http://www.elementalarchitecture.com/index01.html

The way I read the proposal, the “guvment” would only get involved if the builder wanted a variance from current zoning. If the builder wanted taller than allowed, there was a tradeoff of something the City wanted. That seemed fair.

But, I’m not in favor of changing things because people are whining about “the look”. I’ve seen people love something five years after it was built, that they hated while it was being built because it was “different”.

As to market forces, you are dead on. I remember a City Councilman coming over to talk with me about FAR Code changes here in Kirkland. The conversation turned to the City dictating taste and style, which I did not agree with. The house everyone hated, that the City thought to prevent in the future has been on market for years! That’s enough incentive for no one to build one like it in the future.

We are taxed too much without accountability for where the money is spent. The people vote No stadiums, but the legislators ignores the will of the people.

We demand affordable housing, but NIMBY. We want to help the homeless with tent cities, but cry NIMBY based on unfounded fears to a significant rise in crime, prostitution, violence, drug use.

We complain about sprawl, so the Growth Management Act is created. Now we complain about prices when the GMA adds about $2000k (I think that amount is right from the UW economic study) to the price of a home.

We complain about what rural land owners in the sticks do with their property in the name of saving the environment, but we refuse to pay for our decisions and actions.

How about less guvment involvement? Shouldn’t we let market forces determine what happens? If they are that bad, buyer demand for good looking better constructed housing will outweigh their demand for lower priced housing.