Time to end the anti-affordability contradictions, Seattle!

We oppose allowing more multi-family homes because multi-story buildings cast shadows. + We oppose allowing more multi-family homes to preserve large trees on residential lots.
We oppose allowing more micro-housing to preserve single-family homes for families. + Renting individual rooms in a single-family house is a great option for groups of young singles.
We must preserve single-family homes as ownership opportunities.  + Single-family homes are great because twenty percent of them are rentals.
I support zoning that bans duplexes and triplexes, even at the same size as single-family homes. + I encourage 2-3 families to co-buy a single-family home together if they can’t afford one on their own.
We’re concerned about renters not taking as much care of where they live as owners would. + When owners let older single-family homes get rundown they become affordable rental housing.
We oppose allowing multi-family homes in single family zones because it’s important to maintain the supply of single-family detached homes. + We oppose allowing lots two or tree times as large as those many older homes sit on to be subdivided in order to build new single-family detached homes.
The equity in my single-family home doesn’t matter, because I just want to live here and never want to move. + I oppose allowing multi-family homes near my single-family home because their proximity might reduce its value.
We must have lots of single-family zoning because yards and gardens are among the most important things for families to have. + Having lots of single-family zoning isn’t a problem because families who can’t afford to live in it can live in high-rises along freeways.
It’s mean to describe single-family zoning as “exclusionary.” + If people can’t afford a single-family home here, they should just go elsewhere.
New homes must be required to have off-street parking on the property. + My home does not have off-street parking on the property.
We’re mad as hell traffic has made travel by car subject to unpredictable delays. + “Frequent bus service” must be defined as 100% predictable arrival times.
We must charge developers impact fees to fix [whatever – e.g., sewers] to mitigate the impact of growth. + [Whatever – e.g., sewers] has been a problem for decades, so we can’t accommodate any new growth.
Housing prices are being inflated by foreign speculators who never intend to live here. + Traffic is terrible, busses are full, and “Tech Bros” are overrunning the neighborhood.
My difficulty finding street parking should be treated as a negative externality caused by property developers, even though they aren’t the ones doing the parking. + My windfall home equity shouldn’t be treated as a positive externality caused by the tech industry, even though its mine and I didn’t found Amazon.