![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I kind of thought I'd done this already.
We're moving the Murkworks. We don't want to, but we are.
Because we've lost.
When I decided to buy a house in the University District, up here in University Park, I looked at a few key considerations:
1) That the upzone through other areas of the U. District would result in massive new amounts of student housing, relieving economic pressure for illegal student housing up here in this single-family area.
2) That the recently-passed University Urban Plan (which included the upzoning) included a reaffirmation of Universtiy Park as a single-family-zoned area. It reconfirmed the zoning.
Economic and legal forces both pointed towards the elimination of illegal slumlord housing. Purchase trending showed a similar direction. I made a bet that I really couldn't lose; that the area would make it as what it is - and thereby continue to be great, and in fact, get nicer. And if I was wrong, and it went student-slum, well, that's emanently profitable when I sold out.
And for the first couple of years, it looked like I'd bet right.
But after the last few years - and after this past year in particular - I've learned I was wrong. Both of the assumptions are still correct - if you assume that the city will honour its agreements, or even if you just assume it will enforce its own zoning law.
Here's what's happened.
1) UW has decided - through their actions, not their statements - that they want University Park as an extension of the commercial student housing area. They're forcing an upzone, slowly. There are more details on this in nr. 3, below, but basically, they're doing everything they can to encourage illegal, upzone uses in our neighbourhood, including listing housing they know to be illegal through the Campus Housing Service, and letting it be advertised in the student newspaper.
2) DCLU - the land use/zoning agency for Seattle, in charge of zoning code enforcement and building permits - does not work. It does not function. It does not care what you do. If you apply for a permit to do something explicitly illegal in this neighbourhood, it will grant it. If you report illegal units, illegal uses, anything of the sort, they will refuse to enforce. The duplex next to me sold as an illegal triplex. I received a postcard listing the third unit as an illegal third unit - yes, the real estate agent included the word illegal - and listed the three rents. DCLU refused to enforce, saying there was no actual evidence of a third unit. They are hostile to people who attempt to make them do their jobs. They have completely abandoned their mission. I have to assume that money is involved, but regardless, the effect is a corrupt agency acting on behalf of the agents it is supposed to enforce against, and a de facto upzone to at least duplex/triplex. I think they'd stop someone from building a brand new apartment building, but I'm not even sure of that.
My favourite example is one of my rare victories. A slumlord turned their two houses' adjoining yards into a 16-car pay parking lot. It had 16 numbered stalls, posted signs - listing rates and contact information - and they were advertising in the student newspaper. Remember, this is a single-family residental-zoned neighbourhood.
The first complaint was filed in 1997. No action. I started filing complaints in 1998. The first I filed disappeared; the second one the inspector came out and, quote, "could not find it." The third one disappeared. The fourth one, again, the inspector "could not find it."
Keep in mind there's a sign. And sixteen cars parked in it. With numbered stalls.
After this, I wrote them a letter with my fifth complaint saying that I'd be keeping copies of everything I sent them along with photographs. And that I was going to the Council. Which I did. The council did nothing, but it frightened DCLU; they issued a warning and closed the case. Nothing had changed, so I filed it again Months go by as I repeatedly re-complain; eventually they have an "agreement" with the owner that he'll shut it down. The sign goes away over the summer. It's still full of cars; it's still being rented out. DCLU closes the case. (We're up to 1999, if you're wondering.) In the fall, the sign goes back up, and I start the cycle again. The sign goes back down, but again, nothing else happens. I'm screaming constantly at DCLU at this point and taking photographs about once a week. I also go to the council again. (Again, I only get a couple of form-letter replies, and no other responses.)
Eventually, I do, in fact, win. The parking lot is shut down. Posts are installed in the four spots closest to the street to keep people from parking in them. Nothing else changes - it's still a gravel lot with 12 remaining parking stalls - but the sign has stayed down. The sidewalk is trashed, it looks like hell, they were not made to clean it up in any way.
And that's what I count as a win. You can imagine what the losses are like.
Oh, did I mention that after this, DCLU "re-interpreted" the zoning law that permits no more than three cars to be parked on a lot outside in such a creative way that they're now allowed to park 17 cars there now, if they want? As long as they don't advertise it as a pay lot. This is in direct response to my complaints about illegal parking, made so that I wouldn't be able to complain anymore. They admitted that were this new construction, they wouldn't expect more than three spots across the two lots, or maybe four; but, well, this is them retaliating for me making them do their jobs, and that takes precidence.
I took that to the council, too. In person, they are, of course, appalled. Repeatedly. And do nothing.
3) UW, every 10 years, works out an agreement called the University of Washington Master Plan. It's something done with the city through an extensive process that I won't bore you with here; our neighbourhood put in hundreds of hours to it this year. The plan they submitted can be summarised by saying, "We're adding another 10,000 people, 3,500 of whom are students; we're going to build whereever and whatever we want; we offer no mitigation for any impacts this has to the neighbourhoods." Obviously, we fought them tooth and nail, and we actually won some vital concessions for our neighbourhood at the City Council level: 1) That UW would adopt a code of contact for student behaviour off campus, and 2) that UW would stop advertising illegal housing through the Campus Housing Service and student newspaper.
(UW currently has a code of conduct for students, but it stops the second you step off campus. They refuse to hear anything about student behaviour at soon as that line is crossed, no matter how bad it might be. It's a long, ugly story.)
After all the comment periods had passed, UW took most of the city council up to Canada for a junket/illegal lobbying session. The mayor, also at the last minute, ordered DCLU to change its mind and oppose, rather than support, the illegal housing provision. Astoundingly, our measures stayed on the plan - barely. So did several other mitigation efforts.
Until they went back to UW. The Board of Trustees removed all of them except one - a five storey, rather than nine storey, addition to the fence on their golf driving range on 25th Avenue - and sent it back to the council. The council proceeded to rubber-stamp it, 5-2.
And the day after that, UW went and DCLU to upzone the driving range, and got a permit for a nine-storey addition to the driving range anyway. The ink was literally barely dry.
So. UW wins everything there, in part through illegal lobbying, and we are betrayed by the mayor and the council. A lawsuit is in the offing, of which the neighbourhood association is likely to be a part, but we will not see anything from that - it's all about the rezone. The neighbourhood will join it to try to slow the upzone process, because we all know it isn't stopping there, but it won't do anything for the rest of the problems.
4) The mayor, in another betrayal, has nominated a DCLU insider to take over the vacant top management position of the agency. She is everything DCLU currently is and should not be; she is the one person we were lobbying not to get the position. She has a particular loathing for us, as we've made her agency look very bad - by simply exposing what they do - several times before the council. We got them dragged up in front of the council, in fact, though it did very little good in the end. A major goal of her administration will be to simplify zoning law and reduce restrictions on use. She wants the entire code to fit in a shirt pocket. So we will get no relief from DCLU for the next decade, even if we get a new mayor. (Which we likely will. But, well, we thought this one would help us. That was a mistake - though his opponents would have done no better.)
5) Finally, this wouldn't be too bad if the students weren't, um, awful. Of course, most of them aren't. But according to UW statistics, there are almost 2,000 binge drinker students within a 1m radius of the campus, which puts us pretty much at ground zero. Since the really bad parties were forced out of the frat houses after the incidents in 1993, they migrated up here. By "really bad" parties, I don't mean "loud." I mean, "accompanied by fights, thefts, and widespread vandalism." (Remember how UW won't extend its code of conduct; they officially don't care.)
The class of students who used to be able to afford a keg in, say, 1991, can now afford several kegs. A typical big party will have 5-6 kegs, or keg-equivalants. Students who previously couldn't afford a keg at all now can. It's not so much that people have changed; it's more that what they can afford has changed. (Likewise, in an issue that doesn't bother me, the percentage of students with cars has gone from around 30% to over 70%. That's just a guess, but it's a pretty good one. If I were guessing only from my renters, I'd say it was higher than 70%, but I'm assuming it's not really that high.)
Let me put it this way.
The police will no longer break up these parties without at least four officers present. They'll do a knock-and-talk with two, but they won't stop anything without at least four officers. This is because officers have gotten hurt trying it in smaller groups; they get attacked by the students. This isn't fear, this is experience.
And there are often only nine (9) on-duty officers for all of North Seattle after 10pm on weekends. There are supposed to be more, of course, but they're on permanent loan to downtown and Capital Hill. And now the police department is facing cuts.
Besides, most of them say, "It's the U. District - what do you expect?" And blame you for living here.
So.
I see no way we can win. None. I'd like to see one. I want to see one.
But I just don't.
Because we've lost.
When I decided to buy a house in the University District, up here in University Park, I looked at a few key considerations:
1) That the upzone through other areas of the U. District would result in massive new amounts of student housing, relieving economic pressure for illegal student housing up here in this single-family area.
2) That the recently-passed University Urban Plan (which included the upzoning) included a reaffirmation of Universtiy Park as a single-family-zoned area. It reconfirmed the zoning.
Economic and legal forces both pointed towards the elimination of illegal slumlord housing. Purchase trending showed a similar direction. I made a bet that I really couldn't lose; that the area would make it as what it is - and thereby continue to be great, and in fact, get nicer. And if I was wrong, and it went student-slum, well, that's emanently profitable when I sold out.
And for the first couple of years, it looked like I'd bet right.
But after the last few years - and after this past year in particular - I've learned I was wrong. Both of the assumptions are still correct - if you assume that the city will honour its agreements, or even if you just assume it will enforce its own zoning law.
Here's what's happened.
1) UW has decided - through their actions, not their statements - that they want University Park as an extension of the commercial student housing area. They're forcing an upzone, slowly. There are more details on this in nr. 3, below, but basically, they're doing everything they can to encourage illegal, upzone uses in our neighbourhood, including listing housing they know to be illegal through the Campus Housing Service, and letting it be advertised in the student newspaper.
2) DCLU - the land use/zoning agency for Seattle, in charge of zoning code enforcement and building permits - does not work. It does not function. It does not care what you do. If you apply for a permit to do something explicitly illegal in this neighbourhood, it will grant it. If you report illegal units, illegal uses, anything of the sort, they will refuse to enforce. The duplex next to me sold as an illegal triplex. I received a postcard listing the third unit as an illegal third unit - yes, the real estate agent included the word illegal - and listed the three rents. DCLU refused to enforce, saying there was no actual evidence of a third unit. They are hostile to people who attempt to make them do their jobs. They have completely abandoned their mission. I have to assume that money is involved, but regardless, the effect is a corrupt agency acting on behalf of the agents it is supposed to enforce against, and a de facto upzone to at least duplex/triplex. I think they'd stop someone from building a brand new apartment building, but I'm not even sure of that.
My favourite example is one of my rare victories. A slumlord turned their two houses' adjoining yards into a 16-car pay parking lot. It had 16 numbered stalls, posted signs - listing rates and contact information - and they were advertising in the student newspaper. Remember, this is a single-family residental-zoned neighbourhood.
The first complaint was filed in 1997. No action. I started filing complaints in 1998. The first I filed disappeared; the second one the inspector came out and, quote, "could not find it." The third one disappeared. The fourth one, again, the inspector "could not find it."
Keep in mind there's a sign. And sixteen cars parked in it. With numbered stalls.
After this, I wrote them a letter with my fifth complaint saying that I'd be keeping copies of everything I sent them along with photographs. And that I was going to the Council. Which I did. The council did nothing, but it frightened DCLU; they issued a warning and closed the case. Nothing had changed, so I filed it again Months go by as I repeatedly re-complain; eventually they have an "agreement" with the owner that he'll shut it down. The sign goes away over the summer. It's still full of cars; it's still being rented out. DCLU closes the case. (We're up to 1999, if you're wondering.) In the fall, the sign goes back up, and I start the cycle again. The sign goes back down, but again, nothing else happens. I'm screaming constantly at DCLU at this point and taking photographs about once a week. I also go to the council again. (Again, I only get a couple of form-letter replies, and no other responses.)
Eventually, I do, in fact, win. The parking lot is shut down. Posts are installed in the four spots closest to the street to keep people from parking in them. Nothing else changes - it's still a gravel lot with 12 remaining parking stalls - but the sign has stayed down. The sidewalk is trashed, it looks like hell, they were not made to clean it up in any way.
And that's what I count as a win. You can imagine what the losses are like.
Oh, did I mention that after this, DCLU "re-interpreted" the zoning law that permits no more than three cars to be parked on a lot outside in such a creative way that they're now allowed to park 17 cars there now, if they want? As long as they don't advertise it as a pay lot. This is in direct response to my complaints about illegal parking, made so that I wouldn't be able to complain anymore. They admitted that were this new construction, they wouldn't expect more than three spots across the two lots, or maybe four; but, well, this is them retaliating for me making them do their jobs, and that takes precidence.
I took that to the council, too. In person, they are, of course, appalled. Repeatedly. And do nothing.
3) UW, every 10 years, works out an agreement called the University of Washington Master Plan. It's something done with the city through an extensive process that I won't bore you with here; our neighbourhood put in hundreds of hours to it this year. The plan they submitted can be summarised by saying, "We're adding another 10,000 people, 3,500 of whom are students; we're going to build whereever and whatever we want; we offer no mitigation for any impacts this has to the neighbourhoods." Obviously, we fought them tooth and nail, and we actually won some vital concessions for our neighbourhood at the City Council level: 1) That UW would adopt a code of contact for student behaviour off campus, and 2) that UW would stop advertising illegal housing through the Campus Housing Service and student newspaper.
(UW currently has a code of conduct for students, but it stops the second you step off campus. They refuse to hear anything about student behaviour at soon as that line is crossed, no matter how bad it might be. It's a long, ugly story.)
After all the comment periods had passed, UW took most of the city council up to Canada for a junket/illegal lobbying session. The mayor, also at the last minute, ordered DCLU to change its mind and oppose, rather than support, the illegal housing provision. Astoundingly, our measures stayed on the plan - barely. So did several other mitigation efforts.
Until they went back to UW. The Board of Trustees removed all of them except one - a five storey, rather than nine storey, addition to the fence on their golf driving range on 25th Avenue - and sent it back to the council. The council proceeded to rubber-stamp it, 5-2.
And the day after that, UW went and DCLU to upzone the driving range, and got a permit for a nine-storey addition to the driving range anyway. The ink was literally barely dry.
So. UW wins everything there, in part through illegal lobbying, and we are betrayed by the mayor and the council. A lawsuit is in the offing, of which the neighbourhood association is likely to be a part, but we will not see anything from that - it's all about the rezone. The neighbourhood will join it to try to slow the upzone process, because we all know it isn't stopping there, but it won't do anything for the rest of the problems.
4) The mayor, in another betrayal, has nominated a DCLU insider to take over the vacant top management position of the agency. She is everything DCLU currently is and should not be; she is the one person we were lobbying not to get the position. She has a particular loathing for us, as we've made her agency look very bad - by simply exposing what they do - several times before the council. We got them dragged up in front of the council, in fact, though it did very little good in the end. A major goal of her administration will be to simplify zoning law and reduce restrictions on use. She wants the entire code to fit in a shirt pocket. So we will get no relief from DCLU for the next decade, even if we get a new mayor. (Which we likely will. But, well, we thought this one would help us. That was a mistake - though his opponents would have done no better.)
5) Finally, this wouldn't be too bad if the students weren't, um, awful. Of course, most of them aren't. But according to UW statistics, there are almost 2,000 binge drinker students within a 1m radius of the campus, which puts us pretty much at ground zero. Since the really bad parties were forced out of the frat houses after the incidents in 1993, they migrated up here. By "really bad" parties, I don't mean "loud." I mean, "accompanied by fights, thefts, and widespread vandalism." (Remember how UW won't extend its code of conduct; they officially don't care.)
The class of students who used to be able to afford a keg in, say, 1991, can now afford several kegs. A typical big party will have 5-6 kegs, or keg-equivalants. Students who previously couldn't afford a keg at all now can. It's not so much that people have changed; it's more that what they can afford has changed. (Likewise, in an issue that doesn't bother me, the percentage of students with cars has gone from around 30% to over 70%. That's just a guess, but it's a pretty good one. If I were guessing only from my renters, I'd say it was higher than 70%, but I'm assuming it's not really that high.)
Let me put it this way.
The police will no longer break up these parties without at least four officers present. They'll do a knock-and-talk with two, but they won't stop anything without at least four officers. This is because officers have gotten hurt trying it in smaller groups; they get attacked by the students. This isn't fear, this is experience.
And there are often only nine (9) on-duty officers for all of North Seattle after 10pm on weekends. There are supposed to be more, of course, but they're on permanent loan to downtown and Capital Hill. And now the police department is facing cuts.
Besides, most of them say, "It's the U. District - what do you expect?" And blame you for living here.
So.
I see no way we can win. None. I'd like to see one. I want to see one.
But I just don't.
Oh, and financially...
So it's not like I'm suffering financially from buying in Seattle, believe me.
Re: Oh, and financially...
Would you stay in the landlord business if you moved?
Re: Oh, and financially...
Re: Oh, and financially...