Letter to the editor/opinion: ‘Built Green’ impacts in Edmonds residential areas

Editor:

As a result of recent Washington State legislation, the city is required to change residential zoning by June 30, 2025. The city may choose to include “Built Green” incentives while making these zoning changes.

As currently drafted by Edmonds, the incentives will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhoods. These include:

  • an additional 5 feet building height (from 25 feet to 30 feet, likely obstructing views)
  • decreased setbacks (5 feet closer to your neighbor in some areas limiting privacy)
  • additional lot coverage (less green space and fewer trees) and
  • decreased parking requirements (only one off-street parking space required vs two currently)

The “Built Green” certification program’s mission promotes “environmentally sound design, construction and development practices in Washington…”.  However, the incentives as proposed by the city could negatively impact residential neighborhoods and potentially counter the stated positive environmental impacts.

Specifically, a 5-foot height increase for a two-story residence may:

  • lessen energy “savings” since there is a larger interior to heat/cool,
  • result in increased building costs (less affordable)
  • negate accessibility for aging in place or those with mobility issues, and
  • unnecessary in many instances to build a green residence

Rather than offering incentives to developers, we can instead achieve our environmental goals by instituting more moderate “green” changes citywide (better insulating, more efficient HVAC and appliances, etc.) without impacting residents.

Please contact Mayor Rosen at Mike.Rosen@EdmondsWA.gov and the City Council at Council@EdmondsWa.gov and let them know we can benefit from energy savings citywide without negatively impacting our residential neighborhoods.

Damian King
Edmonds

Editor’s note — The City of Edmonds submitted the following response:

Residents of Edmonds have long been committed to preserving and protecting the environment, a dedication that has been consistently reflected in the city’s comprehensive plan and climate protection initiatives over the years.

Two of the top sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonds are buildings and transportation. These emissions cause climate change, which in turn contributes to extreme weather, wildfires, droughts and food supply disruptions.

Many cities offer financial incentives such as discounts on fees, grants and financing.  Edmonds is not in a position to provide these types of incentives.

The incentives offered by the city only apply to multifamily and commercial buildings and exclude the downtown zones and are intended to help encourage individuals building multifamily or commercial buildings to reduce environmental impacts.

Some may wonder why the city doesn’t just require all development to be more energy efficient. We have a state building code that applies in all cities and counties and for residential building construction, cities are strictly not allowed to exceed state standards.

Since we can’t just “require” actions by developers, the city council adopted a compromise approach. It does allow up to a 5-foot taller building — in part because sometime the attic area of a building needs to include extra insulation or special mechanical equipment. The adopted code does not include a change to setbacks.

It is important to point out that the green building incentives (GBI) being put in place don’t apply to single-family zones — only to multifamily and commercial zones.

The City of Edmonds is trying to increase conservation of energy in buildings regardless of what is passed at the state level. This concept has been in the Comprehensive Plan and climate protection efforts for years. The reason for this is because greenhouse gas emissions hurt our climate and increase pollution. Two of the top sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonds are buildings and transportation.

To lessen the impacts of transportation on greenhouse gas emissions, we are creating better options for walking and bicycling, while also encouraging the use of electric motor vehicles (over standard gasoline and diesel vehicles) when feasible.

For buildings, we are seeking to have them built to be more energy-efficient—and offering developers meaningful incentives to help offset the cost of such efficiencies.

The GBI (adopted by council) do not apply in single-family residential zones. Rather, they apply only in multifamily and commercial zones — excluding the downtown zones.

 

  1. How about a state law making it illegal for them to use the word “green” ever again?

    1. I’m beginning to believe all “green” initiatives refer to how to give more “green” money to developers and people who want control over a quality of life they envy. My worry is that there are still people who foolishly buy into this ruse of making people feel guilty for enjoying a life and space they worked hard to have. This is also just another push at making owning a car and the independence it brings, an impossible dream

  2. Thanks Damian. Let’s not kid ourselves. These city-driven, so-called *green* zoning initiatives, are primarily designed to promote one thing – to increase housing density. If the city truly wishes to promote building green, then simply *require* builders to construct more energy efficient buildings. Don’t reward builders with higher-profit margins if they employ a few green standards at the expense of our neighborhoods. Those larger and more densely packed homes are not going to be cheaper for buyers, and more density does not equal a greener environment! In the end, it’s all about money, profit, and housing; the environment is secondary and these green labels just make folks feel better about screwing up our neighborhoods.

    1. Hi Chris – thanks for your thoughts.

      What do you make of the relationship that Edmonds’ existing neighborhoods have with our natural environment and ecological systems? Is it appropriate to treat our current urban form as a baseline from which all future environmental impact must be assessed? It seems to me like there is plenty of room for improvement (and damage, to be sure!) from what we have today, vs. what we had originally (i.e. nothing.)

      For what it’s worth, I don’t personally think the proposed incentives are the most effective of the policy options Edmonds has for making progress towards the City’s formally adopted goals (https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20and%20Development/Edmonds%20CAP%20Document_2023-03-21_ADOPTED.pdf) around air quality improvement and supporting a societal transition to new energy sources.

      The central reason that people (including those with means!) choose to live densely, here and around the world, is that it is cheaper – that these patterns have fewer environmental externalities is really just a convenient bonus 🙂 Attached homes require less energy to heat and cool than detached homes of equivalent construction techniques on a per-person basis (more shared walls.) There are about 10,212 people living in attached homes in Edmonds (https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2023.B25033?q=%20Edmonds%20city,%20Washington%20B25033&tp=false); if these folks lived instead in detached homes, they would require another half-Edmonds’ worth of mostly clear-cut, paved land. Imagine the effects of that expansion playing out at a regional scale!(1/2)

    2. (2/3, actually – man, I’m full of it today!) There are many good reasons to criticize the development codes for attached homes that we in cities like Edmonds have on our books today: I think they produce homes that are not just inferior to the quality of attached homes we see in other countries, but inferior (in many important dimensions) to other kinds of homes we see in our communities, which is frustrating. The issue, IMO, is not urban denseness itself: it is that more urban denseness, in the US, means more people fighting for the chance to live next to 6-lane roads, with less and less green space, in the midst of disorder and dysfunctional urban systems. That can (and should) change; it is not the priority of any meaningful group of local electeds, but for regional (https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/03/poll-indicates-wa-favor-missing-middle/) and local (see housing related priorities here: https://www.edmondswa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/24-9336%20Edmonds%20Community%20Survey%20Report%202024.pptx) populations, the dissatisfaction is becoming apparent. (These folks don’t turn out to vote like other groups, which is why we don’t see their preferences to the same degree, but they really do exist – no boogeymen here, just people who have lost faith in the democratic process.)

    3. (3/4, someone shut me up!) Our country is pretty much founded on the idea that we are better off letting other people make the choices they want to (for instance, to want to live in a cheaper home, stacked on top of others, closer to their job), unless we can prove that their choices make our lives meaningfully *and* unavoidably worse. We also are biased towards supporting trade and commerce rather than restricting them. We trust in markets (for things like, e.g., land) to do the work of balancing individual priorities and freedoms with collective welfare: they aren’t perfect, but groups of people that have committed to the uptake and maintenance of these schemes have seen the fastest improvements to many of the most important metrics describing the human condition (including longer lifespans, higher disposable incomes, poverty rate reductions, eradication of deadly diseases, greater literacy, and, say, lower homicide rates) than at any other point in human history. Again, not perfect – bad things still happen, and some things might get worse in the short run at times – but on the balance of the evidence, this has been more than a half-decent approach.

    4. (4/4 – promise this is it)

      The entirety of today’s Edmonds – including the homes that you, and I, and our neighbors, have lived in here – are a part of that human history. This place was built by people exclusively motivated by the exact same desires you mentioned in your comment: profit and housing. Is that a bad thing? We are only here, with what we have, because countless people worked hard to build better lives for themselves and their families and their fellow and future man. Is it wrong that I’m looking forward to more of that in our future? More life, more joy, more Edmonds? This is not a zero-sum game.

      Would the historical record – or even you, or I – look kindly on someone in the 1890s, fiercely insisting that any further urban settlement in the place we now call Edmonds would be tantamout to sin? That it would be better to never build Edmonds than to build it and make some mistakes along the way?

      Arnie Lund recently gave an amazing presentation (https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/11/edmonds-then-and-now-spotlighted-during-waterfront-center-author-talk/). One slide has stuck with me: a photo of the Schumacher Building (316 Main St.), designed with a false facade – extra height – to communicate the ambition and hopes and grandeur of the city to be built here.

      We used to dream skyward. Today?

  3. Chris and Damien both bring up what I also read; This isn’t going to do anything other then cut down on actual earth by creating a larger footprint building thus less porous surfaces in our city. How does a bigger building create “Green Built” big doesn’t but, inside the walls, by the construction products used and by the appliances and systems that sustain the occupants of that home. (appliances, windows and window coverings, HVAC, water systems, etc)
    Let’s get real!

  4. I’m hearing thru the “grapevine” that our city is broke now, not a year or two from now as has been thought previously, without huge inputs of property taxation to bail us out financially. The city administration and legislative body need these “green” and “density” state mandated measures to help them balance the books. This is really why there has been little to no official push back on them by our local elected officials. Most of these people do not represent us – the local taxpayers – they really represent the very people they are supposed to be regulating and managing. Our Mayor and most of our Council can’t wait to give away local control of the fire service public safety function which should be one of their main priorities. Us “Peons” have only one weapon. Our votes! First vote No on all property tax hikes asked for, most importantly against SCF annexation. Next vote only for taxpayer advocates in future elections and avoid the people being promoted by political parties or the old guard in town. Otherwise don’t complain, you are getting what you deserve.

  5. With technology advances in coming years and our state being 45 in the country for being business friendly I wonder what jobs are going to be available for these people occupying the 1.1 million new housing units. I think this mandated growth is going to come back and bite us.

    1. Jim – could you clarify how recent de-regulation of land use by the State of Washington (the entity designated by the US Constitution to control land use here, under the police power) amounts to a government “mandate”? A mandate takes options away from individuals and firms; the same freedoms that existed for landowners before these liberalizations will continue to exist after (in addition to new ones.) These policy changes explicitly expand the freedom of exchange in our markets for land and homes.

      1. You are correct but this development is being mandated in areas like Edmonds instead of organically occurring some places else. I tend to agree a property owner should have the right to develop their property the way they wish but on the other hand if a established community like Edmonds if the vast majority of people living there don’t want more development then they shouldn’t be forced to allow the building. If I wanted to live somewhere more dense I am free to move if I want a property that gives me more options of what I can do with it I can find it and am free to move. If me and most others in the town wish to keep things as they are collectively we should be able to do so things are sure to change even if we didn’t have this mandated change but at least it would be the change we want not what others tells us it should be.

        1. Jim, I hear you!

          It sounds wrong to say – mostly because we don’t see much evidence for this in Edmonds policy discussions – but changes that reduce government regulation and red tape preventing housing construction and more intensive land uses are supported by a *majority* of the people living in our region.

          For example, a 2022 survey found that 61% of voters in Washington state support legislation that would update zoning to allow more housing types across the state, with 41% expressing they support such changes *strongly* (see here https://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Memo.SightlineInstitute.f2.2022.02.01.pdf and here https://www.sightline.org/release/poll-strong-majority-of-washingtonians-support-middle-housing-options/). HB1110 – the bill legalizing “missing middle” options statewide) – was a bipartisan effort, co-sponsored by Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

          Edmonds’ voters also regularly elect representatives who strongly support these changes. For example, Strom Peterson, who has been a lead sponsor on most zoning liberalization bills for the last several legislative sessions (and received a lot of visible pushback from prominent voices in Edmonds) was re-elected last year by a margin of 35%. Because turnout is much higher in state elections, more voters in Edmonds voted for Strom than voted for any Edmonds mayor or city councilmember in recent memory.

          While you may not hear it in City Council testimony, strong evidence suggests that these ideas are quietly favorable across broad swaths of our community.

        2. Certainly elected leaders support growth to various degrees the state and county and city visions for Edmonds don’t seem to track well with the citizens of Edmonds in my opinion. If a group of workers wanted to unionize and petition their company for more favorable conditions you would support it but it seems if our own citizens are against our government we shouldn’t be able to petition it for redress. I know we vote and we are stuck with what we have I am just not sure they are acting in the true interest of the people that elected them. But bring it on I can probably subdivide and add a mother in law not that I would want to live here after but I am sure I can find a different slice of heaven elsewhere and have a pocket full of money left over I am just not sure after our transformation that Edmonds will be as desirable a place to live as it is today. Sounds like you might still be around good luck I think you are going to need it.

        3. In addition to making comments on MEN, please be sure to contact the Council and City with your concerns so they are included in the public record. It’s important to hold elected officials accountable for defending or promoting their decisions. Also, let your neighbors know what’s going on. Many residents are not aware of this issue and how it is impacting all of us.

  6. Mackey you worked for the city in the planning department could you be a little bias? In one of your meeting I heard my solid built home, older home is built as well as the Green Homes.
    My home was built in 1958, where real wood was used, old growth, and plywood exterior walls. You want us all to live in utopia neighborhoods but real life isn’t a utopia. I hear on next door people complaining about their upstairs neighbor, music and children. I hear complaints about their neighbors dogs who lives directly behind them.
    Green Homes is a buzz word, it means glues and toxic products, not real organic products.

    1. Dee, as I said in my earlier thread, I think these incentives are not the ones that would be most effective in advancing the goals explicitly stated in adopted City goals. Could you help me understand any other flaws or missteps you see in my logic or thinking about these ideas? I’m not sure what bias you are suggesting is present in my thinking.

      I am a big fan of reality, and enjoy living here 🙂 of course real life isn’t a utopia! I think some things can be improved upon – I expect that maybe you think so too. As you point out, there is a lot that we could do to improve our denser urban areas, including building noise performance standards (some buildings are better than others), but noise can be a problem in any neighborhood, with any kind of home in it.

      I strongly support changes to produce homes that are healthier living environments for people (especially wood –I especially love mass timber!) Do you have any ideas you’d like to see passed by Council? I would love to help you advance them, seriously. Give me an email (mackey@mackeyguenther.com) or a text – 206-915-3925, and let’s figure out what improvements we can make together.

  7. This is just more of the ongoing “green scam” hustle. The absurd notion that increasing the height a building by 5 feet can alter the global climate trajectory. Moreover, it appeals to the gullible by promoting the idea that Edmonds will transform into an egalitarian proletariat paradise, while workers commute to the windmill center on their skateboards or bicycles. Furthermore, in support of this utopia, there is the unlimited taxation of the wealthy to subsidize this righteousness. In other words, this is business as usual for the greedy, while corrupt politicians turn a blind eye.

    1. Brian – that’s a very imaginative vision! I get the sense that you are straw-manning here – I don’t know anyone who promotes that idea, and I’m not sure you do, either. In the interest of adding to your comment constructively: building and growing were a part of creating the Edmonds we have today, right? What has changed, such that further building and growing is completely about greed?

      1. Mackey, you might to read the city’s response to this letter to editor. Here the question: Do you actually believe that of these green incentives will have any measurable effect on the global wide climate? If you really believe what is the amount a number of carbon reduction on a global scale based on these local green incentives. What percentage worldwide? I’m not at all against greed, its why developers build buildings. Using green incentives, for greater density, is a disingenuous excuse that appeals to uninformed individuals which probably have low IQ’s and or work for the city.

        1. It’s an interesting letter. (I mentioned in an earlier comment that “I don’t personally think the proposed incentives are the most effective of the policy options Edmonds has for making progress towards the City’s formally adopted goals (https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20and%20Development/Edmonds%20CAP%20Document_2023-03-21_ADOPTED.pdf) around air quality improvement and supporting a societal transition to new energy sources.”)

          I think that a robust body of evidence favors humanity’s pursuit of many of the energy and pollution-related goals mentioned in the City’s memo, including transitioning to greater use of low-externality (i.e. pollution and warming impact) energy sources and energy use patterns. This evidence also raises a collective action problem: to avoid the worst outcomes, changes do need to manifest at the smallest of levels, but in a low-trust environment like ours, it’s hard to believe small changes mean anything. I understand skepticism of the political machinations of the global process that has been ongoing to attempt to allocate responsibility; I will note that other collective action problems, like that of acid rain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History) have seen resolution before.

          There are plenty of policy choice unique to/originating in the US that go a long ways in explaining our divergence from other wealthy countries on metrics like pollution exposure, overall CO2 production from energy use, lifespan, etc. The US is highly fragmented but land use seems to scale as a lever; some key points here: https://rmi.org/why-state-land-use-reform-should-be-a-priority-climate-lever-for-america/

      2. Mr Guenther, you begin one of your bloviating comments above “3/4, someone shut me up!) ” I wish we could. You then go one to ‘accuse’ another contributor of strawman arguments…you run on for paragraphs without really saying anything substantial except making it clear you are a politician in the making, denigrate foundations of our past, and are pliable enough to support unfounded theories for the future. It is unmistakable legislation and regulations are driving us to loss of our existing ‘quality of life’ for the sake of a green initiative that should have catastrophically destroyed our world by now as the clock began over 40 years ago. So I ask you to stop blowing so much smoke at us and if not stick to things that are real and tangible.

        1. Gerry, would you mind sharing why your perspective diverges from mine? You have every right to disagree with me, and to express that disagreement, but unless you share *why*, you’re squandering an opportunity to make the world a more truthful place. Seriously: if I’m wrong about some, or all of this, which I admit could absolutely be the case, what do you have to lose by doing your best to help me learn?

          I completely agree with you that “regulations are driving us to loss of our existing ‘quality of life’”. I don’t think we totally line up on which regulations, or why, but we have at least that in common.

          You are very clear that you don’t like my ideas, or the way I write. That’s totally fine. And still, I want to understand why you’re thinking the way you are: I care about your perspective and I think it has value, even if we don’t line up on everything.

          I want to buy you a beer, or a cigar (blowing some smoke honestly sounds great…) this month, so that we can talk more; I don’t want to hear any more about “unmistakable” facts unless you are brave enough to share them with me, as I shared mine with you. I think we could both be better for it. 206-915-3925, or mackey@mackeyguenther.com. Cheers!

  8. As so often happens with reader comments, the article comments often morph off the central issue (especially Mr. Guenther’s). This article, and my comments were not about the state-mandated zoning bills! While I am not thrilled about the State jamming zoning changes down the throats of our cities (which they are), what I am not happy about is that our Edmonds City Planning and Department is *exceeding* these new state requirements on their own, and giving incentives to developers to build-baby-build under the guise of building green. We are debating the wrong issue! Growth is going to happen and we do need to address this, but let’s not give away the farm under the guise of building green. Are any of these comments about building green? My personal suggestion to the City: Make the changes slower, and with more thought. This not what is happening with our Planning Department, nor our Council right now.

    1. Chris, feel free to call me Mackey! I appreciate the discussion. My responses were related to the points you raised in your original comment; you expressed concern that incentives allowing for increased urban density “just make folks feel better about screwing up our neighborhoods” and that “more density does not equal a greener environment.” I see things differently (both in terms of Edmonds’ history and the broader evidence on the purpose and utility of dense urban settlement for humanity at large) and wanted to provide the context that informs my diverging views.

      The incentives discussed by the original letter appear to be adapted from those adopted in multifamily zones in 2024; they’re derived pretty strictly from the goals in Edmonds’ Climate Action Plan (spelled out in the 2024 resolution adopting the incentives: https://shorturl.at/nmgX0), and the notion that offering incentives can push private actors over the edge towards adoption of development approaches aligned with public goals (in this case, the collective action problem of preserving a “commons” of clean air and transitioning towards low-carbon energy and building practices.) I think the City can pick more meaningful ways to effectuate these goals. I don’t see these incentives as “giving away the farm”; they permit modest adjustments that vary from the default standards by maximums of 15-20%.

      I appreciate the conversation and your perspective on these issues.

  9. Unfortunately, density is coming regardless of green build incentives. With the newly adopted energy codes currently in effect, the difference between green and regular build has been drastically reduced. In other words, if you are worried about reduced energy use in dwellings, the new code already covers this. If you want the ultimate energy efficient gold standard, it’s going to cost you. So the wealthy that can go the extra mile could get an extra 5′ up and out for their structure. Views will be blocked and neighbors will be closer. Is everyone OK with that?

  10. Thank you all for so many great comments. I agree with you. I only disagree with Mackey but didn’t get through all of his comments. Let’s NOT increase building heights, not apply the term “green” to everything growth, and not ignore the preferences of residents in Edmonds. We love our town and want to keep it. More thought and slower change as Chris stated.

    1. Just wanted to note that the city submitted a response to this letter, which we have added at the bottom. — Teresa Wippel

    2. No rush, Sandy! Let me know what you think when you do. I’d be interested in learning more about how you think about this stuff.

      1. Mackey,
        You said I didn’t like your ideas or the way you write. I applaud your engagement, what I don’t abide is your irreverent and insulting attitude to so many who are due your respect instead. Squanderind an opportunity to make the world a more truthful place…really! You’ve shown utter disregard for truth so far. I would like to see you have some real accomplishments to bring to the conversation with respect that indicates an attitude of learning instead of posing. You’ve shown no indication that you are teachable. Brave enough to share with you…you know nothing of respect which means you know nothing of bravery. Don’t confuse your being annoying, insolent and ignorant of social norms and boundaries for bravery. As for sharing…I would find it more enjoyable and edifying to have a colonoscopy to purge the smoke you’ve already blown. You said multiple times you would stop, so I ask you again to stop, especially on this forum.

        1. Gerry, I want to sincerely apologize for my earlier request that you “be brave enough to share [the rationale for your disagreement with me]”. I chose a phrasing inappropriately charged with emotion. While I earnestly believe that sharing the things we believe, and why we believe them, requires commendable bravery, particularly when our audience does not share our beliefs, I did not mean to imply that you were not capable of doing so – I know that you are. Once again, I sincerely apologize and regret my choice of words. I could, and should, have been kinder and clearer in communicating my expectations for constructive, respectful discourse. (1/8)

        2. I choose to disagree, debate, posit, criticize, and ponder in the open forums of the website out of a deep respect for other members of our community, including you, and the perspectives, opinions, and arguments that others share here. I am replying to you here because I respect you. I feel it would be disrespectful for me to treat the earnest opinions and arguments of others, like you, as so unimportant as to be undeserving of scrutiny or criticism; this is the same treatment I expect and desire from others. (If my objective was self-aggrandizement, or drawing attention to my personal preferences, I would spend my time [and money] advertising them in a setting void of the opportunity for disagreement; in this body of comments alone, I will write over 1000 words for no dividend beyond renewal of the belief that I have done my best to coax out the capacity of our community to value critical thought and the free and fair exchange of ideas as essential elements of our consideration of civic affairs.) (2/8)

        3. My engagement here – including my attempts at ensuring other participants adhere to the norms of constructive discourse, like my earlier identification of what I assessed as a strawman argument by Brian, which I felt threatened to detract from constructive debate by intentionally misrepresenting the views of others, rather than serving as a legitimate, earnest assertion of his personal perspective – can provoke awkward and uncomfortable reflection and self-assessment. Even so, I maintain that this kind of engagement is not just important, but, in fact, a necessary component of our collective construction of truth. I believe our community, and country, and society, is weakened when we accept the ideas of others at face value, or defer scrutiny solely in the interest of staying in line with authority or tradition (which are are extremely subjective.) I have love in my heart for every person who takes time out of their day to share their thoughts here; that love is too great to keep me on the sidelines when they make assertions that I do not believe are supported by reasonable interpretations of the most relevant evidence available. I interpret others’ engagement with my ideas, including yours, as coming from that same place of love, as long as there is not an evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. (4/8)

        4. In your initial reply to me (to my knowledge, our first communication ever) in response to my reply to Brian, you chose to describe my expression of my views as “bloviating”. You asserted that my perspective sums to “nothing substantial”. You expressed your desire to prevent me from further participation in this forum (I think you misunderstood my earlier use of related language as a legitimate request; it was a joking turn-of-phrase), apparently because you found my ideas and conduct concerning and frustrating. You additionally suggested that I am “[denigrating] foundations of our past”, exhibiting “utter disregard for truth”, that I am “pliable enough to support unfounded theories”, and that my expression here amounts to “blowing smoke”.

          Neighbor, those words do not add up to constructive criticism or identification of potential epistemic issues with any of the specific points I made in my comments. They do not make any attempts to engage with my ideas. I sat with your words for a long time, trying in good faith to interpret your comment in a constructive manner; every interpretation I am able to make – even the most generous – bring me to the same conclusion: that your intent was to communicate your disapproval of my character, integrity, and intelligence, rather than my ideas. I welcome criticism, but criticism requires supporting evidence or reasoning. (5/7, oops)

        5. I respect, support, and will always defend your fundamental right to hold and share views critical of my character, my personality, my life experience, or any other aspect of my identity, as you see fit, in every forum (like this one) that permits their expression. With that said, the words you chose here are deeply concerning to me, because they suggest that you find it appropriate to levy personal attacks to silence those whose views diverge from yours.

          I want you to know that I think this kind of behavior is wholly unacceptable and unproductive. On the margin, it has a chilling effect on the willingness and comfort of others in our community to share their ideas in political speech, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the worthiness or usefulness of those ideas: it is discouraging, disrespectful, and disappointing. I appreciate you taking my ideas and political participation seriously, but I don’t think remarks about my personal shortcomings – or any remarks, for that matter – have a useful place in this comment section, unless they pertain specifically to arguments I have made here or elsewhere. (6/7)

        6. There is a respectful and constructive way to identify and correct epistemic errors in views you don’t agree with, including mine: argumentation. Your responses to me were not argumentative in nature. They did not include any reasoning or evidence to support your – verbatim – assertion that I am a bloviating, denigrating, pliable, annoying, insolent, ignorant smoke-blower, with utter disregard for truth, who supports unfounded theories, who knows nothing of respect or bravery, and whom you wish could be stopped from participating in this forum. That’s fine. What’s missing is *why.*

          I ask that you find another outlet for these feelings. Per the MyEdmondsNews code of conduct (https://myedmondsnews.com/about-2/), this comment section is a space for good-faith, constructive argumentation and disagreement, “focused on the ideas being presented rather than the individuals expressing them”.

          I believe that the intensity and character of your words, and their focus on my personal identity, warrant the comprehensiveness of my response here. This is important to me: conduct like this has a direct, negative impact on community cohesion and trust; it ultimately contributes, to a significant extent, to the fact that policy-oriented comment sections on this website disproportionately represent a handful of known personalities (including my own) rather than representative cross-sections of our community. I cannot be scared/bullied out of participation, but others are. We are, collectively, worse for it. (7/7)

  11. The expansion of Impervious surfaces, resulting from density expansion seems to be lost in this conversation. If the City is so concerned about climate change they should prioritize reducing local run off impacts to the Puget Sound.
    Edmonds is 30% covered in significant tree canopy,
    By allowing ADU’s and multiple structures to be crammed into smaller lot sizes will lead to reduction in open spaces, resulting in additional storm water run off into the Puget Sound, less tress absorbing rain water and more structures will not be a positive event to our local environment. We should have greater open space requirements in our future density plans, but instead we have less and our city and leaders have agreed to broader density goals than Currently required by our state mandates. Simply requiring a higher % of open space in all future developments could have easily been injected into our codes, but that is not development friendly enough and conflicts with profit driven development. By maximizing the use of lot sizes by force feeding more structures on smaller lots, will lead to greater profit and tax revenue that will help our local schools and government funding, so acknowledging the motive behind all this is quite clear.

    1. Mike, I generally agree with your take on outcomes under our current and anticipated codes; stormwater codes are much stronger than when most of Edmonds was built. Our impermeable surface coverage standards aren’t changing, but the economics of rehabbing existing structures into multiple dwellings, and adding smaller accessory ones (ADUs/DADUs) do often appear to pan out more favorably vs. full demolition and construction of completely new dwellings.

      Profit is necessary for development to happen at all, just as it is necessary for any good to be made or service to be performed, but buildings are remarkably flexible: would you support the liberalization of height restrictions in exchange for lower permitted lot coverages? I definitely do. I think taller, skinnier buildings often create comprehensively better homes, with more exposure / windows / cross-ventilation, better 3-4+ bedroom floorplans, and less floor area ($) on circulation. See here: https://www.larchlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Larch-Lab-PAB_Policy-Brief.pdf ; in other countries, markets for cheaper, smaller elevators all practically all new builds to have an elevator in addition to stairs.)

      My understanding is that Edmonds can set lot coverage in residential areas to literally whatever we want (within reasonable boundaries that will probably tested through litigation in WA at some point), as long as the standards for attached homes aren’t more restrictive than those for attached homes. I would rather see taller structures with less lot coverage.

  12. “You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcome is nothing.” Thomas Sowell nailed it in one sentence.

  13. The negative dialog between Whitmarsh and Guenther needs to stop. This has become too personal and it is not constructive to the issues being discussed. Stick to the issues please.

    1. In whole-hearted agreement, Chris. Let’s work to be civil and constructive, please.

  14. I have often wondered why those who have been protectors of the environment are now worshiping at the altar of density. The two are very inconsistent in spite of what the City Response and one frequent writer on this stream
    state. I would argue that density isn’t cheaper. If it were why have so many folks moved to more rural areas to find affordable housing? As has been pointed out many times, the increased housing proposed for Edmonds won’t be cheap either in dollars or in the cost to the environment. Many years ago I attended a lecture on economics, and a big takeaway was that if you don’t see why something is being done, ” Follow the money.” That wisdom has served me well. It explains to me why some in the City and certain Citizens are pushing so hard for the Built Green agenda.

    1. I believe people are angry upon realizing that their elected leaders are using density and green agendas as Trojan Horses for grifting their constituents to benefit special interests.” Follow the money.” It’s so true.

    2. Robert, “following the money” is an interesting concept.

      Do you think “following the money” is useful in explaining why incumbent homeowners across the United States – including those in Edmonds – are organizing at scale to oppose changes to increase housing supply, because they perceive that such changes could lower the value of their investments? It would be in the rational self-interest of these homeowners to preserve the local stability they personally enjoy, even at the expense of larger-scale benefits for those who don’t own homes here, and, in the aggregate, the productivity and health of our national economy (https://eml.berkeley.edu/~moretti/growth.pdf), right?

      Additionally, given that most of these homeowners live amidst the remnants of old-growth forests that were clearcut and paved to their direct benefit, could this dynamic also explain why these same homeowners make allegations that the consequences of changes to land use policies today, including tree canopy reductions and impermeable surface increases, will damage the health of our ecological systems, even though future changes would *literally* be marginal (i.e. tiny percentages) compared to the tree canopy reductions and impermeable surface increases that were wrought on these lands during the 20th century to allow them to become homeowners in the first place?

      Growing majorities of Washingtonians (https://www.sightline.org/2023/02/15/poll-washington-voters-out-ahead-of-local-leaders-on-zoning-reforms/) want land use policies to change, because their freedoms&QoL are artificially constrained to satisfy the preferences of incumbents.

Comments are closed.