Community Post

Pretty Good Discussions on TOD Bill and Growth

The meeting hosted by Councilmember Clark at Langston Hughes last night regarding the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) bill was interesting and there were a number of insightful points made.  I still think the bill has real problems, though.  Coverage that I saw tended to be shrill and dismissive about any dissent, even that which sought to improve it.  I’m pretty much ‘over’ the blog wars because the levels of both arrogance and ignorance is too distressing.

Today, Joel Connelly wrote a piece that I think hit the right note.  The comments are even largely constructive.

Then, I found this website that lays out a lot of info on TOD:

Note especially the comments on HB1490 from the APA Washington State Chapter.

And then a friend sent me a sort of ‘TOD for idiots’ by the owner of the above website:

Lesson:  There is not a simple prescription, but there are good ways to get the job done.  I hope the folks working on the bill actually get that is what people have been saying instead of seeing all objection as coming from enemies of the goals.

0 thoughts on “Pretty Good Discussions on TOD Bill and Growth

  1. Of course, people are lined up behind the laudable goals but have not actually read the bill. It’s not that hard to read a well written law.

    This bill as written tries to do 3-4 at once in a single Section of GMA: TOD, inclusionary zoning, and protections, and tries to include broad things with programmatic things, like specific density. It ends up failing to achieve its goals. People in Spokane will never pass light rail, no towns will want Amtrak if it could smell like mass transit because of the way this is written. State laws need to provide standards and tools. Programs can be specific. Locals need to pass laws to implement.

    Initiatives must do one single thing for a good reason. No urban planners wrote this, they are lined up against mandating specific density numbers. Planning is a process of dealing with current realities and trying to set up for the future step by step. And, housing equity goes far beyond the land around light rail. It should apply to everywhere served by transit. And, it needs to be regionally equitable.

    Anyone offering constructive suggestions, or even any actual information based on reality, are ‘the enemy’ in this debate.

  2. Latest Stranger and many of the comments are bigger picture: