*Perhaps the most enraging aspect of this equation is that the additional value landowners are gaining is largely contributed by the public. *

I who chose to live in a walkable neighborhood 25 years ago, well before it was booming and more because "it just was a cheap place that I could survive here without a car."

Why should I be penalized now because you want to take profit from me if I sell my property to someone arriving now?

You cite Piecoras. Piecoras for 30 years helped make that corner valuable. Why shouldnt they be allowed to cash out now after a life spent making the area not suck?

This article seems to want to punish people who live someplace they now must leave because it's changed beyond their ability to survive, yet not even profit from the change, from the years of sweat equity.

I've worked, lived, paid numerous sales taxes, supported numerous businesses on Broadway and 12th over the decades, and now some fucking blogger comes along and says I'm to blame if my property is worth more than he thinks it should be worth, because reasons.

Fuck yourself guy. And get the fuck out of my neighborhood if you got here too late to be able to use it the way you want to now.

I missed out on NY and SF and LA, I made it to Seattle and got to see a city boom. Suggest rather than you complaining about Seattle sucking, you go find somewhere that isn't boomed out yet, some forgotten corner of the world with a city that has little going on but loads of potential, and you decide you'll be one of the ones that got there before it got too expensive for you

Instead of trying to lobby and lawyer away what Seattle is now, since you missed out.