Sightline Institute is a front for the rich developers who help pay your bills. People work for who pays them, Eric.

It’s hard to know how I could have been clearer about my role. I wrote about it repeatedly, did pubic speaking about it, etc. (Also, Roger was not employed by Sightline during the duration of the policy formation, so it’s not relevant.)

Frankly, it sounds to me like you and others would prefer ad hominems and unfounded conspiracy theories in order to avoid talking about the substance of the reforms. They are, in fact, rather modest and entirely consistent with Seattle’s stated values and policy direction.

It’s just as interesting that you never mentioned that the leader of the panel, a former Sightline employee by the name of Roger Valdez, worked with the city to conceal your panel’s internal communications and deliberations.

Given these examples of dishonesty, it’s not surprising that you, the city, and the real estate developers who pushed the new law would also call it “modest,” when sny fair reading of the law would show it to be quite far-reaching.

In essence, a group of insiders with city hall connections managed to blast holes in Seattle zoning code. Rules pertaining to parking and environmental review were gutted. While developers routinely buy exemptions from the code, individual objections to so-called “temporary uses” that can last for years at a time were rendered virtually impossible.

Height restrictions on so-called “accessory structures” were raised, further eroding the legal protections for the single-family neighborhoods that Sightline and other “density” zealots hate so much.

Mr. de Place, you and the rest of the urbanists are waking the sleeping giant known as the Seattle electorate. Project by project, neighborhood by neighborhood, you and your friends seek to rip Seattle apart, mainly for the benefit of rich developers. You’ve been surprised by the push-back, but it’s going to intensify.

A number of us on Capitol Hill are in possession of a document from that Roundtable entitled “Regulatory Reform – Agenda and Mission”. This document, obtained through a Public Records Act request, contains the following statement attributed to a member of the Roundtable identified only as “David”:

“The current process where we invest in a multi-billion dollar transit system & then ask a few hundred single family homeowners who live near the stations how we should develop around them is madness.”

I’m sure, given your stated commitment to an open process, that you would have found the statement above to be highly objectionable, given that those of us who’ve put down roots near the light rail station would in fact have liked to be included in any discussion about how anyone develops around our homes. I’m sure that you would have made your objections quite clear at the time as well. Yet none of us is in possession of any document indicating that you found this gentleman’s opinion troublesome. I am hopeful, of course, that you would be more than happy to supply us with any such document, should it in fact exist. We look forward to seeing it.

Patrick Tompkins

The “secrecy” meme is frankly bizarre to me. If the reforms were somehow supposed to be secret it’s hard to know why I have, since June 2011, been talking the ideas up at public forums, speaking at press conferences, writing about them on this blog, and repeatedly testifying in front of council.

The reforms are consistent with policies Sightline has promoted for almost two decades now. It’s not exactly a huge secret that we support reducing parking minimums, for example.

Did I contribute to the policy formation? Am I advocating for some of my own ideas? You bet! Proudly! In public!

I think it’s terrific to have a robust debate about the merits of the proposals. Good people can disagree about land use policy, but I’m truly at a loss to understand all the invective and accusations that have surrounded this rather modest package of reforms.

My perspective, for what it’s worth, is that smart policies like these can enable Seattle to build a sustainable city — one that’s low-carbon, affordable, and provides a range of economic opportunities.

“Minor fixing” is not not what is in effect “optional zoning” proposed in the Neighborhood Commercial zones whereby a developer could replace what is current a neighborhood shopping area with all residential. The NC zones were created to protect such little areas. If a handful of non-profit developers can not “make it pencil” in these zones, they should find other places to develop and stay out of the commercial marketplace (but there are some that do seem to make it work). The legislation of course prevents these when there is a P-Zone overlay. Problem is DPD has never completed that work in identifying those. Finish the P Zones, then introduce the optional zoning measure. In the interim, I believe conditional interim live/work uses are allowed.

Reg Reform WAS on a fast track until a few diligent advocates were able to, through our open government public disclosure laws, find out the details. It is that process which brought the media attention. But your spin on the history of this is understandable – gotta wash off those dirty hands…

And, throwing around buzzwords “economic opportunity, environmental leadership, and social justice” without showing correlation of how this package would achieve this is a great sleight of hand and a remarkable framing for your vindication.

Oh, I find your juxtaposition of development growth and sustainability most intriguing if not an oxymoron.

Forgive me for expecting more from Sightline.

I live in Ballard and spend a good deal of time in the neighborhood, so I’m pretty familiar with the positive steps it’s taken. It is my contention that the regulatory reform package will help Ballard and many other neighborhoods develop in smart and sustainable ways.

I’m not sure how you could be offended by my comments about the Ballard Chamber’s objections. I simply noted that the Chamber said the reforms were on the “fast track” — that’s a direct quote from your letter — and pointed out that they’ve been out in the open for nearly a year.

As you probably have not notice we have been building a very livable urban village with a great deal of density. All this without any expensive transportation improvements, parks etc.

We do not talk the talk, or write the talk, we are actually doing it. As a self appointed expert in the field you should be asking us in depth what are objections are since we are the experts in developing dense neighborhoods.

While several of the elements this package are aimed at regulation reform, several are substantive land use changes, many of which are in reality against developing more dense urban centers and urban villages.