Tell us how the hearings in the Central District and other neighborhoods went. West Seattle is, for lack of a better phrase, a little too White to care that much about the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNTzp9grp…

Personally, I'd like a chief that actually puts police on foot more. I see things like the parking enforcement people zipping up and down the street with their scanners and police cruising through in patrol cars, but it seems nobody gets out of their vehicles in City Council District 5.

Parking all the way to the intersection (seeminly permitting to ~5 ft the 30 ft setback from stop signs, 20 ft from crosswalks) and drivers not yielding to pedestrians at both marked and unmarked crosswalks is a low danger priority, but certainly impacts how walkable my neighborhood is.

I went to a SoundTransit meeting once in Bellevue and was the only person there. They gamely went through their presentation and I shuffled out at the end. True story.

Public meetings as a means of engaging the public is an insane, outmoded, lazy, and wholly incompetent way of conducting "outreach." They fill me fury. Who the fuck has the time to show up for the most boring motherfucking thing on earth? CRAZY PEOPLE. And then you have public policy driven by the crazy people who show up to give public input. WHICH IS EVEN CRAZIER.

Anyone who works in government and believes public meetings are worthwhile is likely a fascist fool and deserves public shaming, provided you can get a public to show up for the shaming.

Speak Up Austin is a good example of public engagement without the fucking farce of these fucking meetings.

@6--That Austin "community engagement portal" is swell, but there are many people (majority?) who don't hang around on blogs and the internet all day.

And sometimes public meetings are the best way for outraged people get in the face of the bureaucrats. It's not just crazy people. Many grievances are real.

Best "community engagement" is elections.

@7: I hear the argument that community meetings are more "inclusive" than web-based outreach from time to time, and it blows my mind. I mean, what percentage of the population has access to the interwebs versus has the time/patience/work schedule/child care/interest to show up at a public meeting?

You're right that elections are the ultimate form of public engagement, but police chief isn't an elected office. Maybe it should be.

And you're also right that sometimes it is an opportunity for people to object to serious policy mishaps, but all too often it's a rote dance engaged in as part of public process without it actually being, you know, a public process.

I believe in democracy, and I believe we can do it better. If no one shows up for your meeting, you're doing it wrong.

Notice the Garfield Community center isn't on that list?

I'd like a police chief that can do his job without violating civil rights, and a city government that can find such a police chief without having to solicit bullshit community input that they're never going to do anything with.

What's next an online poll over what kind of TP the city council should be using?

TV dinner dear, it's not that I don't agree with you, but here's the thing: in most cases those meetings are required by statute, and if government tried to get rid of them, the professional squeaky wheels would blow a gasket.

I've been at meetings where I've been accused of being everything under the sun, and all you can do is stand there and take it. It's dreadful and a waste of money and resources. But I don't see them ending anytime soon.