Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 5, 2009
City City Council All Over the Place, Geographically Speaking
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Josh thinks there will be a fifth move to put district elections on the ballot this year. The campaign folks I've talked to are considerably more skeptical, but for the sake of argument, let's say he's right. Would it solve the problem? I don't think so. (In brief: Neighborhoods are not the only defining characteristic of an individual voter's interest; renters move from place to place; having just one representative instead of nine marginalizes voters and gives them less influence over the council as a whole).
But that's a debate for a later time. Meanwhile, here's some data about where our current city council members live. (Locations are approximate).
Looking at the map (and considering that our mayor, like Tom Rasmussen, lives in West Seattle) I'm not sure what area is being underrepresented here. (Yes, yes, Beacon Hill and South Park are obvious contenders — but a four- or even nine-district division of the city wouldn't assure that either of those individual neighborhoods was represented on the council.). Assuming, as district proponents currently advocate, that we divide Seattle into four districts (and elect five council members at large), any districted scenario would actually mean less representation for Southeast Seattle (the poor folks district proponents say deserve more representation) and more for North Enders in places like Wedgwood and Phinney Ridge. That may not be what district proponents say they're after, but it's what they're likely to get.
4
The fact that a councilmember lives somewhere does not mean they actually represent the people who live in that area. Especially since they do seem to live in the nicest parts of particular regions.
5
gotta say that the location of the rep in west seattle bears little similarity to the bulk of west seattle. that's a pretty swank neighborhood, and west seattle can get pretty, um, un-swank.
7
This relative dispersion of Councilmembers is just an at-this-moment snapshot. At other times, it's been much more concentrated -- back in the Nicastro/Wills days, I think we had three or four who lived in the 43rd LD.
The point of having Council districts, then, would be to assure that some degree of dispersion (and, supposedly, representation) is always in place.
The point of having Council districts, then, would be to assure that some degree of dispersion (and, supposedly, representation) is always in place.
8
Only one council member in the last twenty-five years has lived north of 85th Street (P Steinbrueck). The Rainier Valley has had at least one council member from their area every year during that time.
Given that the area north of 85th is roughly 1/6th of the city in terms of population and contains a large minority lower class populace (as seen in Northgate and Olympic Hills Elementary's population and Viewlands' former student numbers), shouldn't they get a representative, too?
I'm all for making all nine seats districted. And if you want at-larges, then let's add four more seats.
Given that the area north of 85th is roughly 1/6th of the city in terms of population and contains a large minority lower class populace (as seen in Northgate and Olympic Hills Elementary's population and Viewlands' former student numbers), shouldn't they get a representative, too?
I'm all for making all nine seats districted. And if you want at-larges, then let's add four more seats.
9
screw little corrupt patronage Chicago style districts
nine people on the council do MY bidding
and it has been voted down over and over and over ....god, how the corruption tries and tries to get into the city elections ....
nine people on the council do MY bidding
and it has been voted down over and over and over ....god, how the corruption tries and tries to get into the city elections ....
10
Running citywide costs a mega butt load of money, the result of which is that downtown (and to some extent) other business interests generally dictate who gets elected to Council and who they answer to once they're there (hint - it's not poor neighborhoods. Or, for that matter, West Seattle, SE Seattle, Ballard, NE Seattle....)
11
if you have a political fiefdom, do you get a castle too?
Or at least a payoff from the garbage company ...
Or at least a payoff from the garbage company ...
13
Oh yes, by all means, let's never consider a change. What if we were to become like Chicago? Chicago is a terrible place, what with the high property values, shoddy services and gang wars.
Besides, Seattle is so very well run, there's no need to consider anything else. EVER. Everything is fine exactly how it is.
Besides, Seattle is so very well run, there's no need to consider anything else. EVER. Everything is fine exactly how it is.
14
@7 - it used to be, when I lived just south of the Zoo, that i could go for a walk for a couple of hours and see two state senators, one state rep, and five city councilmembers.
If you force them to "live" in a district, they'll just "happen" to have second homes.
Fremont's still the Center of the Universe.
If you force them to "live" in a district, they'll just "happen" to have second homes.
Fremont's still the Center of the Universe.
16
It looks like Council needs someone from the Beacon Hill/Georgetown/South Park area. Takers?
ECB, you should map where the declared candidates live.
ECB, you should map where the declared candidates live.
17
As for districts, they're popping up all over the place. In Sunnyside, WA a Whitman College study found that the low latino representation on the city council put the city in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Their solution was to institute districts, in place for this November's general election. Word on the street: a ton of latinos and under-35 year olds considering a run. Quite a change of affairs!
18
in ECB's defense, if you zoom out on that map to include the entire city, you can't see the neighborhood labels. it only takes a click to zoom out, and then you can all be happy.
19
#18 - I know, but I get tired of every map (PI, Seattle Times, etc) cutting off the city limits where it ended 70 years ago. If SE Seattle was cut off, Erica would not be happy.
20
@ 6: That's google's mapping software. If you go to the larger map, it goes all the way up to Shoreline.
@ 10: This year will certainly show if you're right.
@ 10: This year will certainly show if you're right.
21
The great thing about districts is when your representative isn't on, say, the Public Safety Committee, so you're completely disenfranchised in most areas because the members of that committee don't give a crap what you think since they don't answer to you.
Just like the Legislature: do you think Frank Chopp gives a shit what you think if you don't have a 43rd District address?
Just like the Legislature: do you think Frank Chopp gives a shit what you think if you don't have a 43rd District address?
22
Actually, the area north of 85th (Crown Hill and Blue Ridge clear over to Lake City) wasn't annexed into Seattle until the early 1950s. So, roughly 60 years.
Rainier Beach and Columbia City have been part of Seattle for a century.
Rainier Beach and Columbia City have been part of Seattle for a century.
23
Districts are way over due.
Folks using the Chicago arguement to bash Districts need to remember that that city produced Obama.
New York, another city many admire, is also managed by Districts. And look what a disaster that has become.
On the other hand, Detroit has a system of 9 At large Council Members and it is everyone's textbook example of success.
So ask yourself. Should we be more like Detroit or New York?
Folks using the Chicago arguement to bash Districts need to remember that that city produced Obama.
New York, another city many admire, is also managed by Districts. And look what a disaster that has become.
On the other hand, Detroit has a system of 9 At large Council Members and it is everyone's textbook example of success.
So ask yourself. Should we be more like Detroit or New York?
24
You know, when people brought districts to Vancouver BC they said they'd solve everyone's problems.
They didn't.
Every system has it's flaws.
And, in the end, the billionaires get their tunnels we voted down anyway and we get to pay the taxes for something we didn't want.
They didn't.
Every system has it's flaws.
And, in the end, the billionaires get their tunnels we voted down anyway and we get to pay the taxes for something we didn't want.
26
It is not only where they live. It is also about things like having one person to go to when there is a problem in your neighborhood. In the current system no one takes responsibility a neighborhood.
28
WTF kind of logic is "renters move"? Yeah, they move into another district represented by another elected official who has to answer to them. And how fucking often do those renters move and how far, if they're bouncing around the like button on the shithouse door they aren't very invested in their city/community anyway!
TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE "LOGIC" but, you just have to look at the author.
TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE "LOGIC" but, you just have to look at the author.
29
Your logic is a bit off when you argue that the location of councilmembers' homes is equivalent to district representation: it's not about where they live, it's about who elects them. Since all councilmembers run city-wide currently, they strive to win elections city-wide and adopt policies that are popular city-wide. I have not found any councilmember in my area of town, NE, to be particularly responsive to the actual interests of NE Seattle.
If we had district representation, as we should, then issues that are of more importance in certain areas of town than they are city-wide would get the airing that they need--because the constituents of those districts would demand that from their respective councilmembers.
For instance, there are virtually zero sidewalks in NE Seattle--which is beyond annoying and undermines the whole drive less/walk more thing. Since the council is elected city-wide, no one on the council cares about the sidewalklessness in NE Seattle, and no effort is made to find funding to supplement sidewalks there at a faster rate than in better-sidewalked areas. If NE Seattle had one or two districts, the councilmembers representing those constituents would necessarily have to work harder to get progress on the sidewalk issue in NE Seattle.
Also, there would be more give-and-take in city-wide debates. A representative from SE Seattle might offer to support sidewalks in NE Seattle if a representative from NE Seattle supported some special public safety initiative for SE Seattle.
This kind of give-and-take doesn't occur right now at all because the voices in SE and NE Seattle don't matter as much as do city-wide voices.
Similarly, in funding races for city council seats, councilmembers can get their money from large, city-wide entities or patrons alone whose interests are city-wide, not "neighborhoody." Thus, attention gets paid to sports stadiums or city-wide green initiatives rather than to sidewalk or public safety initiatives that have less widespread appeal.
In a district-based system, funding would still come from city-wide entities but it would *also* come from district interests--thereby ensuring more responsiveness by councilmembers to those district interests. We might then see Paul Allen and similar rich-guy initiatives happening elsewhere than just downtown, for instance.
It is unfathomable to me why people think the at-large system we now have is preferable or even advantageous. The at-large system dilutes debate, ignores smaller voices and voices of ethnic and racial minorities, and it encourages ineffectual "consensus"-based (non-)decision-making all while overemphasizing downtown and big-commercial interests over local, "neighborhoody" interests.
A hybrid system would be a good compromise: perhaps 9 district-based seats and 3 at-large seats. And I would personally then advocate partisan races, but that's another issue. In the end, though, our at-large system is just terrible (which is why it's also extremely rare in large cities in the United States).
More...
If we had district representation, as we should, then issues that are of more importance in certain areas of town than they are city-wide would get the airing that they need--because the constituents of those districts would demand that from their respective councilmembers.
For instance, there are virtually zero sidewalks in NE Seattle--which is beyond annoying and undermines the whole drive less/walk more thing. Since the council is elected city-wide, no one on the council cares about the sidewalklessness in NE Seattle, and no effort is made to find funding to supplement sidewalks there at a faster rate than in better-sidewalked areas. If NE Seattle had one or two districts, the councilmembers representing those constituents would necessarily have to work harder to get progress on the sidewalk issue in NE Seattle.
Also, there would be more give-and-take in city-wide debates. A representative from SE Seattle might offer to support sidewalks in NE Seattle if a representative from NE Seattle supported some special public safety initiative for SE Seattle.
This kind of give-and-take doesn't occur right now at all because the voices in SE and NE Seattle don't matter as much as do city-wide voices.
Similarly, in funding races for city council seats, councilmembers can get their money from large, city-wide entities or patrons alone whose interests are city-wide, not "neighborhoody." Thus, attention gets paid to sports stadiums or city-wide green initiatives rather than to sidewalk or public safety initiatives that have less widespread appeal.
In a district-based system, funding would still come from city-wide entities but it would *also* come from district interests--thereby ensuring more responsiveness by councilmembers to those district interests. We might then see Paul Allen and similar rich-guy initiatives happening elsewhere than just downtown, for instance.
It is unfathomable to me why people think the at-large system we now have is preferable or even advantageous. The at-large system dilutes debate, ignores smaller voices and voices of ethnic and racial minorities, and it encourages ineffectual "consensus"-based (non-)decision-making all while overemphasizing downtown and big-commercial interests over local, "neighborhoody" interests.
A hybrid system would be a good compromise: perhaps 9 district-based seats and 3 at-large seats. And I would personally then advocate partisan races, but that's another issue. In the end, though, our at-large system is just terrible (which is why it's also extremely rare in large cities in the United States).
30
Green Lakes; Elliot Bay; Meturn; and Magnolia on Queen Anne ...
Dear Google:
Some fine copy editors in our town will soon be out of work. Could you please hire them?
Dear Google:
Some fine copy editors in our town will soon be out of work. Could you please hire them?
31
Your map leaves out huge areas of Seattle and your point is every area is represented?
Huh? Oh you could have 9 lawyers too or nine chefs, it works so well. Don't you realize when you share them with everyone else in Seattle your influence over each one is diluted?
The reality is running citywide is megabucks so they are ALL beholden to the same list of 7000 superdonors (people who give multiple $100-700 donations every campaign cycle (lawyers, developers, bond salesmen, etc. and Vulcan and minions thereof). a few enviros who compromise with downtown, and labor who compromises with downtown. The neighborhood that is represented is the neighgorhood of MONEY.
This is why "downtown" is never, ever challenged and never, ever has anything done that it doesn't want. Running citywide with 650,000 is like running for governor of Wyoming or Vermont or Alaska. It's not a local race when you need $350,000. And it doesn't matter if you're from SE Seattle or West Seattle if you vote for Mercer/Vulcan anyway and pour $200 million on that project.
You think it balances out if a SE Seattle councilmember then gets $100,000 funding for a little community center program for SE Seattle?
Follow the money.
Huh? Oh you could have 9 lawyers too or nine chefs, it works so well. Don't you realize when you share them with everyone else in Seattle your influence over each one is diluted?
The reality is running citywide is megabucks so they are ALL beholden to the same list of 7000 superdonors (people who give multiple $100-700 donations every campaign cycle (lawyers, developers, bond salesmen, etc. and Vulcan and minions thereof). a few enviros who compromise with downtown, and labor who compromises with downtown. The neighborhood that is represented is the neighgorhood of MONEY.
This is why "downtown" is never, ever challenged and never, ever has anything done that it doesn't want. Running citywide with 650,000 is like running for governor of Wyoming or Vermont or Alaska. It's not a local race when you need $350,000. And it doesn't matter if you're from SE Seattle or West Seattle if you vote for Mercer/Vulcan anyway and pour $200 million on that project.
You think it balances out if a SE Seattle councilmember then gets $100,000 funding for a little community center program for SE Seattle?
Follow the money.
33
wow, what a pretty map! it really makes me think this great system, that is so empowering and makes me feel connected to my city council, works for me.
why would we ever consider having an actual rep? that's silly. if I live in Rainier Valley or the CD, i get the same amount of attention from the city as queen anne resident. look at school closings! they treated QA the same as....oh, wait.
why would we ever consider having an actual rep? that's silly. if I live in Rainier Valley or the CD, i get the same amount of attention from the city as queen anne resident. look at school closings! they treated QA the same as....oh, wait.
34
District elections and/ or public financing of elections: the ONLY way to give candidates with great ideas not supported by deep pockets a chance in this city.
Ten years ago it cost $50,000 to run a credible City Council campaign, and $75,000 to win. Now it costs 3 to 4 times that much. How do you overcome money? Grassroots organization. But you can't doorbell the city. It's too large. You can doorbell a district. That's the difference. Want money to dominate elections instead of ideas? Oppose district elections.
Ten years ago it cost $50,000 to run a credible City Council campaign, and $75,000 to win. Now it costs 3 to 4 times that much. How do you overcome money? Grassroots organization. But you can't doorbell the city. It's too large. You can doorbell a district. That's the difference. Want money to dominate elections instead of ideas? Oppose district elections.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS