Comments on: Is Normandy Park dense?

By: Reba Haas

Reba Haas — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:27:01 +0000

That word came from the MBA specifically and not me although I do use it in my post. Kirkland has not kept up with its GMA mandates and while you might “feel” like there is more density in the city, according to planners who work there, Kirkland pretty much nets out zero when you take into account tear downs. It seems like a like of development is going on, but it’s mostly re-development of the same lots and there isn’t enough gain of NEW building lots to meet GMA requirements.

By: Dustin Keeth

Dustin Keeth — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:09:23 +0000

Right on there can never be to many Dustin’s giving their opinions.

By: ARDELL

ARDELL — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:32:24 +0000

Reba,

Can you expound on your comment about Kirkland being arrogant? It feels pretty dense here to me, as far as lot sizes go.

By: ARDELL

ARDELL — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:26:53 +0000

When we see another ARDELL…we’ll think we’re in an alter universe.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:07:56 +0000

Wow! This is the first time I think I’ve ever seen another “Dustin” taking part on RCG. You confused me for a second! Welcome!

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:08:09 +0000

I am all for the builder in Normandy Park being able to have smaller lots. But there is NO way I want to see smaller lots all throughout Normandy Park. The larger lots are what makes, Normandy Park, Normandy Park. (I own 1.5 acres in the Park & love not seeing my neighbors) If the City council would make a compromise and let smaller density lots only along the 1st Ave. corridor (which is already mostly commercial and finally getting a facelift) and if that would satisfy GMA then I would love to see that.
http://www.morehomes.com & http://www.LivingInNormandyPark.com
Dustin

By: Reba Haas

Reba Haas — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:28:48 +0000

Thanks, Sandy, I hear you loud and clear and believe that the NIMBY syndrome is alive and kicking in many a city neighborhood. I’m with you on building infrastructure to support long term transit goals. If the general Seattle area is truly growing by roughly 50,000 people per year and this trend is expected to continue through for about 20 years then we should have some alternate modes of transportation to handle the 1.2 Million extra people because our current road system certainly can’t do it.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:19:21 +0000

V–I agree with you but those are the arguments that are being used to try to kill light rail. That we don’t have the density to support it. I personally support it whether the density currently exists or not because I am one of those who believes that if you put the infrastructure in place, people might just be willing to change their habits to use the infrastructure that is built. But you’ll never know unless you give them options.

And I assure you that none of your arguments will sway the citizens of Normandy Park (or similar areas such as the northern suburbs where I happen to live). The residents there are all for density, growth and progress as long as it is not in their backyard.

Oops, did I just say that? I guess that is my inner urbanite coming out!

(PS–I agree that they should have to comply with the GMA, I’m just trying to provide you with some insight as to why they are going to fight it tooth and nail…much the same way that the citizens of Mukilteo are fighting the expansion of Paine Field, regardless of the benefits to the rest of the Seattle area).

By: v

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:57:09 +0000

“our topography and political climate encourage density but we don’t have the infrastructure in place to really handle it except for in the close-in locations.”

HUH? We don’t have the infrastructure for sprawl! The lack of density is what caused the need for light rail. If we all lived in a single tower in the middle of downtown, we would have no traffic problems (elevator backups, perhaps). If we all lived downtown, we’d have no debate over the viaduct or light rail. Density leverages the same infrastructure over more people. LACK of density requires extra roads, pipes, services and goods transport …

So yes, they SHOULD have to comply with the GMA.

By: redmondjp

redmondjp — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:21:12 +0000

There’s no free lunch. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that local/regional governments come up with their own growth and boundary plans in compliance with the act and follow them. Urban areas are allowed to have higher density, while rural areas are not. Since I’m not intimately familier with the GMA, I don’t know if it prohibits local jurisdictions from limiting density within an urban growth area–that’s the crux of the matter that I suspect is being challenged in court.

It’s a double-edged sword–we have the GMA to keep endless suburban sprawl from going all the way up to Snoqualmie Pass. This means that one day, the lovely pasture behind my house will someday be covered by 10 houses, eliminating my kitchen window view of Mt. Baker on a clear day. I won’t like seeing a 2-story McMansion four feet on the other side of my back yard fence, but then again, I can walk one block to a beautiful park to enjoy some partially-forested open space, or drive an hour and be in the mountains devoid of human development. I don’t really want to look at the side of another house out my window, but I’d more strongly rather not see endless sprawl in the wilderness . . .

I don’t think very many people are aware that the GMA exists and what it entails, from reading the comments on local RE blogs. I’m a bit more familiar with it because my father has been involved in several court cases against two counties in this state who are not in compliance with the GMA.