City Hall has announced its intention to, among other acts of creative destruction, disassemble its support network for the old District Neighborhood Council system with officials saying the old ways weren’t representative enough and depended too much on white homeowners with time to be part of tedious public proceedings. As part of the changes to come to usher in a glorious new era when EVERYONE can find a way to be part of tedious public proceedings, the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods is surveying citizens about how best to get them in the loop:
The City of Seattle is shifting our approach to outreach and engagement. We need your ideas on how the City can keep you better informed about City projects, events, opportunities, and issues. Tell us how you want to participate, and what we can do to make it easier
You can take the Engage Seattle survey here and answer questions like these:
There is also an Engage Seattle discussion site filled with conversations with topics like this:
Besides putting in a good word for your friendly neighborhood news blog, let the powers that be know how you really would like to participate in the civic process and receive information about the city around you.
What about the questions the City doesn’t want you to ask or answer? Like “Who benefits from upzoning every neighborhood in the city when we already have plenty of room to build new housing?” (Answer: The Mayor’s developer backers, that’s who!)
We don’t need City Hall to tell us how to “engage” with them. We need political power to make them serve the people’s interests, rather than the interests of their rich bros in the business. Political power comes from awareness and organizing (which is greatly aided by your friendly neighborhood Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, thank you!)
Well, I don’t agree with you, which totally underscores the need for the survey and outreach to understand how to engage the silent and vocal majority (whatever it may be).
Who benefits from single family zoning that holds in amber a housing type that few can afford? And who benefits from this disproportionate accrual of wealth from scarcity of land and housing? [HINT: white single family homeowners!] Single family zoning hasn’t kept up with demographic changes of the city overall because it entrenches a privledged economic class. Yes, developers profit, but let’s not forget about our single family fiefdoms.
ANYWAY! I think we would both value outreach from the city to better communicate our valuable perspectives. :)
Thank you for your polite and intelligent reply! Clearly, we disagree, but that’s what discussion is for.
Your contention that “white single family homeowners” are accruing wealth is absurd. Property values are indeed going up (because of increased demand for housing), but for current owners that just means higher taxes, which drives people from their homes.
Developers see potential profits in the increasingly-valuable single-family zones, but they are prevented from building high-density housing there because of laws that protect the character of those neighborhoods. I understand that “character” has been turned into a propaganda term for racist privilege, but the alternative to neighborhoods with character is neighborhoods with no character. You and other urbanists apparently believe that character is not important, and that it must be sacrificed so maximum profits can be realized.
The primary threat to racial equity in Seattle is not single-family zoning but gentrification. As property values rise, existing affordable housing (which generally serves racial minorities) is demolished to make way for market-rate housing (which generally serves rich white people). The Central District, for example, has gone from 70% African-American a few years ago to 30% today. Single-family homeowners did not do this; developer-friendly policies did this.
The urbanists and their developer backers are using racial equity as a cover story to extract profits from higher land values in single-family zones. If affordable housing was truly the goal, the City would be issuing $500 million in housing bonds, as suggested by the Community Housing Caucus and others. That would be a truly public solution that would not line the pockets of private businesses whose only interest is making money.