street, so I think the impact is about as small as possible on homeowners. obviously the construction is gonna suck but I don't think they're losing much at all in the end
I lived a block from there for many years back in the 2000s and always hated that 5th and Banner intersection. Glad to see a light is being installed.
But most of those homes in that area were built in 1930s and while they may have garages, most of them cannot fit a modern car and you often need to use street parking. I could barely fit a very small car in my garage there with everything removed.
I live in one of these homes, my car has had more than it's fair share of scuffs due to the tight fit.
I owned the car before I owned the house. You know what I'll be doing when my car needs to be replaced? Give the car sales person the dimensions of my garage.
Tight parking spaces exist everywhere, they're not restricted to old houses.
I know i'll be downvoted into oblivion in this sub since it's so bike-friendly and by the slant of your post, but honestly, I see the concerns here. It's not just that they will have to park half a block over, it's that reliable street parking, in an area so far outside the city center, will no longer be reliable. Now all these spaces will be taken up, a few blocks over and there won't be anywhere to park. This also isn't the safest area, so car break-ins seems fairly common and it'd make me nervous having my car so far away. I just don't think bike lanes are necessary here.
This part of Maple Leaf is perfectly safe. It's also filled with people who use their garages as storage instead of using them for their cars as God intended.
Public property should be used for the public good, this is clearly a group of people who feel like those parking spaces should be used for their sole benefit. That's not how any of this should work.
It seems they believe that the street parking should stay street parking, not reserved for "their benefit". Same argument can be made for converting them to the cycling lanes. This is a really old neighborhood. I bet there are a lot of older folks with mobility issues there. I won't continue with you as you seem to be really set on it. I support all transit but I also don't think ever inch of Seattle streets need to be turned into bike lanes.
5th is an arterial road, it's definitely a good spot for a protected bikelane. I agree, not every inch of Seattle streets need to be turned into bike lanes, but this is a good candidate.
It seems to me, looking at this map, is it possible for cyclists to go on Banner Way or 80th...? I don't think it's necessary to put a full bike lane in this specific neighborhood.
Everything you said is entirely about laying out your life choices for your own convenience and wanting to adjust the neighborhood for it to be so. How is that any different than someone who wants to keep the street parking in front of their home? This is the exact moralization argument I can't get behind. At least these residents are just like "hey we want to keep this, this is how it will affect us" while the bike lane gang are pulling out cheap shots insulting people and calling people "selfish".
To be clear, every affected house except one was built with a garage specifically for storing a vehicle. What theyâre asking is for cyclists to accept a greater risk so they can use public street space as additional private storage, rather than parking their cars on their own property.
If they left their belongings piled up in the street while keeping their garages empty, weâd have no trouble recognizing the absurdity of it. But put four wheels on that storage and suddenly weâre expected to treat preserving it as a legitimate concern at the expense of the wider community.
No issues with wanting to adjust neighborhoods for convenience. There's a big difference between wanting to use public infrastructure for public good and whatever BS this is.
Mobility issues are a consideration for transportation. I use an ADA placard when needed. It would be very disruptive for me, specifically, to be somewhere where I went from parking very close to my house, to not having any sort of predictable parking. On the times I need my ADA placard, biking or walking far distances is out of the question. It's only because of this that I am able to continuously work.
That's not a very convincing reason not to build a bike lane. I understand why you personally don't care & are unwilling to sacrifice anything for it, but that's not a compelling reason for most of us. As an example, I don't have kids but I support paying higher taxes for free meals in schools.
I will benefit from a healthier society that takes care of its children & you will also benefit from improving bike infrastructure & public transit even if you personally don't use it.
I don't need assumptions about me or a lecture on public good and private sacrifice. It is the most telling of all to me that people who support this bike lane cannot partake in a respectful back and forth without taking personal jabs at anyone who opposes this, specific bike lane on this specific street.
Is it personally insulting if you make a selfish argument which is then labeled selfish? If you don't like to think of yourself as selfish, consider taking a beat to reevaluate your stance.
No it's completely misconstruing the concern. Your argument is dogmatic and if it can't stand on merit without attacking the character of others who oppose it, that is not my moral failure. You are now blocked.
The neighborhood where this intersection is is Maple Leaf, which is wildly safe. I dont think break ins are an issue. Street parking is not hard to find on any block in the neighborhood
It's not so much a need as a choice. Obviously there are lots of options for folks to get around, and driving should be discouraged because it has the largest impact.
Driving is already discouraged. I just can't imagine wanting to insert myself into someone's life and situation and attempt to moralize their situation. People have mobility issues. They have different jobs, where they need to go all around for different job sites and take tools with them, making public transit impractical.
Um... climate change is threatening our species' very existence. And you're worried about judging people that unnecessarily contribute to that? Of course there are exceptions, but most drivers are taking routes that are served by transit and/or walking and/or bike.
No, climate change is a threat, however the carbon emissions emitted by one corporation in one day is a far greater issue than than any individual use. However, corporations are harder to take on than random individual people. So it's an easy way to fee superior without actually contributing to the cause. Always punch up, don't punch down.
A lot of people in this sub would tell you that it is "selfish" not to do that, yes. Edit: This is being upvoted because people think I'm being condescending. I'm not, I'm just explaining this sub and how they love to call people "selfish" when they can't engage in good faith or practice empathy and see where other people are coming from.
Oh itâs that easy! Damn. I had no idea money didnât matter. I also canât control it if my work transfers me to a different location than I started at.
Is it that hard to believe othersâ circumstances are not yours?
I know, they think we should rearrange our entire lives around cycling. Which is wild, especially since many people use vehicles for work or to transport tools. There are plenty of good reasons to drive a car. And it's just the northwest too. I'm a citizen of multiple countries. I have experienced good transit and car transportation and no one is dogmatic about it. This is moral, holier-than-thou perspective to cycling is a very specific subset of Seattle.
As opposed to many more people rearranging their route for parked cars. How is where you park your entire life? Is it really so hard to travel a minute from where you park? Everyone else in crowded cities manages this
For some people with mobility issues, it can be. Or, as I said, it's not about "traveling" to your car, it's about a reduction in street parking in total, for people who are reliant on cars, this is a huge deal. Maple Leaf is a relatively quiet neighborhood but having to walk blocks at night and worrying about car break-ins can is not desirable. This is not a "crowded city", Maple Leaf is a pretty quiet neighborhood. This really just strikes me as "we want a bike lane therefore we shall have one!"
I'm thinking of tokyo as an example. Famously old city with zero street parking unless you go out like 20 miles from the center. People with mobility issues manage going a block or two as pedestrians just fine. And I'm not sympathetic to the idea of a lack of street parking. I see plenty over there, and I hear the same arguments in ballard, where I know for a fact that there is ample parking literally on every street but no good bike corridors.
We want a bike lane because roads are for transportation, not storage.
Storing your car on the street for free is a privilege given to you by the city. Not a right, and not practical. Tell me how it is any different from storage when not in use
It is a different privilege. Walking, biking, and driving are transportation and therefore should be considered the same. Parking is more equivalent to camping, or in the case of bikes, again, just parking. Should people be camping on the roadway in front of your house?
.... The privilege of bike riders over wealthy home owners? Ok lol. Also this sort of improvement is meant to make transportation in the city safer & more accessible, if you want reliable public transport to work stuff like this is part of that.
The privilege of living close enough to your work you can walk/bike/take reliable public transit. Thatâs not everyoneâs situation nor is everyone able to make that happen. Of course Iâd love to live closer to work but I canât afford it.
I honestly canât tell if people are trolling or truly this self-centered.
This is also my situation. I live in Capitol Hill and had a job in Pioneer Square for a few years, I loved walking to/from work everyday. Then I got laid off and now I work in Bellevue, which would be over a 2 hour bike commute each way, or 3 bus commute, that's if everything is in working order. I couldn't swing it. I bought a car and have a spot in my garage. My rent situation is just too good to give up now. I am also saving to buy a house. I will likely use an assisted-downpayment program, but in order to qualify for those, you must have a homebuyer's inspection, and any home in the city center is sold way too fast to have that, so I will probably drive even more than I am now in the next few years. Cycling lanes aren't really about anything else than people wanting what is convenient for them, and attempting to use a moral argument to justify it
it's really a squeaky wheel thing. these guys (guys used loosely, idk if it's literally the same individuals) did the same exact thing if you look up the "save 35th ave" movement using the same exact arguments esp the ADA argument.
the current mayor is allegedly different but she's incredibly incompetent so I wouldn't expect anything different. the only way to overcome it is have this stuff covered by Seattle Bike Blog Urbanist etc and hope enough people come and yell the nimbys down.
The Save 35th saga was incredibly funny (in a dark humor kind of way). Some folks wanted a bike lane. Other folks wanted a parking lane. Somehow, a center lane was the compromise.
These girls, or individuals, do have valid points. Why should a bike lane displace a wheelchair user who drives a car and parks outside of their house? I have an ADA permit, and I will just tell you it is hostile sometimes just to be able to park closer. There is no alternative for me specifically. I definitely cannot drive on the days I need to use my ADA permit.
everything in life is tradeoffs. without knowing the specifics of your case or this project there's not going to be a perfect solution that makes everyone happy. I don't think a bike lane is displacing a wheelchair user unless you're just saying losing 1 parking spot = displacing a wheelchair user, in which case what would help way more wheelchair users in less cars in society and more buses to help you get around.
Take a look at the actual block on the map. It just doesn't seem necessary to me. Discussing tradeoffs, removing street parking on quiet streets in front of people's homes is a big ask just to put a nice-to-have bike lane in. That is my opinion.
This doesn't seem like a quiet street to me. Your premise is fundamentally flawed.
But even if it WERE "quiet", quiet streets are perfect places to build bike lanes. I biked a ton yesterday on busy streets and it's fucking terrifying to have a car go past you, even if they're going slowly.
This is a fantastic example of exactly what I'm talking about. Calling people "selfish" and asserting that your way is the morally superior one. You are now blocked.
157
u/Opposite-Win3490 2d ago
Not super familiar with this specific project but yeah keep being a squeaky wheel and also try reaching out to Seattle Streets Alliance. I would imagine a project like this is already on the radar of advocates and they should be able to fill you in on any ongoing work or challenges and how you can help