> Why is there no discussion on rezoning single home areas to allow multistorey buildings?

Homeowners are a reliable voting bloc. Rezoning single homes would make housing more affordable while adding to the city's vibrancy. It would also reduce existing home values.

> It would also reduce existing home values

I'm not an american so I probably don't get the real estate market in the US. But wouldn't rezoning actually increase the value ? Not of the home itself but of the land on which it is built.

If your $1M home can be turned into a 10-flat building at $300K each, wouldn't real-estate developers buy your home (even at a premium) to destroy it and rebuild on it ?

> If your $1M home can be turned into a 10-flat building at $300K each, wouldn't real-estate developers buy your home (even at a premium) to destroy it and rebuild on it ?

Let this happen ten times and you have 100 new units on the market. Since nobody moves to a city to live in a particular building (i.e. housing demand, locally, is relatively independent of housing supply, at least in the short run) this will drive the apartments' prices down. That, in turn, will exert downward pressure on the price of the single-family homes.

Or the neighborhood gets more dense, economic activity increases, and your home value goes up. Greenwich Village ain't cheap.

It only makes sense if there is already demand for those units which is what the article seem to suggest. If there are more than 100 families looking to live in the city, the price will not go down.

There is lots of discussion of that and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

A years long process won’t do anything to help thousands of homeless now.

Why are there thousands of homeless now? Is it a new phenomenon or a slow brewing thing. How can you conclude that recent massive hiring in Amazon has caused homelessness?

1. Amazon hires thousands of people for six figure salaries.

2. Rents increase.

3. More people become homeless.

http://q13fox.com/2017/11/06/study-says-rising-rents-tied-to...

Illogical. People who can't afford 2 bed rentals don't move to the nearby street if rents are unaffordable. They move to another town where they can afford the rents. Correlation isn't causation

30 days is not a lot of time to find a place, especially if you're having to compete in bidding wars against other people. It can be especially difficult to come up with a security deposit and first month's rent. If most people have less than 1300 in savings then they can only afford a new place that rents for 600/month. I can't think of any municipalities in the area where rents are that cheap without downsizing your family into a studio. To say nothing of the burden of packing all your things, cleaning the apartment, getting enough friends to help you move out, etc.. It's not a trivial thing to do on short notice while you're holding down a job.

You know that moving costs quite a bit of money, right? If you lose your job or have a serious medical issue without insurance, you won't be able to move to a nearby town with cheaper rents.

What do you think the underlying cause of homelessness in Seattle is?

Not if they get pushed from barely being able to afford it to not being able to afford it in the span of a month or two.