Small-lot legislation passed yesterday with two amendments that made the underlying legislation worse. In many ways the underlying legislation that passed out of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee was positive. Some issues about adjacent lots and lot boundary adjustments were clarified. And, in the end, many new single-family homes will still be built in the city. There are many lots that can still be turned into housing for families who want to live in Seattle. But three Councilmembers stand out as having chosen the angry, entitled people who showed up over people who aren’t here yet.

These three Councilmembers were key in supporting  two amendments  that make things worse. Councilmember Burgess was successful in his efforts to eliminate 250 new potential homes, and Councilmember Rasmussen amended the legislation in a way that complicates and confuses what was a clear height of 22 feet. Neither of these amendments could have happened without other Councilmembers supporting these changes. Angry neighbors claimed a victory, but, in the end, the code remains a confused mess, and more new homes will be built. They’ll be back, just as bitter as before, when someone builds a new home in their neighborhood. What they really wanted was an end to any new housing. To be clear, Councilmember Burgess voted against Councilmember Rasmussen’s amendment which was worse than his own.

Why the Council continues to waste everyone’s time on these incremental steps toward a toward a total moratorium on growth in single-family neighborhoods is an interesting question; more homes will get built, which will incite more angry neighbors and more legislation. If they really want a ban on single-family development why not just do it? Councilmember Clark, wisely, said that wasn’t on the table, even though she heard that desire from many angry neighbors.

Councilmember Rasmussen’s actions are particularly embarrassing. Not only did he propose an amendment that was considered and dismissed by Councilmembers O’Brien and Clark, but he stood up and lectured the Council about how neighbors weren’t listened to and how they were ignored. That’s odd considering that they carried the day with his amendment. Obviously his hearing aid was dialed up to 10. Rasmussen’s amendment assures years of arguing over calculation of heights all over the city. It’s as if he has a side consulting business in selling height measuring tools.

It’s unfortunate that almost 2 years of discussion and dialogue resulted in a more confusing code thanks to Councilmember Rasmussen and 250 fewer homes thanks to Councilmember Burgess.

Real thanks are due for Councilmembers O’Brien and Clark, both of whom I have locked horns with over the years for, ironically, indulging neighborhood concerns too often. Also Councilmember Harrell helped behind the scenes trying to make the case for a common sense solution. Interestingly, it was O’Brien, Clark, and Harrell, who seemed to see through the haze of bitter, well-heeled, single-family advocates who want to shut down development in single-family neighborhoods.

The biggest disappointment was Sally Bagshaw who verbally gesticulated about protecting single-family neighborhoods (oddly she mentioned David Neiman, who thrashed the legislation here, only to say, as he and I have joked, “when David Neiman speaks, I don’t listen”). Bagshaw made it clear she favors wealthy single-family neighbors who want no more development in single-family zones.

Bagshaw never engaged with us or returned multiple phone calls asking for her position on the issue. She also expressed enthusiasm for notice requirements that will cost the City thousands of dollars and further hobble development of single-family homes. As an attorney, you’d think she’d understand that the City of Seattle is the party who has to defend an appeal; evidently she left her legal training behind when elected to Council. I had hoped better from her. I guess I was wrong. In the end it will be voters, next year, who will decide her future and Councilmember Rasmussen’s the way they dispatched with the jobs, homes, and futures of people who want to live in Seattle. It may not be fair, but that’s politics.