On Wednesday, the 43rd District Democrats hosted a debate between the four candidates for Seattle City Council District 4. An audience of approximately 150 people gathered in the Roosevelt High School theater to watch Seattlish’s Sarah Anne Lloyd moderate a fast-paced, 90-minute exchange between Jean Godden, Rob Johnson, Michael Maddux, and Tony Provine. The debate was divided into five sections: opening statements, moderator Q&A, lightning round, audience Q&A, and closing statements.
Godden began, a little uncomfortably, as she was unaware that Lloyd had asked her to start (unfortunately Godden’s confusion would be a recurring theme of this debate). She reflected on her accomplishments during her two-plus terms on the city council, and set the groundwork for what would be her main premise for this debate: she is the mayor’s candidate.
Johnson was next. He touted his experience as a light rail advocate, and tugged at our heartstrings by recounting walks he takes through his Ravenna neighborhood with his four-year-old twin daughters. There are spots, he said, where the twins will jockey for Daddy’s safest hand: the one which is furthest away from the cars zooming down 65th.
Maddux followed. (Full disclosure: Michael Maddux and I were both volunteers for the 43rd District Democrats and I consider him a friend. Further disclosure: We’ve differed politically plenty of times!). He is a renter in the Eastlake neighborhood, a single dad living with his daughter. His number one issue is keeping Seattle affordable to the average working person, and he believes that union jobs are a major ingredient in making that happen.
Provine was last. As a long-time Seattle resident, he related his personal and family bio, and his history of activism which reaches back to protests against the war in Vietnam. He presented himself as a calm but passionate neighborhood leader, who is currently a PCO in the 46th District.
After opening statements, Lloyd asked the candidates which city council committee they would chair if elected. Johnson said Transportation, which is where his expertise lies. Godden either forgot or didn’t hear the question, and instead laid out her transportation plan (again, this was rather uncomfortable, and the audience shifted in their chairs noticeably). Provine would like to chair Planning and Land Use, and implement developer impact fees to help fund parks, schools, and transit. Maddux would choose Parks, an area of his activism and expertise.
Lloyd next asked which transportation projects in the 4th District “get you excited”. Each candidate mentioned the new light rail stations at Husky Stadium and Brooklyn Avenue as exciting developments, and all four want to expand light rail further. Maddux pointed specifically to bike and pedestrian improvements to the 45th Street overpass as a short term project that turns him on. Johnson wants to improve east/west neighborhood connections and expand protected bike lanes. Godden touted the mayor’s “Move Seattle” levy, and mentioned fixing the potholes on the Burke Gilman Trail, which she recently walked with local weather icon Cliff Mass (namedrop!).
The candidates then gave their opinion of new police chief, Kathleen O’Toole, which varied from “Good” to “Impressed”. Positive reactions, if not ringing endorsements.
Lloyd’s final question pertained to affordable housing. The consensus amongst the candidates is basically, “The rent is too damn high!” Provine called housing affordability a “crisis” and offered a laundry list of fixes, which included using eminent domain to seize properties from slumlords. Godden quoted the mayor (again), Maddux mentioned that he’s a renter and is personally affected by this issue, and Johnson suggested rent stabilization.
Next came the lightning round, a staple of local debates, which can be silly, frustrating, and enlightening. Each candidate was given two placards, one reading “YES” and the other “NO”. Lloyd asked 10 questions, to which each candidate was to raise one placard or the other. In theory.
Some questions were softballs to any good leftie who wants to win a race in Seattle, and thus the candidates were unanimous on 5 of the 10. Two questions were split 2-2: Do you support a full smoking ban in city parks? (Godden and Johnson, “YES”, Maddux and Provine, “NO”); and Do you support turning the Roosevelt slumlord property into a park (Godden and Provine, “YES”, Johnson and Maddux, “NO”).
These lightning rounds are silly, of course, because very few policy questions can be answered by a simple Yes or No. More enlightening was what was NOT said: Godden refused to answer two questions, one concerning developer fees (the other three were in favor of them) and the other regarding rent control in Seattle (the other three were in favor of overriding the state ban). Godden could’ve played the waffle card (which Maddux did, raising both placards in answer to an earlier question), or sat out the whole lightning round in protest, but by refusing to participate in two specific questions, she seemed either disengaged or evasive.
During the debate, audience members were encouraged to submit questions on index cards, a few of which were selected and asked of the candidates. Perhaps the most interesting was the first: Did you vote for district elections? Why or why not?
Johnson voted No, because he didn’t feel the values of the initiative backers reflected those of Seattle, and these districts would lead to a more conservative city council. Godden also voted No, and ever the journalist, gave the audience a history lesson on Seattle’s previous foray into district elections, and their resulting political corruption. Provine voted Yes, because he felt that districts give neighborhoods a greater voice. Maddux also voted Yes, but remains a firm believer in a unified “one Seattle”.
The candidates found common ground with most of the other audience questions, like How will the minimum wage be enforced? (“Education”), and Should the mayor or city council appoint the school board? (“No!”), and Do we need more sidewalks? (“Yes!”), and Should Seattle have gender neutral bathrooms? (“Sounds good”). In response to this last question, Maddux pointed out that he is one of only two LGBT candidates running for city council this year, which is rather shocking considering how crowded the field is.
I submitted a question on behalf of Wallingford, which Lloyd read (in part) and combined with a question about bicycle infrastructure. It’s my opinion that the district map is poorly drawn, and Wallingford gets screwed. Our neighborhood is the only portion of the district which lies west of I-5. We are thrown in with Laurelhurst and the U-District, even though our interests (especially pertaining to development and transit) probably have more in common with Fremont, Ballard, and Greenlake. So my question was, “How will you balance the differing needs of the diverse neighborhoods in your district, such as Laurelhurst and Wallingford?”
Godden (forever “Seattle nice”) said she would respect the feelings of all neighborhoods. Johnson pointed to common interests around transit, like shuttle access to the new light rail stations. Provine said all neighborhoods in the district have similar concerns, like public safety. And Maddux stated that all neighborhoods want safe and walkable streets. Unfortunately, no one said, “Yeah, you’re right, Wallingford got screwed.”
The addendum to the question regarded bike infrastructure in the district. Godden didn’t understand this portion of the question, so didn’t answer. Johnson rides a bike and wants more protected bike lanes and Greenways. Provine also supports Greenways and protected bike lanes, but thinks that bikes and car traffic cannot always coexist. Maddux is a daily bike commuter, who will advocate for more protected bikes lanes.
Lloyd called for closing statements, and Godden again went first. She railed against the gender pay gap in Seattle, which she called “the worst in the country” and tied herself closely to the mayor and his policies. Johnson touched on all the subjects we Seattle liberals love: education, walking, biking, and carbon neutrality. Maddux says he wants to represent those without a voice and to be part of a “five-person progressive majority” on the city council. Provine wants more cops trained within the city and better east/west transportation connections.
My personal takeaway is we have three strong candidates in our district: Johnson, Maddux, and Provine. I like Jean Godden personally. We were both on strike at the Seattle Times in 2000/2001, when she led me in morning calisthenics outside of publisher Frank Blethen’s office. And I remember a sunny day in early-2003, seeing Robert Mak hurrying from the King 5 news van parked in the Times lot. “What’s the big story, Robert?” I asked. “Jean Godden’s running for city council!” he replied excitedly. And sure enough, Jean Godden quit her day job and ran against Judy Nicastro, the last progressive woman to sit on the Seattle City Council until Kshama Sawant’s election last year.
In my opinion, Jean Godden has not been an effective city councilmember, but she’s won reelection twice, so my opinion must be the minority. Effective or not, the woman I saw on Wednesday was not the same fiery, funny woman I knew on the picket line 14 years ago. Seeing her on stage reminded me of Ken Griffey Jr’s last season as a Mariner: too many swings and misses. The game had passed him by.
Editorial note: It’s great to have Doug writing for Wallyhood! Also, Wallyhood is planning to interview the candidates in email. If you have a particular question you want answered, leave it in the comments.
Too bad this event wasn’t publicized in Wallyhood beforehand.
Ask the candidates how they will preserve Seattle’s industrial base.
It’s been pointed out to me that there is a factual error in this post: the Eastlake portion of the 4th District is also west of I-5. Here’s a map of the district. Eastlake is our teardrop.
Thx for this great synopsis. I’d love to ask the candidates what their plans are regarding homelessness and specifically with the car camping section of that population. The city had a 10 year plan to end homelessness. This is year 10 and there are more homeless than ever. We need a comprehensive plan of action. What are their plans?
Hi Erika!
I think we all wish for easy solutions on car camping. While walking my daughter to the bus stop this morning, I noticed that our resident car-camper’s vehicle was getting a bit full of refuse, and it got me thinking again about the car-campers along Northlake.
The long-term solution is a concerted effort, with adequate funding, from all levels of government to address homelessness and health care needs for all residents. In the interim, I wouldn’t be opposed to looking at a “tent city” for car campers. Prior to that, I think there needs to be a connection of services with car campers, complete with tools available to help keep the street clean and safe – from garbage cans to sharps containers available.
Moving forward, there will need to be more than talk about how to end homelessness, and a willingness to invest in the human infrastructure necessary to help people out of poverty, and care for those with illness that may prevent them from climbing out completely. From additional shelter beds, more than one “wet shelter,” and easier access to transitional housing services, along with job training and identification of folks who would do well with skilled labor apprenticeship (with the connection to those apprenticeships), we can ensure that we are caring for people that need help, while improving safety.
And Fruitbat:
Preservation of our industrial space begins with ending the encroachment and re-zoning for more valuable commercial and residential zones, while simultaneously working to improve mobility for all users and incentivizing growth in our industrial sector. This could very much include bringing manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines to Seattle, design and construction of street cars, and other green infrastructure manufacturing. Good jobs, continued exports (and of environmentally positive items instead of coal) and associated maritime jobs, and diversification of the local economy. Winning all around!
It is with great relief that I learned that I am, in fact, in District 6, the one the author wants to be in. Living north of 50th is looking better all the time!
I do hope we get some heads up for District 6 debates.
A question that I would like to see asked is, “Given the new district-based system, how will you work with other district representatives to avoid insularity?”
This is a little disappointing. I was hoping the districts would give neighborhoods a chance to, frankly, fight back against the big money interests represented by the council and mayor. Tunnel projects, real estate developers, etc.
I don’t see much of that here, though. The article pokes fun at Godden, but she was fiery 14 years ago, imagine how vapid these candidates will be at her age. If progressive pablum and window dressing will serve these candidates just as well, then that’s what we’ll get, because they still are looking at very expensive campaigns that the developers etc. can help with.
Ending rezoning of industrial to commercial and residential sounds interesting, though. Let’s do that, if there’s any industrial zoned space left.
Great article; thanks for the summary Doug! Quick note: I think Johnson actually raised his “No” paddle against developer (“linkage”) fees in the lightning round. I remember being surprised! Thanks again for the great coverage and keeping us all informed!
Thanks Doug for the great recap.
Please don’t forget about the WPZ Elephants. I am disappointed Bamboo and Chai, who are waiting in San Diego, were not a debate topic. I know Councilmember Godden’s position. Any other candidates want to speak up?
Donn: If you think I’m simply “poking fun” at Godden, you’re missing the point (which, admittedly, is a delicate one).
Thanks for the report and analysis.
One of Wallingford’s own also just announced for the 4th District position. Abel Pacheco, a board member of the Wallingford Community Council is in the race. See http://www.abel4seattle.com/
Well, very odd. Stopped to chat with Tony Provine while he was doorbelling in the ‘hood last Sunday. I was opposed to the ballot measure to change to district representation, but have decided that we need to latch on to these folks to represent our interests. Grilled him a bit about his positions, then said I hoped he would use Wallyhood to publish dates of any candidate debates. Did he mention that there was one last week? No, not at all!
One the other hand, I did learn that we are in the “upper left hand corner” of the 4th district. Maybe not the highest priority?
“It’s my opinion that the district map is poorly drawn, and Wallingford gets screwed.”
Really? When the district map was being drawn by Professor Richard Morrill, a recognized districting expert, Wallingford’s leadership decided not to participate because they were opposed to the proposal. More to the point, take a hard look at the map and see if you can draw a better one, and remember to keep the population in each district within 1% of all the others. You’ll get your chance after the 2020 Census. Wallingford only has to live “screwed” for two election cycles: 2015 and 2019.
Actually, the neighborhood that got screwed is Fremont; the line between District 6 and District 4 should have been at Stone Way so that Fremont would be in one district.
Janey–I don’t know why Tony Provine didn’t mention the forum last week, but I can tell you that I asked Wallyhood to publish an announcement and Eric siad that he wouldn’t, because the forum wasn’t in Wallingford. Runyararo–probably need to follow “My Ballard” to get any news of a 6th district debate.
Sure, you could have made her an object of ridicule in a far less sympathetic way. In terms of what Godden’s up to here, which is less interesting to me personally, you’d have to wonder why she’s doing it, or if the fact she’s running again is just another symptom of the problem. But people have probably been encouraging her on every side, and while she might not win, she’ll draw a big vote. Murray no doubt would love to see her win.
I’ve always wondered who it is who recognizes “recognized redistricting experts”? Is there a certification board? The reality is that the districts were all drawn, intentionally or not (though very much in the interests of the backers of the initiative) with the effect of putting a lot of unlike neighborhoods into the same district. Is a council member from our district going to seek to get on the Sound Transit Board and push for a subway from the U District to Ballard, or to represent Laurelhurst interests who always drive or Eastlake residents who don’t see anything in it for them? A good exercise is to go through this list of walkability scores by neighborhood and to see which districts they’re in. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-s-transit-divide-6244524.php
Morrill has published in the field, is recognized as such by fellow academics, federal and state courts, and the Legislature. Let me know when you have better criteria. As for the neighborhood representation issue (fewer combined “unlike neighborhoods”), if you want more site specific accountability, you’ll need a city council with lots more districts. You too can prepare a charter amendment and see if 66% percent of the voters like it; have at it.
Toby- Regarding “Wallingford’s leadership decided not to participate because they were opposed to the proposal”- Who the heck is Wallingford’s leadership? The community council signed the petition in favor of getting district elections on the ballot, and I personally spoke in favor of it as community council past president. I believe the chamber was also in favor.
Regarding the drawing of boundaries, I think where the boundaries fall is far less important than having have one council rep that you now know to go to and for whom your vote will be 6 times as important.
@13, Toby: Wallingford also got split, at 50th!
@14 Fruitbat: Tangletown is part of Wallingford, so I am requesting from the editor of this page to include district 6 announcements. I’m not going to follow “my ballard.” i think our pro tem editor also lives north of 50th, based on previous posts about through-traffic issues in Tangletown.
@16 Breadbaker: I’m sure the district 6 member will be on it! (the E-W subway, that is)
Maybe it isn’t a bad thing to be split into two districts. This way, we can talk amongst ourselves and have cohesive ideas to present to two different members.
@14 redux: The editor is doing his neighbors a disservice if he won’t publish city council forum announcements because they don’t actually occur in Wallingford. This course of action is serving to further isolate and disenfranchise us. The editor frequently complains about Wallingford getting screwed (see Move Levy discussions), yet perpetuates our disconnection from the seats of power.
I encourage the editor to reconsider this policy, and to publish all District 4 and 6 events here.
runyararo- There is a district 4 forum being planned for Wallingford by the WCSC, please contact them if you are interested in planning or taking part. Regarding the lack of mention of the U-District forum, I’ll look to get future forum announcements on the calendar even if they aren’t in the hood.
Anyone who thinks that the district map was drawn without a political agenda, please look at the map of District 6. Do you see the weird bulge just northeast of 85th & Greenwood (precinct 36-2121)? That’s where Mike McGinn lives. His precinct was drawn as part of the 6th to keep him the same district as Mike O’Brien, knowing that McGinn would not run against his friend for city council.
Professor Morrill and others in the Seattle Districts Now organization will deny this, but there is no other logical explanation for the map of District 6 to include that precinct.
@18/20:
It is impossible to draw population balanced districts that don’t have some splits people don’t like. Well, under about 100 districts anyway.
Regarding support from W’ford, I appreciate what you’re saying. But the WCC as an entity cannot “sign the petition.” I do remember presenting CA19 to a meeting of the WCC and cannot remember the results, but I do remember we had no follow up support. The same was true all over town. Early polling told us we had a winner, but “leadership” at all levels apparently didn’t think we would get any traction.
The consequence is a map that irritates people along a few of the boundaries. The fact that under the 2010 Census North of the Canal was about 8,000 people shy of an even 3/7 of City population made drawing the 4/5/6 boundaries particularly difficult, including the need to cross the Canal to bring in 8,000 people. Only Eastlake engaged with the campaign directly and they did so to get their neighborhood put back together (not split right down the middle).
Eric–your comment about “having one council rep” to hold accountable for geographically sensitive policy issues is spot on.
Toby- thanks for the clarification, it’s true the WCC didn’t officially endorse district council elections. Is what I meant is that the petition to put the measure on the ballot was presented at a meeting and passed around, and most of the WCC board and audience signed the petition, which I then turned in at the LUDC. I’m sorry I don’t recall you presenting the idea at a WCC meeting, perhaps I was absent. It wouldn’t surprise me if the board gave you a chilly reception, but that’s just their demeanor, not an indicator of support or not 🙂
@22: It is difficult not to be rude in response to this comment. You’re right, we deny it. Neither Morrill nor I paid any attention to where McGinn or any of the council lived when the boundaries were drawn. Neither of us knew McGinn lived in that corner of 85th and Greenwood until well after the petition was filed. The other members of the steering committee were not engaged at that level of detail at all.
This issue has been hashed on the blogs and you’re barking up a paranoid tree.
@24: I’m still waiting for a logical explanation for inclusion of that precinct.
@25–to balance the district populations without “screwing” other boundaries.
And BTW, O’Brien lives a few blocks from me, so he’s the one council member (and mayor) whose residence I knew precisely. I knew Licata lived on east side of Phinney Ridge somewhere; I’ve been to his house, but I never could remember the exact street (still can’t). My knowledge of McGinn’s residence was even less precise–“somewhere up Greenwood” is as close as I knew until looking him up in 2014.
Also, if we had been paying attention when drawing the district boundaries, we would have been aware that there were already two incumbents and ideological friends in the District 6 area (Licata and O’Brien). Are you going to now accuse us of drawing the lines to make sure they also were both in District 6? What would be the point of adding the incumbent mayor to that mix? We knew he was going to lose and want to run for council two years later? It’s paranoid and it’s nuts–didn’t happen.
@Michael Maddux: To eliminate homelessness in Seattle, cut the generous social benefits we offer. It’s brutal, but it’s the only solution that works. Those benefits are a major reason why homeless migrate to Seattle; if we expand those benefits, more homeless will be attracted to the city. I know how terrible this sounds, but there is some data behind it.
According to the 2009 Seattle Homeless Needs Assessment:
http://www.seattle.gov/housing/homeless/HNA_report_11-09.pdf
~42% of Seattle homeless were not residents of Seattle before becoming homeless
To give you a sense of how much Seattle spends on human services, I did some (very preliminary) digging. Here’s a breakdown of some large US cities, their populations, their total 2014 homeless services budget, and how much they spend per person. Where possible, I’ve tried to use not just Human Services, but the specific budget allocated to homeless services.
1 New York 8,405,837 $903,500,000 $107.48 http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/budget/2014/execbudget/homeless.pdf
5 Philadelphia 1,553,165 $43,613,828 $28.08 http://phlcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OSHFY15Test.pdf
14 San Francisco 837,442 $167,000,000 $199.42 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php
21 Seattle 652,405 $124,672,717.00 $191.10 http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/13proposedbudget/documents/HSD_165_196.pdf
So, Seattle with a population of 652k, spends almost double ($191.10 to $107.48) what New York City spends on homeless services per person. And considering the vocal support for expanding services, a homeless individual would be smart to relocate to Seattle. The only way to end that migration is to make Seattle an unappealing city for homeless people.
Toby Thaler: Charter Amendment 19 allows for a population variance of 880 people between districts, so drawing an unnatural boundary to include a precinct of a couple hundred people was not necessary. That a very liberal mayor (whose one term in office was predictable when the Murray machine got rolling) lives in that precinct is too big a coincidence to be explained away with “population balance”.
And I’m dubious of your claim that there was no political agenda to this map, considering the band of rascals (including Republican activists Suzie Burke and Faye Garneau) who funded the Seattle Districts Now campaign.
You can call me “paranoid”, but frankly if you’re not a little paranoid in politics, you’re not paying attention.
Speculation on political motivation for the boundaries fosters cynicism when the good news is that Wallingford will have 2 council members representing our community.
@28: Yes, Faye Garneau was the primary funder. Burke was not a major player in the steering committee. The fact that Ms. Garneau basically funded CA19 says nothing about how the map was drawn. Morrill (a self-described leftist) came to very few meetings; he did the map work at his computer at home. Same with me: I had to take Morrill’s census tract lists and convert them to the legal descriptions that you can read in the City Charter today. Faye had Morrill’s GIS shape files converted by Kroll to a large map that was put in front of the steering committee. There was no discussion of Greenwood, only of putting Greenlake back together and (at the last minute) of putting Eastlake back together. The Greenlake change is what caused the SE boundary of D6 to get pushed into Fremont to Aurora to my continued regret.
Your playing out of a scenario where the CA19 committee projected McGinn’s loss and drawing boundaries to add him to a district with Licata and O’Brien is absurd. There was NO discussion of where any incumbents lived. In fact, we wanted all council members gone! (Counting Conlin’s loss in 2013, it’s four down, only five to go 😉
So, stay paranoid if you want. Or you can ask around and see how much reputation I have for being dishonest and non-transparent in my political activism. Same with Morrill; I believe him when he told me (much later) he had no idea McGinn lived in that corner of 85th and Greenwood.
And I’d really like to put a stake through the argument that because Faye Garneau funded CA19 it is therefore a right wing product. First, IMO, Faye is more libertarian than anything else. More importantly, I want you to look at this list of the rest of the active participants in the CA19 steering committee: Toby Thaler, Bill Bradburd, John Fox (these first three are the initiators of the conversations that lead to CA19), Eugene Wasserman, Cleve Stockmeyer, James Bush, David Miller, Donna Hartman-Miller, Glen Avery, Roger Pence, John McSweeney, Zander Bachelder, Geov Parrish, Julius Caesar Robinson. Tell me how many non-lefties or non-Democrats you see; hint–there’s one.
And just to make sure you get the point, here’s the list of supporters included in the voter’s guide statement: Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, the King County Republicans, 46th District Democrats, Senator Adam Kline, Senator Jeanne Kohl-Wells, Senator David Frockt, Senator Sharon Nelson, Senator Maralyn Chase, Representative Gael Tarleton, Representative Mary Lou Dickerson (ret.), Representative Jessyn Farrell, Representative Gerry Pollett, King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski. Yes, we managed to get the word Republican in there. Must be a conspiracy.
And BTW, Doug, calling McGinn “a very liberal mayor” is not accurate. He was as much neoliberal as liberal. He came out of Great Cities, an urbanist entity, and got into bed with Hansen and his stadium deal. McGinn’s environmentally grounded opposition to the stupid tunnel project does not by itself make him “very liberal.”
@31–Thanks for that. My memory is not great about meetings at WCC, perhaps because I like to forget “chilly receptions.” lol
Regarding a district 4 debate in Wallingford — yes, there is some early thinking about this (Jessica Trupin and me, so far). Here’s where it stands: The Chapel at the Good Shepherd Center would be the likely venue. Historic Seattle is happy to make the space available for this. We’re looking for a coalition of hosting organizations. So far, Wallingford Community Senior Center, Family Works, Wallingford Community Council are yes to co-host….more to come. Looking at Wednesday evening dates in June and July. Date to be selected soon based on candidate availability. And more organizing work to be done — contact me if you would like to help. 206-461-7825 or through WCSC website. Kathleen
@29: It can also be argued, that by splitting Wallingford, we have zero council members representing our community.
With 7 districts, that seems like a likely outcome anyway. I mean, we’re bound to share council representation with other neighborhoods, diluting our influence. If we get one reasonable representative out of the deal, then I reckon we’ve made out better than most neighborhoods; if we get two unrepresentatives who talk green/progressive but won’t do anything to upset the apple cart, then nothing new here.
I’m happy to consider the no-man’s-land between Aurora and Stone as part of Wallingford. Aurora almost completely cuts that area off from Fremont, and they’re equally affected by the same Stone Way issues, so it makes sense to me.
@36–Do you live in that “no-man’s land”? You might be happy to consider it Wallingford, but many of the people who live there, including two members of the Fremont Neighborhood Council board of directors, will strongly disagree with you.
@34 Kathleen Cromp–Good idea. If you’re interested, please contact FNC president Stephanie Pure to get on our agenda for consideration of sponsorship. If you can’t find her contact info, please email me at toby at louploup.net and I’ll forward it.
Ha ha ha, Fremont Neighborhood Council directors live in Wallingford! No, I live across the street, a couple blocks east of Stone. From 36th south, where you can get under Aurora, it could plausibly lean towards Fremont, but the thousands of new Wallingford residents in this area’s expensive tenements will settle in to the north, if the bubble doesn’t burst before they move in. Fremont is just a tourist trap anyway, Wallingford has all the drugstores.
Donn: See http://clerk.seattle.gov/public/nmaps/html/NN-1150S.htm
Toby: See http://fremontneighborhoodcouncil.org/about/council-boundaries-map/
Why the land-grab?
@21–that’s what you said before this one. Maybe next time a forum will at least actually get on the calendar.
Not very diplomatic are you, Doug? The FNC boundaries have been unchanged for over 40 years (that’s as far back as my personal memory goes). I do not know the history of the exclusion of the NE corner from Fremont on the City Clerk’s map. I do know that Wallingford land use activist Greg Hill lives there.
The real land grab has been by Wallingford activists wanting to have the only neighborhood say over every land use policy east of Aurora, down through the nose of the Troll to the Canal. It’s a long and sordid history. The area between Stone and Aurora was to be a “joint planning area” and Wallingford repeatedly violated explicit promises in that regard.
I’m still irritated at W’ford’s most recent “land grab”, improperly trying to unilaterally extend the revised W’ford neighborhood specific design guidelines into all of the Fremont Hub Urban Village east of Aurora.
This is a real sore spot—not just for me but also for many east Fremonsters—so if you want more of the same, keep poking.
For more Fremont expansionism, see the eastern Fremont Hub Urban Village, which takes not only Stone but Interlake as well, up to N 38th. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/webplots/k22e.pdf
I reckon a large landowner along the canal calls the tune in Fremont and these boundaries conveniently include those lands – as a smirking Conlon dismissively informed us at a council hearing involving one of those properties.
The Wallingford Residential Urban Village on that map gets some of the disputed territory, though, north of N 40th.
I suspect other maps could be found that assign different neighborhood boundaries.
Oops, did I poke? Well, it’s clear that the Fremont Hub Urban Village boundaries include parts of Wallingford, so that isn’t a proxy for neighborhood boundary.
The urban village boundaries were drawn by the City, not the neighborhoods. FNC never asked for half block east of Stone to be in our urban village. First draft even had us south of the Canal–QA came unglued and it was removed.
The primary reason for the W’ford boundary going down the East Fremont side of Aurora was so housing and job targets under first neighborhood plans (mid 1990s) could be met without touching the SF zones in W’ford proper. You could call Tom Hauger at DPD (684-8380) and ask him about that, although I doubt you’ll get a straight answer.
I have done extensive research looking for maps of the neighborhoods. Stone Way is the most consistent line between Fremont and Wallingford below 45th, like on the Clerk’s map.
And BTW, during the 1980s zoning fight, Fremont people (myself included, and the then president of FNC—Mary Hansen—who also lived in East Fremont) fought like Hell to prevent up zoning of the low density and SF area over there. We called it the donut hole. You’re welcome.
p.s. “a smirking Conlin” — that’s a major reason why he’s no longer on the Council.
The Fremont of the 1980s should come back.
We both wish. Heck, I’d be happy with mid 1990s.
Donn, you are dead wrong about the DMZ/no-man’s-land between Stone and Aurora, and I’m glad to see Toby so articulate about the damage of splitting Fremont in two. It is especially damaging to have split at Aurora. As an activist who has been part of the fight against crime on Aurora, it was crucial to engage across that barrier, so we created our own structures to do so. To deal with Aurora means dealing with city, county and state, and the split between two county districts meant neither paid much attention to a few small streets at the far edge of each. Projects like the mural under Aurora at N 46th was just one project designed to knit community across the barrier. Crime has abated and the motels that were nests of crime are gone, or entirely reformed. We need to work to keep it that way.
We in East Fremont ARE part of Fremont and we value that link tremendously. We’ve had great support from Fremont in our struggle. Next fights will be transit and upzoning, now impacting us tremendously so we’re losing valued neighbors to its effects.
Linda: You nicely illustrate a major problem I have with district elections. They have the potential to divide the city, and pit one neighborhood against another (or even one HALF of a neighborhood against the other half).
It will be a good thing to have neighborhoods’ representatives “pitted” against each other. They’ll have to learn how to get along and negotiate. It takes 5 votes to get something passed, including a budget that more fairly allocates resources city wide (6 votes to override the mayor’s veto).
That was a main point in favor of districts; the at-large council represented the district of money (largely represented by donors from “Outside Seattle”) and could safely ignore sidewalks in the north end, and the Magnolia Bridge desperately in need of replacement. “Oh well” on that last item since no one has stepped forward to run against Sally Bagshaw in District 7, who railed against districts, and who will likely continue to ably represent the oligarchs first, and the residents of District 7 second.
It’s great to see people taking on a difficult area like Aurora and getting positive results, but … “we created our own structures” … “neither paid much attention” …? I can’t guess what the attention issue was on the west side, but you’re saying Wallingford was called upon to support efforts in what you call East Fremont?
Like DOUG, I find the “we can’t solve problems if they occur on the border between Fremont and Wallingford” a little troubling, and probably not really true. Does it mean Stone is out of luck, if one side is Fremont and the other is Wallingford?
Transit looks like another case in point to me – for someone on Woodland Park N for example, you’re going to pick up transit on the way through Wallingford, esp. Stone, am I right? You might catch a Rapid Ride on Aurora, but that isn’t a Fremont trip either.
@54: What’s keeping “Outside Seattle” money from funding district elections? The way I see it, the new system will cut their direct marketing bill by 80%.
I don’t know if anyone’s still reading, but here goes–
There seems to be some different ideas about electing city council members by district. My take on it is that the main reasons are
(1) to ensure the city council has members from all over the city (there have been years when a disproportional number of council members have been from one neighborhood) and
(2) to give each person in Seattle one city council member who is “theirs” that they can go to with concerns. Up to now, you had to figure out which committee was the most appropriate for your issue (frequently issues overlap two or more committees), find out who the chair was, and try to contact them. Or contact everyone and hope someone got back to you.
The district member is not the President of the district making all divisions for the area. It is good for Wallingford to have two council members who need to be aware of issues in the neighborhood.
@28–Dave, you numbers leave out a very useful number–how many homeless in each city?
That number is impossible to know, of course, but lets look at what we can find:
New York City coalition for the Homeless counts 60,067 homeless in shelters in NYC. That, of course, is a low number, leaving out those sleeping elsewhere (outdoors, abandoned buildings, etc.
King County One Night Count put the number of people in King County sleeping in shelters and outdoors at 9294
Obviously, neither number is ideal. The NYC number is obviously lower than the homeless population. The King County number is not divided out to Seattle.
Nevertheless, with just those numbers, NYC, with a population of 8.4 million, has at one homeless person for every 140 residents. King County, population 2.08 million, has one homeless person for every 224 residents. We can guess that Seattle has a higher percentage of King County’s homeless (but do we know that?), but we should also stipulate that NYC’s number is extremely low and very incomplete.
(To add another, San Francisco estimates a homeless population of 7350 in a city of 850,000, or one for every 115 residents. No source for the 7350 number, but it’s the highest estimate I found)
So, the numbers are squishy, but there is no indication that homeless are fleeing the ungenerous precincts of New York or San Francisco for Seattle.
@55 (Donn): “we created our own structures” … “neither paid much attention” means neither FNC nor WCC had the bandwidth to deal with Aurora issues well. To my knowledge, Wallingford CC never paid any attention to issues along Aurora south of 45th; FNC did, but it wasn’t consistent. So the people affected created FAWN (Fremont Aurora Wallingford Neighbors).
@56 (Doug): We never said CA19 would solve all our electoral problems. People paying attention will help, and districts makes it possible to run campaigns closer to the ground notwithstanding money from outside trying to buy in with lots of mailings. District candidates are door belling all over town; this has not happened to such an extent for decades. Initiative 122 will help some more: http://honestelectionsseattle.org/
@21 – Thanks, but I live in district 6, not 4. Please also include any plans for district 6 here on the blog [and I don’t know what “WCSC” stands for].
Apart from that, it seems like a few people need to go get a beer and hash things out instead of airing your spat on a public forum.