Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 26, 2012
City New Group Wants District Elections for City Council
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Here's the press release they sent this morning:
Seattle, WA –Seattle Districts Now, a group Seattle of residential and business leaders who feel Seattle needs a change in how it elects its City Councilmembers, will register Thursday as a political campaign with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. Seattle Districts Now is proposing a City Charter Amendment to change Seattle from a nine member at-large City Council system to a mixed system with seven Councilmembers elected in geographic districts and two Councilmembers elected at-large.
The group—led by Fremont landlord Suzie Burke, along with Seattle activists Faye Garneau and John Fox—is holding a press conference tomorrow morning with fancy maps of their proposed new districts (the rest of their press release is after the jump). If all goes according to their plan, we'd be passing their city charter amendment next November, which would be a feat, considering Seattle voters resoundingly rejected district elections in 2003. But we don't need to wait 14 months to settle this... to the legally and eternally binding Slog poll!
Our press conference is being held to formally announce our campaign, to provide maps showing each district and to introduce to the press many of the 90 community leaders who are already supporting the campaign. Endorsers include 2 state senators and business and community leaders from across the city. Key leaders of the campaign and our attorneys who helped draft the proposal will be present to answer your questions.
Faye Garneau, a Seattle business leader and Co-Chair of Seattle Districts Now, states: “A mixed District/At-Large system would give every Seattle resident a specific point of contact at City Hall. It would ensure that an elected official would speak as your neighborhood’s voice on major issues.”
Seattle Districts Now hopes to qualify a city charter amendment for the November, 2013 Ballot. If the charter amendment is approved by voters, all nine Council positions will be on the ballot in 2015, with the seven district councilmembers elected to four-year terms and the two at large councilmembers elected to two-year terms. In 2017, the two at large councilmembers will run for regular four-year terms.
Seattle Districts Now want to ensure city councilmembers are closer to the people they represent and that voters better know their city councilmembers. The seven district representatives would provide for geographic distribution of Councilmembers, while giving individual neighborhoods a distinct voice on major issues, while the two at-large representatives ensure that the citywide perspective is maintained on our Council.
Suzie Burke of Seattle Districts Now cites another reason for the proposal, “Over the years, Seattle City Councilmembers have been often clustered in certain neighborhoods, while other areas of the city haven’t had a council member who knew and understood their area’s needs and concerns. A mixed District/At-Large system would ensure that no part of our city goes unrepresented.”
The boundaries of each district will be described in the City Charter Amendment, which is currently in draft form. The district boundaries were drawn by Dr. Richard Morrill, demographer and University of Washington Professor Emeritus. He created the boundaries based on 2010 census information with input from Seattle Districts Now. Seattle Districts Now is confident that it will obtain the estimated 30, 943 signatures needed to place the Charter Amendment on the 2013 Ballot.
John Fox, Seattle Districts Now’s other co-chair, says that: “The cost of a winning City Council campaign has soared from $210,000 in 2005 to more than $270,000 in 2011. “With a mixed District/At-Large system, most campaigns would see their voter contact expenses cut to 1/7th of the current cost and candidates could win by doorbelling precincts, rather than relying on expensive mailers and TV ads.”
1
4
5
7
A 7/2 split is too close to the failed 2003 effort, imho.
But why reserve 2 for at-large? That doesn't make any sense. Few cities use such a system. In the numerous cities where districts are used, like LA or SF or NYC, they're ALL elected by district.
The only reason I can think of is that it gives downtown Seattle the balance of power. They can fund people who can get elected citywide. Two votes on a closely divided Council can be the deciding votes.
I wouldn't worry too much about the backers here - yes, John Fox is an elitist who hates the poor, but in cities where districts are used, they've almost always wound up leading to more progressive councilmembers. NIMBYs think they can control a district council and they will be proven wrong.
suzie burke is only interested in herself. what this usually entails is really fugly developments, protecting her interests at the expense of the general public, and bullying locals that don't kowtow to her whims. she's a crony, the fremont chamber's filled w/ cronies. frankly, fremont would be much better place without her.
12
So . . . no thanks.
@9: You show em, hoss.
14
15
First off:
Residency requirements. You MUST live in your district for your primary residence. No exemptions or wavers allowed. The at-large just has to live within the city.
Allow a one-term exemption for any CURRENT City Council members, to move into a district of their choosing.
Go with 8 districts and only one at large. Approximately, clockwise, this. Fine tune it with specific voter counts for even distribution, but this:
#1: Northwest of Ship Canal & I-5
Ballard, Greenwood, Green Lake, Crown hill, etc
#2: Northeast of Ship Canal & I-5
UW, lake city, et al
#3: south of Ship Canal and 520, east of I5
Capitol Hill, Lake Washington central neighborhoods
#4: First hill, Beacon Hill
#5: South Seattle, Duwamish area, South Park
#6: West Seattle
#7: Downtown, ID, Port, Harbor Island area
#8: Queen Anne, Magnolia, Interbay.
That's everyone, with one at-large floating.
Term limits, even generous ones, would be nice. 12 or 16 years of service and you're out. Keep those fresh views and ideas coming in.
Given past history, their plan is likely a scheme to block transit improvements, bike lanes, and density around light rail stations. Whatever the merits of district elections, these two individuals have one track minds (anti-track minds?) against reasonable housing, transportation and environmental progress in Seattle.
21
No thanks.
24
It seems to me that 1 district rep and the 4 at large reps could form a majority, but not a veto proof majority.
That being said I like a mix of 5/4 rather than 7/2, and WS is big enough for two districts. But then again it would devolve into the dysfunction of the state legislature and wouldnt that be fun to watch!
27
28
Very hard and firm residency requirements to me are the even bigger deal breaker. Want to represent West Seattle, Queen Anne, downtown, or Rainier Valley? You better live there. If this went live in say 2014's elections, you can grandfather in the current incumbents with a free pass against residency--let them pick a district to stand in. They'd just have to move there in the next cycle or they're out.
30
31
32
The at-large members are a kind of hedge against the council becoming too parochial.
I support district-elected members. It's asinine that you can get a seat on the King County Council or in the state legislature with fewer votes than you need to win an election for City Council.
36
People complaining about John Fox or Suzie Burke: Please, pay attention to the content, and to the broad base of supporters. #32, you're wrong if you really think Suzie thinks she can "buy 5 city council seats." She may be wealthy, but she's not that wealthy. Furthermore, she knows darn well District 6 will elect Democrats; look at the voting record in the area! My area of Fremont and up Phinney Ridge is consistently 80 - 90% Democrat. Suzie truly wants to return some power to the neighborhoods. We'll always fight with her issue by issue, but at least we'll be fighting her, and not downtown developer and Bellevue funded representatives in addition.
Regarding the split: We lost an all nine districts measure by a few points in 2003. 7-2 is a compromise. Seven is better than nothing. And far better than 5.
Regarding the map, there is a small error in the version created by the Times; Eastlake north of Lynn and Roanoke are in District 4, not 3.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS