By Carolee Colter and John V. Fox
Seattle Displacement Coalition
Looking ahead to the 2011 Seattle City Council election cycle, it's not too early to start thinking about how we can make City Hall more responsive to our neighborhoods and the cause of social justice. The five seats now occupied by Councilmembers Rasmussen, Godden, Burgess, Harrell and Clark will be contested in the fall of 2011.
Early next year, housing and neighborhood activists are expected to convene an ad hoc group to discuss these council races -- whether to run their own candidates in any of these races or find other ways to make all our electeds more responsive to neighborhood needs.
Right now, it appears likely that most if not all these incumbents will seek re-election. And given the power of incumbency, we know how hard it would be for the neighborhoods to beat any of them. Only Godden, who routinely sides with development interests, seems to be in any way vulnerable.
There are other ways for neighborhood activists to challenge the status quo. Putting an initiative on the ballot, for example, aimed at blocking the current upzone-redevelopment-tear-down craze we're facing could save both trees and low income housing. Another option might be creation of a neighborhood PAC or a Municipal League-like entity to evaluate and rate candidates in terms of their stance on issues important to the neighborhoods.
And there's always another push for district elections. By making city councilmembers represent specific districts, they would become more directly accountable to their constituents instead of the moneyed special interests who donate to their campaigns. And it would become much more financially feasible to those without corporate donors to get elected since TV advertising would no longer be as cost-effective as door-to-door campaigning. That's why corporate interests went all out to (successfully) defeat an initiative for district elections in 2003.
Whether we run candidates, rate candidates or work to get initiatives on the ballot our theme should be limiting excessive growth to responsible, managed levels. As we come out of the economic downturn, we need mechanisms in place to preserve our trees, green space, affordable housing and the physical and social character of our neighborhoods -- the things that make this city livable -- before growth accelerates again to the runaway levels we experienced before the recession hit.
We've seen too much growth and our current elected leaders are too beholden to developers, Paul Allen and downtown interests. It's time developers started paying their fair share of the costs of growth, in the form of one-for-one replacement of affordable housing units they remove. We need stronger tree protections (not fewer) and no more upzones in our neighborhoods, period.
Impact fees should replace regressive revenue sources such as increases in property taxes, user fees, tolling and the business and occupation tax. Small businesses, working people and low-income people including many longtime residents are all being nickeled and dimed to death.
Let's stop tapping the general fund for big-ticket projects that serve special interests and put them on special ballots rather than bridge repairs, crosswalks and funding for our libraries and community centers. That's what the general fund is for. Root out the millions in our general fund going to South Lake Union and downtown. No to Mercer and No to the Tunnel! No to adding more lanes to 520. More for buses and less for Sound Transit and streetcars.
Kill the stop light cameras, bring parking meter rates back down and limit "road diets" to those areas where the neighborhoods want them.
The big lie is the assumption that Seattle isn't doing its share to absorb density and growth, to prevent sprawl and curb global warming. In nearly every neighborhood including most of the areas around train stops, we've exceeded our growth targets.
There's something wrong with advocating for open space preservation outside the city but once across the city line, aiding and abetting the pouring of concrete and wiping out of trees, stamping out every last vestige of nature for urban dwellers outside of parks. Good stewardship of our environment begins right here in our own neighborhoods, protecting our trees, preserving space for essential urban gardening, saving urban streams -- and not coincidentally, preserving our existing stock of low-income and affordable housing. It's right in our neighborhoods where we can make the most impact on climate change, not somewhere else.
Although this will run counter to conventional wisdom and special interests, we need to publicize and promote the notion of a "steady state economy," a realization that growth anywhere of any kind at accelerated rates is anathema to the environment. In the interim, a poly-centered approach to growth for the region, distributing it where people are already living and not concentrating it all in Seattle, is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to manage the growth we have.
We progressives need to reclaim the environmental high ground and that means learning to say "NO" to growth.