Next City describes the changes occurring to the thirteen neighbourhood district councils in Seattle. These groups of activist homeowners have “held virtual veto power over nearly every decision on Seattle’s growth and development.” While in the past these homogeneous older and affluent resident councils have “shaped neighbourhoods in their own reflection” they also contributed to building a city that is livable, although expensive.
Last July the City of Seattle cut their ties with these groups signalling “their intent to seek more input and feedback from lower-income folks, people of colour and renters-who make up 54 per cent of the city”. Instead Seattle’s department of neighbourhoods developed a 16 member “Community Involvement Commission” which is “charged with helping city departments develop “authentic and thorough” ways to reach “all” city residents, including underrepresented communities such as low-income people, homeless residents and renters. Finally, DON will also oversee and staff a second new commission, the Seattle Renters’ Commission, which will advise all city departments on policies that affect renters and monitor the enforcement and effectiveness of the city’s renter protection laws.”
It is no surprise that in Seattle just as in Vancouver the homeowner dominated neighbourhood councils generally argued “against land use changes that would allow more density (in the form of townhouses and apartment buildings) in and near Seattle’s traditional single-family neighborhoods, which make up nearly two-thirds of the city. Including more renters and low-income people in the mix could dilute, or even upend, those groups’ agendas.”
The neighbourhoods department of the City of Seattle found “that while the population of Seattle was becoming younger, more diverse and more evenly split between homeowners and renters, “residents attending district council meetings tend to be 40 years of age or older, Caucasian and homeowners.” In the words of City Council member Sally Bagshaw “If you’ve ever gone to some of these community meetings, they’re just deadly dull, and the same 25 people have been there for 100 years.”
The neighbourhoods department of the City of Seattle found “that while the population of Seattle was becoming younger, more diverse and more evenly split between homeowners and renters, “residents attending district council meetings tend to be 40 years of age or older, Caucasian and homeowners.” In the words of City Council member Sally Bagshaw “If you’ve ever gone to some of these community meetings, they’re just deadly dull, and the same 25 people have been there for 100 years.”
deleted as per editorial policy
On the face of it neighbourhood councils may seem like an honourable democratic method of consultation. But as seen in too many strata councils, co-op boards and other organizations that rely almost exclusively on volunteer efforts, strong personalities and the ideologically-motivated often gravitate to power and control.
Neighbourhood Plans require periodic renewal, and this may be the best way to obtain unbiased local input. City Plan and Citizen’s Assemblies were quite successful as localized consultation models in my opinion, because they were designed to be broad enough in scope that any small group or individual reaching for control wouldn’t get much traction or influence over the bigger picture, or to steer the entire effort onto one path preferred by a minority of residents.
The debate over whether or not to develop a city-wide plan also touched on this issue. The argument in favour can be persuasive when the effort is couched in terms of creating a level playing field for everyone (developers and citizens) and offering certainty to future development by slowing or stopping spot rezonings. This will have a certain appeal to people who believe that development is largely a negative force, who have a predetermined idea of what the city should look like, or who fear change.
The problem with that view is just who will define the vision for the future? Is their view biased toward a particular image of blanket urban design? Will they understand the economic ramifications of their rigid formulas and guidelines? Will One Plan become permanent and disallow flexibility?
After participating in City Plan years ago and seeing the neighbourhood consultation process mature — sometimes through trial by fire (e.g. Mount Pleasant and the Rise project, followed by Grandview Woodlands Phase One which was shut down) — the Citizen’s Assembly is perhaps the best process we can aspire to for the most broad consultation, especially in older established neighbourhoods. But it’s expensive and should rightfully be limited to say 10-year updates to Neighbourhood Plans. This will allow planners to challenge citizens to define the extent of change and development they will accept while also considering the ongoing demographic, economic and environmental challenges the city and the Metro face now and in the future.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.