Listen to the show
Hear Real Estate Today on KIRO Radio
Join Tom Kelly every Sunday at 9am on KIRO Radio to talk Puget Sound real estate.

Seattle could ban big houses

BY KIRO Radio Staff  on September 7, 2012 @ 6:11 am (Updated: 11:18 am - 9/7/12 )

cedargrove
The Seattle City Council will consider limiting construction of big new homes on small lots (AP image)

You see it all over Seattle, an old house on a small lot replaced by a much bigger new one. Many city residents want to stop the practice.

"It's essentially building a three-story home on a piece of property you or I would put a greenhouse or a child's play set," says North Seattle homeowner Peter Krause in an interview with KING 5 as he looks at a large new home looming over his backyard.

Developers have taken advantage of a loophole in city zoning laws which exempt certain lots created before 1957 from zoning regulations.

"This is simply random sort of things people have dug up from old records and that's not the way to run a city," says Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin, who has proposed emergency legislation to block construction of larger homes on small lots.

The council will consider it Monday.

Developers argue the homes are the only way to make affordable new construction available in the city where space is at a premium.

"If we don't have these types of housing, we are not going to see middle class people be able to afford to be in the city anymore," says land broker Gabe Rosenshine.

KIRO Radio Staff, Staff report
Straight from the newsdesk.
More Real Estate News
Top Stories

  • Cause of Collapse
    The I-5 bridge over the Skagit River likely collapsed after a support was struck by a semi truck

  • Survivor's Tale
    "I hit the brakes and we went off"

  • Bridge Distress
    Washington has an unfortunate history of bridge disasters
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (59)


  • Add A Comment

  • Vlastimil wrote...
    smacks of agenda 21
    September 7, 2012 7:17 am
    So when will they be running a bulldozer through Windermere and Leschi?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kato1967 wrote...
    Communist Nanny State
    September 7, 2012 7:28 am
    Is it any wonder so many people don't want to live in the Bolshevik Commune of Seattle anymore? What stupidity.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • A Man Watching wrote...
    Ban Big Dumb Ideas
    September 7, 2012 8:29 am
    Time for Seattle to become its own county and stopped nursing off of everyone else's income. The streets aren't safe, parasitic trash mooch for money on every corner making the entire downtown experience revolting. After being assaulted in a parking garage I'll never attend the 5th Ave Theater again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    I don't want your HUGE home blocking my view.
    September 7, 2012 9:11 am
    "Your" view? "YOUR" view? How bourgeois of you. How capitalist of you. You don't own that view, comrade. It's property of "the state". Like I've always said: Liberals, do as I say. Not as I do. Assiah proves it again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HPD5-0
    September 7, 2012 9:35 am
    If I move into a home and my view is blocked by another home thats fine because I knew the home was there and the view blocked and I paid LESS for the home because of it. But if I have a view and you tear the home down and build a monster home that blocks my view then you have taken money out of MY pocket and some of the enjoyment out of my life.So you need rules to prevent people from having their property devalued.Of course you Rightys believe that you should be able to do anything you want with your land and to HELL with anyone else.Thats selfish and morally wrong.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • uralnutjobs wrote...
    your view/my land?
    September 7, 2012 10:34 am
    sorry but it is no longer my land when FDR declared that all land is the property of the state and we are only renters. this is when eminent domain came into play.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    messiah, you (surprisingly) are right. Although by a 'righty' concept.
    September 7, 2012 5:39 pm
    just might take you some court time and money, but if a judge knows what he or she is doing (and real estate law), the concept of a 'view easement' should protect you. ... Any easement is a right to use, uninfrindged, once established. And once established, that easement is as much a property right as anything else. And if violated, just compensation - or abatement - must be granted.

    This usually applies to stuff like NON-NATIVE trees growing to block views, but can be applied to construction blocking your view. ...and if long established, even when zoning might actually ALLOW a higher structure to block you.

    The devil, however, comes when governmental bodies violate your view. That Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago allowing use of municipalities to condemn homes for a 'higher' private use is disturbing. As was that 'sensitive areas' ordinance King County tried a few years ago to restrict uses without compensation.

    Be advised, messiah, The threats to your use of YOUR view come from the statist left. NOT the right. (yes, messiah's view, HPD5-0, even though I suspect you are being factious)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Ron Pre
    September 7, 2012 8:55 pm
    I lived over 25 yrs in California and folks in some areas trying to build a second story on a home had problems if it blocked anothers view of the ocean.My appraise put about an additional $60,000 value on my lot because I have a nice water view. Thank Heavens the area where I live has CCrs guaranteeing no one can let a tree grow over 16' or build higher without an approval. CCRs protect everyone's property value
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Good, messiah. But your property RIGHTS are youe first line of protection.
    September 8, 2012 4:56 am
    But CCRs Do make it easier for less informed judges to understand. CCRs are contracts. Zoning is the law. And property rights are rights - usually constitutional (state or federal).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    I knew it!
    September 8, 2012 5:53 pm
    Messy 101 is a hippy Californicator who moved up here an know wants evreryone who was born & raised here to live according to HIS rules. You are a friggin parasite. Go back to Haight Ashbury you burnt out acid head!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    I don't want to pay for the services that underpaid person needs to live in this area.
    September 7, 2012 9:12 am
    WHAT!?!?!? Again; do as I say, not as I do. Thanks for keeping it real. Hypocrite.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HPD5-0
    September 7, 2012 9:28 am
    You missed your mark,I will pay for services for the needy but I certainly like it more if I didn't need to pay for them.Why is that hard for you to understand?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    kato196 and A Man Watching:
    September 7, 2012 9:22 am
    kato196, You're flat out wrong about people not wanting to live in Seattle. You need to pay attention to housing trends before you make a claim like that. Speaking for myself, I much prefer having a small but attractive house with a good size yard in a walkable, convenient neighborhood. You guys can keep the burbs.

    A Man Watching: "Time for Seattle to become its own county and stopped nursing off of everyone else's income." Really? Another fact-challenged conservative. You do realize that Seattle and, to a larger extent, King County, pay out a lot more than they take in services, don't you? The red counties in this state would be screwed if King County abandoned them.

    In fact, that's how it is for most counties and states in the country. I know it's anathema to your worldview, but as a whole, red states take in way more assistance than they pay out. And guess what color states subsidize that?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Hayduke
    September 7, 2012 11:36 am
    Ya gotta understand that these REDNECKS on this site can't handle city life.Heck way to many minorities around plus they need space to park their junk cars and a yard for throwing old car batteries and auto part in.Also need some where to tie up the pit bulls.No these fools are true countrified Rubes
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Howdy wrote...
    Messiah
    September 7, 2012 12:39 pm
    You just described the section 8 house that I live next to. Thank you Seattle
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Dark Jedi wrote...
    Yes, limit housing sizes
    September 7, 2012 10:51 am
    But tear out some low in come housing and build HUGE condo buildings because the low income housing has a beautiful view! Of course that would never hap-- oh wait.. it did happen. It's all about big developers and making people feel rightous.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tuleman003 wrote...
    Apparently, DJ,
    September 8, 2012 6:34 am
    you are not aware of how much low-income housing that is in Seattle. Sure, it helps some people get back on their feet, but mostly, it becomes permanent, bedbug infested, party pads for the burdens on society.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tuleman003 wrote...
    And AJ, before you claim
    September 8, 2012 6:46 am
    that my low-income housing comment is racist, trust me, there are more white people in there than minorities.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    AJ, that's why I said "MOST counties and states in the country."
    September 7, 2012 11:12 am
    Texas is an obvious exception to the rule. The point is, several studies done over the last few years back up my point that it is MOSTLY the red states taking in more than they contribute, and the converse of that for the blue states.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick1 wrote...
    HOA
    September 7, 2012 12:06 pm
    Most developed neighborhoods have HOA covenences that protect us from having our neighbors build additional structures on or near their home that doesnt match the architechtual designs of the community. This keeps the neighborhood nice for everyone. For some this is crazy communism, for me it protects my home and my privacy from my neighbor building a three story deck that overlooks my yard. Why don't these communities come together and join a HOA that requires all home designs to pass a HOA design committee?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    *LOL* Messiah
    September 7, 2012 12:12 pm
    The difference between a Liberal and Convservative/Libertarian.

    Of course you Rightys believe that you should be able to do anything you want with your land and to HELL with anyone else.Thats selfish and morally wrong.

    to rephrase it from the Liberial ideology.

    Of course WE LIBERALS believe that WE should be able to do anything WE want with your land and to HELL with anyone else. And why is that.. :)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    cdbtx
    September 7, 2012 8:58 pm
    I really don't have a clue what your talking about.Get your finger outta ur arse and write something coherant
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }