If renters represented a larger percentage of votes in Wallingford, then the prejudices of home owners wouldn't be enough to keep renters off the council. Politics is about power.

@1 read the article.

There's nothing mysterious or secretive about community organizations like the Wallingford Community Council. If renters in Wallingford really care about the future of the neighborhood, and I'm sure many of them do, they need to show up. Engage. Participate. The organization has open public meetings every month.

Why would anyone want to vote for a renter, who by definition donates their equity to their landlord, and also pays their landlord's property taxes for them to boot? Did you want to see how they could fail with tax monies the way they fail with their own? Of course the political system should prefer those who rip off the rest of the economy, that's what politics is for. If you wanted a change you would vote for squatters and anarchists.

The meetings are open to everyone. Doug being a renter had nothing to do with it. Wallingford includes many rentals including subsidised housing. Anyone who works or lives in Wallingford can become a member or run for the board. People who voted may have been familiar with Doug's blog and not agreed with his visions for Wallingford. Also, the person who won has been very active in the Wallingford Community Council and is known in his community.

Many people have issues with the upzones. I've talked to renters and homeless advocates as well as homeowners and business owners who do not agree with them. Upzones cause displacement, there is no guarantee they will make the city more affordable, we have enough development capacity with current zoning, we value our neighborhoods and don't want them erased, trees will be lost, and our infrastructure is already insufficient.

These are reasonable reasons for not voting for someone who supports the upzones. I am tired of the name calling (NIMBY, anti-renter, racist) being used to discount valid objections. Most of all that these upzones have no promise of making our city more affordable.

Is the Wallingford Community Council anti-renter or just opposed to the views of Doug Trumm?

"That makes for an all-homeowner Wallingford Community Council, even though more than half of the city's residents are renters. "

Just out of curiosity what is the proportion of Wallingford residents who rent? Obviously zero on the council is going to be less, but is Wallingford more or less renter-occupied than the overall city average reported?

On the other hand I guess 6 out of 7 renters on Capitol Hill's council combined with zero renters in Wallingford does bring the 2 communities right about to the city average.

@SEAantigrowth refers to renters as "transients" https://twitter.com/seafairgrowth/status…

I'm getting a huge kick out of "our meetings are open to everyone" in an article where someone had their civic commitment questioned when they attended and voiced a dissenting view.

I've read some comments from neighborhood groups questioning why they weren't invited to be on the HALA focus groups. Perhaps it has something to do with the company you keep - a few exceptions aside, these neighborhood councils have functioned as de facto anti-density political interest groups, intent on keeping out new residents.

@11 - It's a (unfunny and unhelpful) parody account.

Dear Birdy@6,

TL;DR

Love,

The Stranger Staff Who Haven't Set Foot In Wallingford Since They Were Drunk Undergrads Wandering Up The Hill To Dick's

Why isn't anyone talking about the fact that only people who pay $25 are eligible to vote for Wallingford CC board members?

Why is the shuttered Franklin Apts in Belltown the image for a Wallingford article? Some background story here I'm missing?

Speaking as a next door neighbor to Wallingford (see my name); it is an ongoing struggle to get renters more involved in neighborhood councils. In fact, we have trouble getting anyone to get and stay involved, but renters are more difficult than owners because they do tend to move more frequently. In Fremont, we have not had contested elections for years; if you show up consistently, you're in (up to allowed 15 members on board).

Also, dealing with high stakes land use issues like HALA and the comp plan update is a small part of what we do. We also deal with review and input of specific projects, bar problems (noise, drunken peeing in yards), Aurora problems (it took FNC and Fremont Aurora Wallingford Neighbors years to deal with crime focused on a couple motels), getting art around the neighborhood, getting membership up, review of traffic and parking function and proposing/working on solutions with the City and groups like Greenways, helping with MLK Day and other community events, hearing what the zoo is up to and giving input, etc. It's endless and for many it's picayune stuff. For many, this stuff is boring. It's meetings month after month.

Having been at the Council meeting, though not a voting member, I'm not sure that renter status had much to do with anything. Mr. Trumm's statement to the group about his interest and qualifications was weak, vague, and largely free of relevant content, and that was before the hostile and strange audience question was even asked. His opponent listed useful background experience and work with the council, and he came across as articulate and involved. When that's all there is to go on, I'd have voted for the latter person too, even though I was happy to see a renter running. As for the meeting's hostility, the one question was sufficiently out of line that there were mutterings and comments from the audience and the person running the meeting quickly redirected to relevant things. One oddball question does not a hostile intent create.

As Toby says, whoever shows up is basically in the door. I was surprised at the small turnout given the important things going on in the neighborhood, and all but the one position on the Council only had one person "running."

And regarding HALA, the vast majority of what I've heard from the neighborhood is that folks WANT a racially and economically mixed neighborhood but aren't convinced that the current plan will be a step forward. Knocking down currently-affordable housing, displacing people who live there, and putting up top-dollar condos and town houses while building affordable housing somewhere else sometime later doesn't further the neighborhood goal. It's a boon for developers, but "pay and go away" doesn't help create a mixed neighborhood, let alone prevent further erosion.

Headline needs correcting. Quote is AGAINST not FOR.

The whole article needs correcting. The election was about as much about renters as about mens' hairstyles. The author has been contacted by WCC officers, he promised an update but doesn't look like he's going to deliver.