2013 General Election Endorsements – Part I

69 Replies to “2013 General Election Endorsements – Part I”

1. Good choices.

   1. That’s what they said about the captain when the Titanic set sail too.

2. Another point in opposition to Charter Amendment No. 19 is the actual district boundaries, which would be with us until sometime after the 2020 census if the amendment were approved. The districts are drawn in such a way that only one of the seven (#3) is likely to have a transit-friendly majority. Other dense areas likely to be pro-transit, such as downtown, Uptown, Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford, and North Beacon Hill, are divided and put into districts with majorities of SFH residents. This proposal will result in a less transit-friendly City Council than we have today.

   1. Agreed. It makes little sense to have the boundaries pre-drawn by a single retired “expert.” What other city or state allows that to happen? Shouldn’t the boundaries involve multiple elected or appointed officials that understand demographics and have a transparent public process for determining the lines?

   2. I wouldn’t be too worried about District #3 if I were John Fox. Kshama is a shoe-in for that seat.

   3. I think you have the wrong idea about gerrymandering here. It’s easy to gerrymander when there are clear demographic or party registration data from which to base the boundaries. However, with so few districts and no dramatic segregation within the city, even the most season political geographers could not stack the decks.

      I am a strong supporter of district elections. I used to not think it matters but once I lived in a major city that went from at-large to district elections. The change was profound. Suddenly, I was able to meet every candidate (who showed up on several mornings at major transit points, by the way). Suddenly, I knew who to contact if there was an issue. Suddenly, my representative was at every neighborhood meeting.

      All this worrying about a less friendly transit council is totally wrong. A district council person will have to represent all the interests in their district, including the many transit riders that live there. In fact, they will have more direct contact with their transit-riding neighbors and will thus have a better idea of where there real transit issues are. After all, aren’t many issues about transit access, which is a local thing? Local transit issues are not always obvious or important to staff analysts or citywide blogs — so hearing that additional perspective becomes very important to enhancing transit in Seattle.

      1. I may live in one district, but I work in another, and I shop and eat and play in many of the others. In a district-based system, my political voice wouldn’t extend further than the district boundaries of my home.

      2. with so few districts and no dramatic segregation within the city, even the most season political geographers could not stack the decks.

         I have to disagree strongly. These districts quite transparently “stack the deck” in favor of residents of low-density areas. SFH versus density is the largest and most meaningful divide in Seattle politics right now. Each district except #3 and #6 contains a single high-density neighborhood which is overwhelmed by SFH. #6 has two dense neighborhoods, and although it is still SFH majority is the only district other than #3 which even has a chance of electing a transit-friendly council member.

         A district council person will have to represent all the interests in their district, including the many transit riders that live there.

         If anti-transit residents are the majority, what interest does a council member have in representing transit riders well? It would just hurt them with their majority.

      3. As the STB EB writes, it is not that district-based proposals are inherently wrong, but that this one is proven problematic by both content and association.

         A district council is most advantageous when paired with an executive empowered to make informed and final decisions on matters affecting the city as a whole. But few cities have executives as neutered as ours. A district council with absolute budgetary veto power — like the one we’d have under this amendment — is a recipe for rampant obstruction rather than collaboration, for NIMBY fiefdoms rather than an advisory path to balancing neighborhood and city-wide outcomes.

         Charter Amendment 19’s most visible on-the-ground activist (and, I recently learned, author of its text), is attorney Toby Thaler, a.k.a. TobyInFremont. He seems to be the Eternal Opposite Day of “environmental lawyers”. All of his in-city advocacy has involved downscaling and maintaining oodles of “open space”. Meanwhile, he has allied himself with forces that would eliminate Washington’s Growth Management Act. In short, he would prevent people from living in Seattle and force them into Issaquah Highlands “self-sustaining” mirage crap.

         This is also the man who tried to tell me to my face that the prohibition on campaign signs on public property meant the exact opposite of its plain text, and then proceeded to litter my neighborhood’s street corners, parks, and library with them. I had no idea the Washington Bar Association had such low standards for basic literacy! (I checked, confirmed he was wrong, and reported him.)

         Charter Amendment 19 is very much a “garbage in, garbage out” situation.

      4. But if the districts consist of a majority of people who are indifferent to the need to increase public transportation, how will that help the cause of transit? The nimbys in the untransit friendly districts will push their representatives on the council to oppose those measures that enhance transit—in their increased face to face encounters.

      5. “These districts quite transparently “stack the deck” in favor of residents of low-density areas.” This is absurd; no effort was made to favor any demographic. I had a long and unpleasant exchange with d.p. about this issue and despite repeated requests to “prove it,” I have yet to see a shred of data or analysis from him or anyone else to support the claim.

         Anti-transit residents are not a minority in any neighborhood I’m familiar with. In fact, one of the most development-impacted neighborhoods in town—Ballard—is desperate for better transit. My neighborhood—Fremont—is desperate for better transit. The Fremont Neighborhood Council recently sent a comment letter to SDOT/Sound Transit begging for the light/medium rail line planned for Downtown to Ballard to be put through Fremont. It is ridiculous to suggest that District 6 (or 5 or 4…) is going to elect an anti-transit representative!

         d.p.—You clearly have no clue about my advocacy over the past 40 years. I have been a vigorous defender of the GMA, including in court as counsel for Washington Environmental Council and others. Most recently, I was a major player in the fight at City Council to amend the city’s zoning code to facilitate construction of Skanska’s green Stone34 building.

         As for yard signs, do your research: the SMC section your cited (something in Title 2.04 Elections) has nothing to do with placement of yard signs. The applicable provision is in SMC Title 23.55 Signs. While that title clearly permits election signs on public property, it does appear to prohibit them on median strips and other locations where there is no private property owner directly adjacent. Tell that to Richard Conlin, Sally Bagshaw, and all the other candidates and campaigns that repeatedly put hundreds of them in such locations all over town. If you dig a bit you’ll learn that the City has informally decided to pursue a “hands off” policy so long as specific signs are not impeding pedestrians or causing a safety hazard. Not only does the City not have the personnel resources to run around town pulling them up, there are indeed First Amendment concerns as I mentioned to you in Ballard the other day.

         Charter Amendment 19 is not anti-transit. It is pro-empowerment of the various districts and communities. If getting better transit service is one of the major issues in a particular district (is there any in Seattle where it is not?), then the representative elected from that district will advocate for it.

         As it is now, with at-large representatives, the only district that gets consistent attention, and an outsized share of City resources, is Downtown. That’s why we have a (arguably) reasonably decent hub and spokes system, but fair to poor inter-neighborhood connections. District representatives will help rectify that imbalance. Please vote Yes! to improve transit advocacy all over Seattle.

         [By the way d.p., you might try coalition politics sometime; it’s much more productive than overt hostility to anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%. I’m not talking about snipey blogging; I’m talking about overt nastiness. Please knock it off.]

      6. Toby, your claims sound very nice, but they just don’t match the reality of the district map.

         This is absurd; no effort was made to favor any demographic.

         In that case, why is there a single urban neighborhood (counting Belltown and Uptown together), each of which is a minority of the overall district population, in five of the seven districts? The way to empower a group in districting is to draw as many districts where that group has a small majority as possible, and that’s exactly how this map works for SFH residents. The map could have easily been drawn to have three urban-majority districts; as is, there is just one, with another one that may tip in some years if Ballard keeps growing like crazy. Areas built in a suburban pattern have total control of five of the districts and likely control of a sixth. That’s enough to give them control of the entire council. I find it just about impossible to believe that a guy as brilliant as Professor Morrill did that by accident, when other outcomes would easily be possible with districts that would be just as coherent geographically.

         Anti-transit residents are not a minority in any neighborhood I’m familiar with.

         I think you didn’t say what you meant here, but with respect to SFH areas I agree with what you actually said. :)

         I’m a SFH resident myself. I know my neighbors. They are not necessarily “anti-transit” per se, but they are strenuously anti-tax and anti-densification, and for the most part they don’t have any interest in growing the city.

         If getting better transit service is one of the major issues in a particular district (is there any in Seattle where it is not?), then the representative elected from that district will advocate for it.

         Not if the majority of residents in the district are more concerned with preventing growth and holding down taxes than improving transit. By putting a SFH majority into 6 of 7 districts, you end up with that situation in at least 5 of the 7.

      7. I am a strong supporter of district elections. I used to not think it matters but once I lived in a major city that went from at-large to district elections. The change was profound. Suddenly, I was able to meet every candidate (who showed up on several mornings at major transit points, by the way). Suddenly, I knew who to contact if there was an issue. Suddenly, my representative was at every neighborhood meeting.

         This is all very nice, but it seems kind of revealing to me that you don’t mention anything about changes in actual political outcomes. This matters a lot more to me than any of the stuff you mention. Generally speaking, this kind of stuff–made to feel important and empowered by your local politicians–actually empowers politicians more than it does the citizens they represent, as it makes them more manipulable.

         I’m not strongly opposed to the districts idea in the abstract, but the reality, given Seattle’s current density geography, if you care about transit and density levels that permit housing supply to keep up with demand, Seattle’s geography, even absent any specific attempt to gerrymander for SFH, is going to work against you. I care much, much more about those issues than I do about a council member shaking my hand or returning my call.

         All this worrying about a less friendly transit council is totally wrong. A district council person will have to represent all the interests in their district, including the many transit riders that live there.

         To call this naive would be a profound understatement. No elected politicians need to attend to the needs of all of those they represent, a) they don’t need all the votes, just a majority of them, and b) doing so would be impossible because the interests of different constituents actually conflict with another, so serving them all will be impossible.

         In a lot of neighborhoods, SFH residents greatest demand from the city is to enact policies that limit access to their neighborhood, at least partly in order to inflate the value of their property. This creates articial scarcity, that drives up rents and prevents density from reaching the point where frequent, high quality transit is viable. You can try to balance how you serve these two interests, but that they’re in conflict with each other in undeniable. If you represent a district that’s SFH majority and you want to be reelected, the incentive to choose the SFH agenda over an urbanist one will be very hard to resist.

      8. Actually, I am tending towards a “no” vote on Ch Amend 19 precisely because it appears that the boundaries were intentionally drawn to minimize the influence of downtown. Often it seems like the downtown business establishment is the only group/org pushing to get anything done in this city, and I worry that if that voice is lost then this city will stagnate.

         Additionally, your assertion that the hub and spoke system we have now was somehow created at the behest of the downtown business establishment is pure bunk. We have a hub and spoke system because downtown is where most of the jobs are, and when you build a system that to a large extent supports commuters, then that system has to follow the jobs. Of course the parking situation/cost downtown only increases the demand for transit to the core – you don’t get that transit incentive in the neighborhoods.

         I was skeptical from the start when I saw who was behind this proposal. I was willing to vote “yes” because I like the idea of lower cost elections opening the door to new voices at city hall, and I was willing to vote “yes” because the measure would help consolidate power in the mayor’s office and diminish the power of the neighborhoods, but I’m increasingly in the “no” column.

      9. djw–I disagree with your description of the political economic dynamic in SF zones. The working poor and the elderly are the most harmed by rising SF home prices. Those who rent see their rents go up, and those who own see their taxes go up. House values escalating faster than wage and pension/SS inflation (which has been very low for years) makes it harder to afford staying in place. A more valuable house may get a windfall of sorts (assuming you’re an owner, not a renter), but it doesn’t enable purchase of a better or even comparable house in the same neighborhood. There’s a reason the average income in Seattle has been going up–the poor (and minorities) are being driven out.

         It’s the working poor who need better transit the most. Why would they advocate against being able to get to and from work, school, etc as cheaply as possible? Example: Precinct results map for 2011 Prop 1 (car tabs for transit etc.). Looks like District 6 is solidly pro-transit, and 4 and 6 as well. [IMO, Prop 1 failed because it was poorly written and was a regressive tax. And BTW, I was a strong advocate for Prop 1, including getting the 36th District Dems to endorse it–the only Dem District in town to do so (as I recall).]

         I think “SF v urbanist” is a false dichotomy. If you ask most people who “urbanists” name-call “NIMBYs” you will find they have similar values to urbanists, but also want the City to be responsive to their concerns, prevent or mitigate impacts of unconscionable bottom feeders like Dufus, and provide services and infrastructure needed to make an increasingly dense urban environment livable. And that list of services and infrastructure definitely includes transit.

      10. Toby, I don’t think the Prop 1 results show quite what you think they show.

          Only District 3 is a clear yes. District 4 is a small pro-transit area (the U-District) in a sea of no votes throughout the rest of the district. District 6 is a closer call, but there are still lots of nos in the north and west of the district. Districts 1, 2, 5, and 7 are almost uniformly no.

          And, in any case, voting for a ballot measure presents an optimistic picture. It’s relatively painless; the only hit is a small tax increase. Achieving substantial transit improvements in neighborhoods is much harder, because daily life actually changes for people, and they rightly have reservations about that. Weak support for the idea of “transit” can easily turn into opposition for actual improvements, as we saw with Central Link on MLK, as we saw around all of the U-Link/North Link stations, and as we’ve seen with RapidRide, which could be much faster without neighborhood opposition to dedicated lanes for buses.

      11. It sounds like many people are concerned because all of the districts (except perhaps one) will have most of their population living in single-family housing. Doesn’t that imply that most of the whole city’s population is already in this style of housing? If so, why should we expect to see a change in the pro-density makeup of the council by switching from a system where a majority single-family city votes for several representatives to a system where majority single-family districts each vote for one representative?

          I think we’re painting single-family home residents with too broad of a brush here. Lots of us have nothing against increasing density within the city. We regularly use and vote for transit even though we might also own and use cars on a regular basis.

          With the exception of a couple of minor commercial streets, my neighborhood is zoned pretty solidly single-family at the moment. However, there are plenty of grandfathered duplexes, triplexes, etc. that were built before zoning rules were as strict as they are today. With land prices being what they are, it’s not uncommon for a small, older home to be bulldozed and replaced with one about three times the size of what was there before. I would absolutely support allowing a duplex or triplex to be built on that lot instead of a huge single-family dwelling. If such construction bumped the neighborhood population up to the point where Metro felt the need to run buses through the neighborhood more often, even better!

      12. “downtown is where most of the jobs are” — Yes, and why is that so? And why should it continue to be so? Wouldn’t it make more sense to distribute jobs more around town so people can get to them easier, and we wouldn’t need to spend such a high percentage of our available transit capital on the hub and spoke?

      13. “I would absolutely support allowing a duplex or triplex to be built on that lot instead of a huge single-family dwelling.”

          I agree if it’s done well. Design review for all structures exceeding by some % the size of nearby existing structures would help a lot. But we’ll never get the upzoning required to permit a better ADU code or triplex zoning or improved design review until we have district representation. At least not without a fight from many in the SF zones. People need to feel empowered in order to be comfortable with deals like that.

      14. Toby: Ever been to Washington, DC? That’s the kind of sprawl-oriented commute you’re advocating for.

          Not every job needs to be in a downtown office tower, but concentrating people together produces efficiencies that can’t be matched by spreading people around. There’s a reason cities have formed downtowns for hundreds of years.

      15. Toby,

          I think it is a little late to change Seattle’s downtown business core development pattern, and even if you wanted to change it, Ch Amend 19 is not even remotely close to how you would go about it.

          And, if your goal is really to change development patterns of Seattle via Ch Amend 19, then why aren’t you and the other proponents of this measure at least honest enough to admit that such a thing is your real goal?

          I find the anti-“downtown business establishment” bent of some of the neighborhood activists in this city to be misplaced and a bit naive. When I saw the district boundaries for Ch Amend 19 it was clear that such misplaced angst was at the core of this proposal. It is my main source of reluctance regarding any “yes” vote on this.

          However, I think my mind has been made up – I will vote “no”.

          Thank you very much for your time and effort.

      16. Kyle–I’m not talking about D.C. sprawl, or Snoqualmie; I’m talking about the “urban villages” all around town, and living wage supporting BINMIC (“Interbay”–being eroded by inappropriate gentrification). There’s a difference between suburban sprawl and the so-called distributed urban center plan we’re supposedly pursuing in Seattle and Pugetopolis. Like the Stone34 project I mentioned: 300 more jobs in Fremont Hub Urban Village. On top of the c. 2,000 in the Quadrant Lake Union Center. Etc. That’s why we Fremonters advocate for better transit not just to Downtown, but also to Ballard, the U Dist, and to the north. It’s not sprawl, and it improves the quality of life for all of us.

      17. lazarus — The goal of Charter 19 is not “to change Seattle’s downtown business core development pattern”; the goal is to achieve a better balance of political power between downtown and the rest of the City. The discussion of the downtown core comes up in the context of unmet needs to improve a transit system that fails to properly serve dense housing and employment centers away from downtown. Centers that the comprehensive plan explicitly calls for.

          Thanks back–I appreciate the dialogue.

      18. djw–I disagree with your description of the political economic dynamic in SF zones. The working poor and the elderly are the most harmed by rising SF home prices. Those who rent see their rents go up, and those who own see their taxes go up. House values escalating faster than wage and pension/SS inflation (which has been very low for years) makes it harder to afford staying in place. A more valuable house may get a windfall of sorts (assuming you’re an owner, not a renter), but it doesn’t enable purchase of a better or even comparable house in the same neighborhood. There’s a reason the average income in Seattle has been going up–the poor (and minorities) are being driven out.

          I don’t disagree with that assessment much. Obviously, I was painting with a broad brush precisely because we’re talking about elections, so the general attitudes are more relevant to the fine-grained diversity of views (for the record, I’m a part time Seattle resident, but when I’m there I am a SFH dweller). I thought this was obvious enough that it didn’t need to be stated directly. What i think you’re missing is the utterly crucial synergy of transit+density. Without the latter, the good version of the former isn’t going to have the ridership to be viable. The neighborhood activists I tend to encounter are often pro-transit in the abstract, but are overwhelmingly anti-density; indeed, this more often than not the raison d’etre of their activist identity, complete with what they’ve convinced themselves is righteous anger about directed at the dread “greedy developer.”

          But, as you point out, this can lead to perverse consequences for them if they don’t want to move. That’s why they often work to convince themselves and others that they’re not really anti-density, they’re just…anti-density for this neighborhood/block/project/what have you. So when I see you, in later comment, say this:

          I agree if it’s done well.

          I immediately get very suspicious. This is Steinbrueck’s strategy when called on out on the horrible environmental and social justice consequences of the severe restrictions on new housing he’s always fighting for. Always for density somewhere, but never here, never now. Density is great, but *this* project doesn’t work because XYZ. Especially seeing this in response to support for something as trivial and minor as putting a duplex on a single family lot, which is a quintessential example of excessive over-zoning. This is page one from the playbook of the enemies of allowing housing supply to match demand; vague in precisely the way that allows its speaker to pretend to support density while always opposing it. It’s also insultingly meaningless: of course it should be “done well”–everything should. And used in support of excessive review processes, it has an enthymemetic function, with the unstated, implied premise being processes that in essence give various neighbors and “neighborhood activists” a heckler’s veto over development projects makes them more likely to be “done well.” This premise, quite obviously, far from self-evidently true.

          If you want to convince me you’re serious about transit and support the density that makes transit viable, tell me about some density increasing projects you’ve actively supported over your years as an activist. (I’m not being rhetorical here; unlike DP I don’t know anything about you, so I’m trying to get a handle on where you’re actually coming from with this proposal. The “done well” dodge and the downtown-bashing have made me suspicious, but I haven’t quite written you off entirely yet).

      19. lazarus– and by the way; take a map and spreadsheet of census block populations and see if you can come up with a map that gives “downtown” a district without either 1) significantly increasing the number of districts, 2) having a gerrymandered mess. [email if you want and I’ll be happy to send you the data]

      20. I said that you associate with GMA critics, Toby, which precisely describes Dick Morrill — anti-density advocate, endorser of old-fashioned sprawl to relieve housing pressures, and the guy who drew your “neutral” map.

          As I’ve told you, an informal scan of census figures across the districts map will reveal to any non-delusional person that anti-growth forces have slight majorities built into districts 3, 4, 6, and 7. It wouldn’t take more than a slight change in boundaries to give some strong representation to urbanizing Seattle, but the map carefully denies such representation. In gerrymandering jargon, this is called “cracking”. (District 2, meanwhile, is called “packing”.)

          As David Lawson, whose analyses on these tract-by-tract matters tend to be impeccable, agrees above: Morrill’s map is not an accident.

          Then there’s the matter of your primary (almost sole) campaign funder, who has practically made a lifestyle of opposing growth and transit. Yours is not a campaign of “coalition-building”. It is one of deception.

          You may truly believe that your “leave growth policy to the whiniest neighbors” approach will yield better urbanism and keep housing prices from spiraling out of control. Unfortunately, history and logic and math all disagree with you. And your choice of bedfellows in this initiative renders your beliefs suspect.

          ———

          As for Seattle Municipal Code 23.55.012 (temporary signs)…

          C. All signs authorized by this section are subject to the following regulations:
          1. No sign may be placed on public property or on the planting strips that abut public property, including planting strips forming a median in a public street, except as provided in subsection C3 below and except for portable signs attached to vehicles that are using the public streets.
          2. All signs must be erected with the consent of the occupant of the property on which the sign is located, except as provided in subsection C3 below.
          3. Temporary Signs on Public Property or in Planting Strips.
          . . a. Temporary signs with commercial or noncommercial messages may be located on public rights-of-way or in planting strips in business districts, subject to the requirements of City of Seattle Public Works Rules Chapter 4.60 or its successor Rule.
          . . b. Temporary signs with noncommercial messages, other than in subsection C3a above, may be located in the planting strip in front of private property with the consent of the occupant of that property and may not exceed eight (8) square feet or be supported by stakes that are more than one (1) foot into the ground. Signs in the planting strip shall be no more than twenty-four (24) inches in height as measured from street or driveway grade when located within thirty (30) feet from the curbline of intersections. Signs shall be no more than thirty-six inches (36″) in height as measured from street or driveway grade when located thirty feet (30′) or more from the curbline of intersections.

          This is perfectly clear: No medians. No city-agency property (parks or libraries). Planting strips in front of private property only with expressed permission.

          You may place temporary signs on street corners in business districts (again, not on on planting strips abutting public property such as parks or libraries). Though you should know that subsection 3a appears designed to allow those freestanding sandwich boards which businesses bring out to the corner each morning and then remove each night. Signs left for longer periods of time could be seen as obstructions or litter and legitimately disposed of.

          All of this is, of course, consistent with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission guidance given here, and with the prevailing interpretation at SEEC, at the SPL, and at Parks & Rec when I reported you to them.

          There are no “First Amendment concerns” to you not usurping public property or leaving your crap all over the public right-of-way. There is no shortage of legal places for your visual displays of boneheadedness. And you’re welcome to stand all day on that same public property wearing a giant sign on your head and handing out literature; you just can’t hammer your message into publicly-owned ground. Maybe if your campaign had genuine grassroots support rather than being an outlet for three cranks, you’d have volunteers willing to stand with those signs and make their case

          But as a lawyer, you should know that you don’t just get to openly flout any established law because you happen to disagree with it.

      21. djw, tell me about some density increasing projects you’ve actively supported over your years as an activist.

          I did that in comments above (Stone34); I put a lot of hours in on that one. Ask Skanska. I also worked on the major L-zone rezoning of the mid 1980s, and we accepted much increased density (primarily in the wedge between 36th and 39th west of Fremont that is now filling in with multifamily and mixed use along 36th). I was at a design review last night for a major new project on Stone (MUP No. 3014111) that was significantly improved in that process because the design review board and the developer (and his design team) actually listened to concerns and made significant improvements.

          My agenda has always been “DRIMBY”–do it right in my back yard. It’s tangential to Charter 19, but my basic argument is that design review and other impact mitigation processes need to be made to function better. Design review works OK when the developer is amenable (like the one last night), but working for that engagement is not a systemic fix to an obvious problem. Walk with me around Fremont and I can show you the crappy projects from the 70s code (gaping maws of car parking), through the ‘six packs’ and interior courtyards for cars of the 00s code. The verdict is still out on the 2010 code.

          I estimate about half of the projects I’ve worked on through design review in the past few years have come out that way. Serious problems arise with developers who don’t care to engage with the community they’re impacting, and with parts of the zoning code that allow crappy development without design review let alone impact analysis and mitigation, or minimally so. I worked on the major revisit of the L-zone code in 2010 (even appealed it) because it was largely designed without much acknowledgment of the interests of affected communities. And because a row of historical houses (36th both sides of the Troll) with a zoning designation obtained through hard negotiations in the 80s was upzoned without so much as a howdy do. It was that rezone and appeal that finally jelled for me how dysfunctional the current council structure is when it comes to “representative democracy.” They don’t care; they don’t have to.

          And by the way, if you really scratch my surface, you’ll find a dedicated car-hater. I bike everywhere and drive as little as possible. I think there is plenty enough density to support a superb transit system if we could get people out of their cars, but if there’s not transit ready for them, how can they? It’s a chicken/egg problem, and getting a bit off topic.

      22. Toby,

          Ah, so now we get the truth. The purpose of Ch Amend 19 is not all these nice motherhood statements that we keep hearing being pushed by the pro-side, but the purpose really is to redistribute political power around the city. It’s sort of amazing how that little detail doesn’t get mentioned in any of the pro-side literature.

          So if the real goal here is to move power away from the downtown business community, and that little nugget doesn’t get any air-time, then what other little nuggets should we be aware of? Is this amendment really aimed just at the downtown business community? Or is it also aimed at developers, pro-density advocates, and pro-transit advocates in general. Basically, is the goal here to lock Seattle in amber?

          So at this point I think we have a trust issue, and that means I will be voting “no”.

      23. The reason for the lack of good neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit — like the slow 44 or 358 — is not the downtown interests, but NIMBYs opposing converting parking spaces to transit lanes (even though there’s no other place for transit lanes), NIMBYs opposing density, anti-tax people opposing tax increases, and car-lovers who want to put all money into roads. Even if the district scheme does not increase the power of these forces — and several people have posted reasons why it might — it doesn’t decrease them either, and without that, I don’t see how the district scheme can improve neighborhood-to-neighborhood transit.

   4. There’s another general problem with districts, that their representatives can ignore other districts’ needs or compete with them in a zero-sum game. For instance, if two districts want a streetcar but won’t vote for the other one having it, or if the line goes through a corner of a third district with either positive or negative impacts on it? Another example, West Seattle is eager for light rail and many people there think it deserves to be next in line, while others note that its low population and only token acceptance of density puts it in third or fourth place, but with their own councilmember they can try to push into second place ahead of places with greater need. I’m not really worried about a worst-case scenario in Seattle at this time, but I’m also not sure a best-case scenario of them all working together for the city’s greater needs is likely either. Better to not subdivide into districts given this much risk.

      1. Bingo. This is precisely why I won’t support *any* district proposal, even a hypothetical perfect one.

         With the current system, it’s possible to make intelligent compromises: every neighborhood will accept a certain level of growth, in exchange for not concentrating too much in any one place.

         But with a district council, you create a situation where every representative has a really strong incentive to oppose growth in their neighborhood, but a very weak incentive to support growth in the rest of the city. And so you end up with no coherent plan to accommodate growth at all.

         By the way — Vancouver, BC also has an at-large city council. With Portland and Seattle, that’s a West Coast trifecta. Given that Vancouver is arguably the most successful example of modern urban density in North America, and that most US cities have effectively outlawed density, it’s far from clear to me that becoming less like Vancouver and more like the rest of the US is something to be praised.

3. If I read the advisory votes correctly, we should vote “Maintained” on all of them to preserve an existing revenue stream. That tag “, for government spending” creates the opposition impression, if you overlook the comma. Does anyone have a reason to vote “Repealed” on any of the advisory votes?

   1. er “opposite impression”. Doh!

   2. No there is no reason. The votes are nonbinding anyway, their existence and the “for government spending” tag are all that remains of an early Eyman initiative, after the unconstitutional bits were overturned years ago.

4. Are you going to endorse in any of the Burien races, aside from the obvious Block/Berkowitz one?

5. The framing of this debate around so-called NIMBY single family neighborhoods is just dumb. The urban villages have plenty of growth capacity, and are meant to be connected by high capacity frequent transit. The people that live in the UVs want density and transit. We have not done well with our citywide council to do this. Period.

   Let’s take a walk around the districts.

   1. West Seattle. Obviously we have failed with transit there. Another transit group has formed. Our citywide council dropped the ball. Needs an advocate.

   2. South East Seattle. Well served by transit? Maybe. But most boardings from the south are outside of Seattle. The residents in that district would like better access to Link. TOD at the station areas – non-exisitant. The Mt Baker Link-bus connection is dangerous. Our citywide council dropped the ball there. Needs an advocate.

   3. Central/Cap Hill. Transit good. Access good. Could use better bike infrastructure, and in many places the roads suck making biking a challenge. Call this one acceptable.

   4. U District – Wallingford. Infrastructure underway, but east-west connections suck. Call this one likely in need of an advocate.

   5. Lake City, Northgate, North end. Northgate infrastructure underway, and planning for Haller Lake 130th Link stop just starting. Bitter Lake UV and Aurora a pedestrian nightmare. Generally far from transit friendly. Needs an advocate (as if someone who runs on a platform of ‘I’ll keep the status quo’ would do well…)

   6. Greenlake, Fremont, Ballard – Rapid ride? Ballard transit? Citywide council agressively supportive? I think not. Needs an advocate.

   7. Magnolia, Queen Anne, Downtown, South Lake Union. Despite Magnolia isolation, this area is getting attention. Districts woudl continue this support, not diminish it.

   1. and take a look at the urban village map with Districts in mind. Every District has several urban villages that are meant for density and transit. to suggest map is some kind of gerrymandering off of the SF zones is misinformation.

      and not all jobs are meant to be downtown. the Urban Centers are meant to have job growth, but we have failed miserably at meeting growth targets (more and more people are commuting OUT of the city to find work). even the PSRC recognizes that the disbursement of jobs centers is a good thing. an advocate for more jobs in a community is a good thing and something our citywide council has failed at.

   2. Re: Magnolia–Except the Magnolia Bridge, ready to collapse but “on hold until appropriate funds have been obtained”

   3. As you can see here (http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2022074187.html) every district except 5 already has a city council member in it. I think geographically our political system is fine.

      If there is any issues with our political system it’s that the average council member is 20 years older than average voters, all own homes (to just 46% average voters), and make twice as much. None of these issues are directly address by district elections even though they directly affect how council members fall on the most important issues facing our city. (http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2022074186.html)

      I want a council that will fight for better transit and livable, dense neighborhoods for the *whole city*, not just bring the bacon home while keeping the “riffraff” out.

      1. And lo and behold, 7/9 council members live within the vast urbanism-unfriendly swaths that have been carefully drawn into each district.

         Incumbency being what it is, these seven would be best positioned win reelection to “represent” the urbanized places with which they and their neighbors share little in common.

      2. i think you’ll find that Sawant beat Conlin in District 3 during the primary.

         incumbency in not a guarantee during districts. otherwise the councilmembers wouldn’t be so adamantly against it.

      3. I live in Southeast Seattle (Columbia City). While it is true we have two council members living in our “district,” they happen to live in the posh Seward Park area – an area that has a much different atmosphere than the rest of southeast Seattle. I don’t see these council members showing up much in my neighborhood except during election season.

         I am voting yes for districts.

      4. I rarely see politicians show up in South Park. I certainly don’t recall seeing our state legislators here in years. I have seen the mayor and multiple city councilmembers drop by (including Richard Conlin). I did see Joe McDermott show up a few times while he was running for the county council the first time. (I think he has done a fine job on the council, FWIW.)

         I will keep in mind how much more the city reps have shown up here, and how many more of them have done so, before I give up the cred South Park has achieved with the city and put us at the mercy of a part of the city with which we have so little in common (West Seattle) and which is not “convient and contiguous” to us when you think in terms of access via any other means that freeway-ish highways. South Park will be a sure loser under districting.

      5. @Rob-

         That means with the district elections you’ll likely have one council member who will likely still be from an area like Seward Park. How does that make things better?

   4. Bill’s assessment that an at-large city council gets in the way of TOD is bizarre. It is self-proclaimed neighborhood advocates who have blocked TOD around every light rail station so far. How would magnifying the power of these neighborhood advocates suddenly yield more TOD?

   5. Beyond the obvious hole in Bill’s analysis that NIMBY’s fighting the mayor and council, rather than the council itself, are the cause of slow construction of bike and pedestrian infrastucture and TOD, I also have to point out that the insufficient transit is a problem that belongs almost completely to the county council and the state legislature. How are these bodies elected? By districts! The county council could propose a property tax levy to fund increases levels of bus service, without waiting for the legislature. Will you join us in urging your county councilmembers to do so?

6. However, in a district-based scheme the power largely lies with whomever draws the districts.

   Which in 2020 and beyond is an independent commission, same as for county, state and Congressional districts.

   When the number of districts is also a variable, the potential for gerrymandering is immense.

   I don’t even know what you’re trying to say by “when the number of districts is also a variable.” It’s not a variable, it’s 7. And note that this still leaves 2 at-large councilmembers, mitigating whatever negative consequences you perceive from moving to districts.

   In this case, prominent figures on the YES campaign include anti-transit, anti-bike businesswoman Faye Garneau; and John Fox, a housing activist who opposes everything Seattle Transit Blog stands for. We can only assume that these figures are competent enough to back a measure whose district lines will advance their political interests, which is reason enough to vote no.

   This post on a proposed restructure was authored by Bruce Nourish, who we all know is an evil man who wants us to have to walk a mile to our bus stop. Knowing he supports it is enough reason for me to oppose it.

   See what I did there? If you’re going to make endorsements on ballot measures, do so on the merits or don’t do it at all.

   Also, do you know who is on your District Council? You know, the city-sanctioned advisory body that advises the City Council and speaks for your neighborhood on neighborhood planning, comprehensive plan amendments, neighborhood matching fund grants, and budget?

   Didn’t think so.

   One more thing: you’re really not helping our political discourse by painting every single-family-homeowner as an anti-development, anti-bike, anti-transit NIMBY.

   1. I’ve been to multiple neighborhood, district and citywide meeting and I can tell you the people in those positions don’t represent most Seattleites, they are simply the ones that have time to go to all the meetings. They are older than average Seattleites, probably by 2-3 decades. I kid you not.

      Here’s an example. I went to the CNC Planning committee meeting about a year ago now. The discussion revolved around how to stack King County’s buildable land study so that it doesn’t look like increase density is needed to accommodate future growth. It also included a discussion how to push all the density toward the freeway to protect the quality of life of Roosevelt. I don’t know if the irony was lost on them.

      So to answer your point, association does matter when someone has a clear political leaning *and they will game the system to win*. It’s just like Eyman’s I-517.

      1. I’m heavily involved in the Belltown Community Council and am quite aware of the demographics of these groups. That’s my point – most voters barely know who is on the City Council, much less the rabbit hole of Seattle Process. We’re going to have these fights one way or another – I’d prefer having them in the open with bona fide elected officials rather than in these shadowy organizations.

   2. Which in 2020 and beyond is an independent commission, same as for county, state and Congressional districts.

      But these commissions use the existing map as a starting point, and tweak it as necessary to retain parity, right? So the initial map drawers can have quite a lengthy footprint. Besides, some decisions about density, growth, and transit might be happening before then.

      One more thing: you’re really not helping our political discourse by painting every single-family-homeowner as an anti-development, anti-bike, anti-transit NIMBY.

      That’s a needlessly defensive and paranoid way to read what was written. The generalizing shorthand used is a lingua franca for discussing district boundaries in elections. When I complain about Ohio redistricting splitting up Dayton and its more Democratic suburbs being split up to create more Republican districts, no one would think to accuse me of painting every Daytonian as a Democrat.

      1. Party affiliation is something that can be inferred from election returns or in some jurisdictions from voter registrations. But how do you infer feelings about transit and land use. Prop 1 notwithstanding, measures like ST2 pass by healthy majorities in the vast majority of Seattle precincts.

         Peter “Do Density Right” Steinbrueck ran as the neighborhood candidate, and yet other than a small cluster in Magnolia he found no base of support.

         The implication very much was that the districts drawn would dilute the pro-transit, pro-density voices in existing dense areas by lumping them in with single-family neighborhoods. I believe it is naive to believe that all single-family-homeowners are hostile to development and will vote as a bloc for anti-development candidates.

      2. You don’t have to believe that “all single-family-homeowners are hostile to development” to conclude, in particular, that SFH neighborhoods will act against density where possible. They have a proven record of doing so.

         Much of this discussion is taking place under an implicit assumption (which djw made explicit, and Toby challenged) that great transit requires higher density than is present in most of Seattle today. I agree with that assumption. I think that an anti-density Council, which is the most predictable result of this districting scheme, is very bad for the future of transit in the city. (I also think it’s bad for economic development, social justice, and quality of life.) That is really what I meant by “anti-transit” in my comment that started this whole discussion about Charter Amendment 19.

      3. You don’t have to believe that “all single-family-homeowners are hostile to development” to conclude, in particular, that SFH neighborhoods will act against density where possible. They have a proven record of doing so.

         Based on what? What the old fogeys on their community councils whine about?

         Proponents call our community councils “grassroots,” I call them “not a representative sample of the electorate.”

      4. District-based city councils aren’t a representative sample of the electorate, either. That requires either proportional representation (which can be done in the computer age with ranked voting) or random selection. That districting advocates have refused to talk with proportional representation advocates speaks volumes about whether the leaders of this initiative really want a representative city council.

   3. To clarify:

      While the 7 seats wouldn’t change from year to year, the drafters of this measure could have made 5, 7, 9, or any other number of districts. Again, I’m not going to just assume that the anti-density crowd hasn’t taken a close look at how this will affect their prospects before going all-in on it.

      I’m not disposed to oppose any measure that John Fox supports. I am disclined to a support a measure he supports that he is closely related with, and will obviously have effects below the surface that I can’t easily discern.

      To your specific example, someone who is opposed to the values that underlie Bruce’s writing would be absolutely correct to oppose his restructure proposals.

7. As I told my brother, and he agrees, I want to help choose every Seattle council person. Every one of them.

   1. You’ll still get to do that under the districting proposal. Just write a $700 check to each of the candidates. The iniative does nothing to stop that.

      They talk about how districting will reduce the cost of running, but have not produced data showing it to be any cheaper to take down an incumbent from a district.

8. Stunning how easily some people are hoodwinked on Charter Amendment 19.

   Look at its backers.

   Look at Dick Morrill, lone author of the district map. Morrill recently wrote this bit of loveliness for Crosscut (emphasis added):

   “A healthily diverse city and a high quality of life mean that shares of classes, races, lifestyles, educational levels, owners and renters, families with and without children and non-family households resemble the profile of the larger metropolis — and that city policies reflect the actual needs and preferences of citizens rather than berate them for their choices.

   “The best way to do this is to make preservation of neighborhoods and the existing single-family zoned housing an overriding priority and a criterion by which citizens may evaluate prospective mayoral and Seattle City Council candidates.”

   I’m sure Mr. Morrill penned those words, then turned around and drew a City Council district map with this blog’s interests first and foremost in his heart.

   And, of course, look at the freaking map.

   It is thunderously obvious that Charter Amendment 19 was funded by and drawn by Lesser Seattle folks to undermine the pro-density vote—which just so happens to be the most ardently pro-transit, multimodal transportation vote—and to minimize the influence of their eternal bogeyman, Downtown Developers.

   This thing comes shrouded in a cheery populist cloak just in time for Halloween, offering a little bit of free candy to everyone. But don’t fall for the disguise; there’s anti-Link, anti-bike, anti-growth evil underneath, and that candy will rot this city’s teeth.

   1. I don’t really agree with the claim that the map was intentionally drawn to dilute the influence of urban centers. For one, that implies a level of malice that I don’t think is reasonable, and for another, any map that didn’t have this problem would look much more gerrymandered than the proposed map.

      But, having said that, I think that’s precisely the point. *Any* reasonable district map will inherently dilute the voices of any constituencies that are not naturally concentrated in a limited number of districts. That’s just how districts work. If you want to create artificial constituencies — like majority-minority districts or “density districts” — you have to try really hard, and the resulting districts look monstrous, and you still haven’t really achieved very much. Barring that, district-based elections inherently penalize any constituency that isn’t geographically concentrated.

      In Britain, the Liberal Democrats are a great example of this phenomenon. Nationally, the Lib Dems receive about 20-25% of all votes cast for Parliament. But because those votes are evenly divided among each district, the number of seats they win is around 3-10%.

      There are plenty of examples of this in the US, too. Massachusetts sends 9 Democrats to the House of Representatives, even though the Republican candidate for each seat regularly wins 25-30% of the vote. Alabama has 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat, even though Democratic candidates collectively receive much more than 15% of the vote.

      Seattle’s at-large council isn’t perfect. As Goldy says, ranked-choice or approval voting would be a huge improvement on what we have now. But the fact that change is needed does not imply that any change is good; the proposed change would unquestionably make things worse.

      1. For one, that implies a level of malice that I don’t think is reasonable,

         I don’t see it as malicious, but as a straightforward political exercise. There’s no malice in trying to secure your desired political outcomes through the democratic process (unless you want to usurp that process). It’s not that I think Faye/Toby/Dick are Bad People, at all. I just emphatically disagree with their desired outcomes, and want to point out how their districting scheme would change the balance of power between constituencies.

         and for another, any map that didn’t have this problem would look much more gerrymandered than the proposed map.

         Not at all. You could make a very helpful change just by substituting part of Wallingford for Green Lake in District 6 (giving Green Lake to District 4); that would swing District 6 to urban-majority. On a more macro level, you could rearrange districts to be perfectly contiguous and cohesive while having three urban-majority districts made of parts of districts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. On land use issues, those three plus the two at-large seats would be somewhat likely to create a pro-urban majority.

      2. I agree with David; if there were a districts measure pushed by, I don’t know, McGinn and big developer, I wouldn’t feel icky at all about supporting it.

      3. Yeah, what David said. Wouldn’t be that hard to tweak the map to something more, shall we say, STB-friendly.

         Most always find myself on the same page with you, Aleks, but it just strikes me as naive to think that a retired professor who believes “preserving neighborhoods” ought to be the “overriding” concern when electing our city council set aside those views and put on his Disinterested City Elder hat to draw a districting map with no regard for the political outcomes of that map—especially when he drew it for the likes of Faye Garneau and Suzie Burke (far right conservative who fought both the Burke-Gilman and ST1).

         In any event, we agree that there is room for improvement in how we elect councilmembers and that this isn’t it.

      4. I don’t see it as malicious, but as a straightforward political exercise. There’s no malice in trying to secure your desired political outcomes through the democratic process (unless you want to usurp that process). It’s not that I think Faye/Toby/Dick are Bad People, at all. I just emphatically disagree with their desired outcomes, and want to point out how their districting scheme would change the balance of power between constituencies.

         Right, and I would add to this that whether this was done intentionally or accidentally might be something I’d need to know if the question I was trying to answer was “How much respect should I have for Dick Morrill?” and not “How should I vote?” What we have is a law drafted by and a campaign funded by anti-density activists–which makes them effectively anti-transit, even if they’re in denial about that, that appears to have drawn districts more likely to be amenable to anti-density politics. Given those three facts, the degree of intent in the boundary-drawing seems irrelevant.

      5. I’d disagree that it’s irrelevant, djw. Definitely secondary, but not irrelevant.

9. I agree with the previous discussion opposing the districts proposal and wanted to add this anecdote: I moved to Seattle from Dallas, Texas. Dallas has a 14-member district-based council with no at-large members and an independent City Manager who is the executive responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city. To say that Dallas’ internal politics grinds to a halt on a regular basis would be a tragic understatement. I’m pretty sure Dallas’ bills get paid only because Mary Suhm says they get paid. South Dallas routinely has property development stalled or delayed because the Councilmember in that district objects or a neighboring district wants a piece of the pie. North Dallas Councilmembers routinely block items that South Dallas citizens for a variety of political reasons. At least Dallas has term limits, but that doesn’t stop many of the bad apples from just turning around and running for seats on the Dallas County Commissioners Court.

   Almost every city in Texas is governed by a council-district/city manager form of government and it breaks down even in the smallest cities. I used to live in one suburb where I actually wanted to try to run against the incumbent, an incumbent who rarely showed up to council meetings and seemed completely out of touch with what our suburb needed. I even lived in the right district. On the same day I filed for my candidacy (along with, shockingly, a third person), I was told by three different people that “you can’t beat [him], [the tire shop], [the print shop], and [the marina] all fund his campaign and he never loses.” I wound up dropping out because I moved but the other opponent stayed in and ran a vigorous campaign. He wound up being flattened 80-20 and being outspent $22,000 to $5,000. The two other competitive races in town spent $4,000 total in one race and $2,900 total in the other.

   I suppose my point is that this doesn’t look like it’s broken, so why “fix” it? The only real answer seems to be that Seattle is the “only big city” without districts, but why is that a bad thing? There’s very little here to encourage me to vote “yes,” especially with the rather thorough flattening of the better representation argument. Again, turning back to Dallas, once one constituency starts gaining ground in political influence, the “citizen-directed district commission” winds up drawing districts that increase minority or other protected groups’ representation but oh-so-conveniently drowns out the upstarts.

   Maybe it wouldn’t happen here, but I think the chance of those sorts of shenanigans outweighs any slight benefit Seattle would get from districts.

10. Advocates for Charter Amendment 19 have been telling various neighborhood groups that [Your neighborhood] needs someone on the city council. Can someone from the campaign tell me how many neighborhoods deserve to have a representative on the council, and name those neighborhoods?

11. Pingback: 2013 General Election Endorsements – Part II

12. For Discounted Tickets to Halloween at the Roosevelt in Hollywood go to: http://jacksguestlist.com/events/halloween-at-the-roosevelt/

13. Pingback: Election Night Open Thread

Comments are closed.