District 4 looks gerrymandered. Maybe they wanted a bunch of rich urbanites to balance out the college kids.
I'm in District 4. It sucks. Eastlake sheds a tear for us.
I'd like to know what the current population counts are for each of the districts. Whenever districts are drawn equal-populated (to the resolution of the available data, which is usually at the census block level of hundreds of people) there will be jagged boundaries. So District 4 doesn't make me nearly as suspicious as District 1. The southern boundary is set at city limits, the north and west by water, and that it follows Duwamish to the east with no inroads into District 2 means it pretty much has to be over or under populated, resulting in disproportionate representation. My guess is under-populated, meaning a vote in West Seattle will count for more. Good enough for the U.S. Senate, good enough for Seattle!
West Seattle underpopulated? When's the last time you drove down California or Delridge or Fauntleroy or Harbor/Alki?
Did they really use black for southeast???
Hey Stranger, can you tell us which current City Councilmembers live in which districts? I want to know who my future incumbent will be! Also, what are the rules about which district you can run in (and, I suppose, running for an at-large seat).
Catalina, we've got density all over the city these days. Anyhow, that's just a guess - does anyone know what the 2010 Census Block summaries are for each district? Registered Voters summaries? Just wondering.
Well the SLU part of Didtrict 4 has the fastest growing precincts

Just like West Seattle
I expect that out of the districts we're going to get 4-6 NIMBYs, 1 DSA establishment puppet, and 0-2 swing votes.*

The two remaining at large seats will swing from somewhere between Sally-Clark-style "indecipherable panderer to both NIMBYs and growth (and anyone else coming to my 24th planning & public comment meeting)" to pure establishment (if the DSA and real estate lobby has any brains and uses their money advantage to full effect as the at-large seats should be more expensive to campaign for).

Seattle at worst will have 7 NIMBYs, one Sawant, and a Sally Clark/torch bearer of the Seattle Process. At best it will have 4 NIMBYs, 3 DSA candidates, and two Sally Clarks (ouch!).

In the best or worst case, Seattle will continue to cement itself into a San Francisco Junior mold. South King County and Pierce County will continue to pave new suburbs from the Puget Sound to the Cascades to accommodate Seattle's unaccommodated growth and displaced poor. I shudder at the thought.


Council District #5: NIMBYs that want sidewalks.

Council District #6: Half NIMBYs and half "Where's our transit already?!"

Council District #4: Half "meh" youth and half NIMBYs.

Council District #7: Establishment NIMBYs and the Downtown Seattle Association.

District #3: One-third "I have a conflicted relationship with density." One-third NIMBYs. One-third Gentrifiers-soon-to-be-NIMBYs.

District #2: One half Gentrifiers-soon-to-be-NIMBYs, one half Seattle's vanishing-diversity-soon-to-be-Tukwila-residents.

District #1: NIMBY's asking for a new bridge and willing to accept a transit bridge over no bridge at all.

Sure, there is density around town in all of these districts, and sure, the idea (read: fantasy) is that we'll get the NIMBYs to accept growth/density if we keep it contained to where it already exists, but NIMBYs are the proverbial scorpion and it is their nature to oppose anything/everything always.
District 7 has Queen Anne and Magnolia...and downtown. Pretty sure the interests of wealthy homeowners in those two neighborhoods are going to conflict with those of the urban core.
Never fear, @9 and @10. NIMBY kings Toby Thaler and Dick Morrill have carefully drawn the boundaries to ensure NIMBY rule in each and every "split personality" district you've mentioned.

There will be nothing "conflicted" about the representation. Young voters and apartment dwellers are fucked.
@6,7, supposedly the districts are pretty close in population and will be adjusted after each census so they're within about 1% of each other. That would suggest 90,000 in each district.……
Other Provisions The Charter Amendment clarifies candidates must be residents of the city (and their district if running for a district position) from 120 days before filing all the way through their term.

This Seattle Times article shows where each councilmember currently lives. FWIW, McGinn is just inside a tiny carve out of District 6... so he can run against O'Brien or Licata if he wants.…
District 7? I guess they wanted to cordon off the Republicans from Magnolia and Queen Anne but we lefty Uptowners are going to get steamrolled.
Wow, what amazing powers of prognostication from the sloggers. You guys are always right about everything, so I'm entirely positive your idiotic and oversimple breakdowns of the districts are accurate predictors of future voting behavior.
I look forward to being represented by Amazon's hand-picked candidate
what kind of lousy map doesn't zoom when scrolled!?!

Seriously tho, Mike McGinn for District 5!
dumb. eastlake should have gone to 7, and 4 gets tangletown. it's about affinities, too.
@12 Seattle Times ftw!
There map of the districts and where current council members live doesn't include Sawant. Way to rewrite history.
*their* map of....
@16, Mike McGinn lives on the wrong side of the street to represent district 5.
@18, at the time Conlin was ahead.

Per ST:
The measure has already claimed one casualty, Councilmember Richard Conlin, who just won re-election to a fifth term
@3 -- wrong they're within 1% or some similar low number. you're speculating wildly.
@1: these districts are FAR more compact and contiguous than most districts in america are. ever see a map of michigan? florida? the washington state 46th LD? the 11th? we have districts going from beacon hill to freaking renton. these are good districts. and if you don't like them, what's the alternative?
@6 you can run for a district if you live there like 120 days before the filing deadline which is like next spring sometime. right now anyone in seattle can move into a district and run for that district in 2015.
@11 insane comment. young voters and apartment dwellers voted FOR the district charter amendment. and there's no way to overrrepresent the young or renters in a districts system as you implicitly suggest -- they get one vote like anyone else.
@11 and 17: you can't shift some people without making it up somewhere else so if you did the changes you like, where are you making it up somewhere else? ever try to deal with toothpaste in a tube?
@21 districts did not defeat conlin, conlin defeated conlin.
Nimby = candidates who actually listen to constituents. How horrible.

Each district should become it's own Village.

Seattle is too big, too boring.

Smaller is funner.
I think the issue that some people have is that the urban core is split into multiple districts, and so wont have a Councilmember directly representing them. I think its a strength, since as the urban core grows, more districts will need its votes.
@11: I'm still mystified by the argument that dividing the city into districts somehow magically creates pro-neighborhood majorities everywhere. Young voters and apartment dwellers will do just fine in a district system if they vote (and I realize that's a big "if").
Hey, JR, did you see the news article about Rasmussen holding a few "mini city hall" meet-ups in his district over the next few weeks. When was the last time you heard of a city council member holding meet-ups in their own neighborhood prior to districts ?
@26: It's called "packing and cracking", and it's fundamental to the concept of gerrymandering. Boundaries are carefully drawn to send tracts with similar interests into separate districts, where they can each be ever-so-slightly overwhelmed by those with opposing interests. At the same time, the rest of your political opponents are congregated into one or two supermajority districts, ensuring they wind up the minority in the final "representative" body.…

On the map, see the boundary through the heart of the Greenwood urban village, see the Wallingford/Fremont divide, see the way First Hill has been carved like a Thanksgiving turkey, see the way the I.D. has been carefully segregated from its neighbors and lumped in with the entire Rainier Valley.

Districts 4, 6, and 7 have been classically "cracked". District 2 is classically "packed".

Of course, Thayler and Morrill will deny this until the cows come home. But their disdain for anyone who doesn't share their Lesser Seattle ethos is well-documented, as is their willingness to have lied their asses off to get their New Redlining initiative passed.
@22 It isn't speculating to note that District 1 follows only geographic boundaries. I still haven't seen any numbers - 1% of what? The nearest sized district, or most populated to least? If the assertion (which is not specific) is that they are all within 1% of the most unequal, that's closer than 1% of some other district. Also, 1% is actually not all that close, and an unequal population historically has been the single biggest factor in successful court challenges of district allocations. No matter, I voted for Charter Amendment 19 anyhow, I'm just curious what the actual numbers are and haven't seen them yet, just vague assertions.
Urbanists are fascists. they hate democracy which is why they hate neighborhood elections, it undermines the power of the developers.
1. dp -- you fail to tell us what group is advantaged or to show us with any data that the map advantages that group. you fail to show an alternative map that's so magically better and obvious. pray show us your alternative map.
2. jeez you guys whining sore loser much? get over it.
3. these will be redrawn fairly soon to adjust for differentials in population growth.
4. @29 -- the information you seek is on the seattle districts now website. at the time the districts were drawn census info was used and each district was about 88K people as per that info which was a couple years out of date. The 1% is this: the population of each district was within 1% of each other district. This is quite a tight bandwidth entirely proper under constitutional standards. The unequal populations in the court cases you cite were wildly unequal, like ratio's of some districts being 50% more people than other districts. but, should you feel this map doesn't pass muster, the federal courthouse is right downtown in district 7 at stewart and seventh I believe.
@28 Really? Got a link? Oh wait, you're unregistered, you can't link. How about a more specific note on where to find, because I've been looking all over and haven't found those numbers. You'd think with such a remarkable coincidence, that West Seattle following just the Duwamish and the city boundaries to the south ending up being 1/7th of the total population to 1% the map makers would make the data easier to discover. No, I'm not planning on mounting a court challenge but I am curious.
@31: Fairer map ideas have been bandied around repeatedly. Maps where the hundred-thousand apartment dwellers living within a mile and a half of downtown would actually be able to elect a representative. Maps where the bustling and rapidly urbanizing areas just north of the Ship Canal shared representation, rather than being subjected to the NIMBY whims of North Loyal Heights and Sand Point. Maps where the most perpetually ignored areas of southwest and southeast could come together over their shared concerns. Maps where Chinatown doesn't magically get lumped in with all the other "colored people" in parts of town with no topographical resemblance.

(Yeah, I just called the district architects racist. Look up the history of redlining in North Seattle and it becomes basically impossible not to view white bungalow "activists" over the age of 50 through that lens.)

And the map doesn't get redrawn "fairly soon". The whole point was to lock these boundaries in, so as to stagnate the city for the duration of the decade. Mission accomplished.
DP you're the one calling for gerrymandered districts. Nice try now shut the fuck up. The developers and wealthy downtown interests lost.

Wait, the map offers two people of color a chance (Sawant in 1 and the south end candidate of choice). What will you miss exactly the usual all white city Council of milquetoast white liberals in the pockets of developers?
typical grouch. I say show us your map, and you don't. you distract claiming they've been bandied about -- no link. uh, huh. then you play the race card -- the refuge of cowards.

let's say any change you propose is good, here's the other side of the coin: you can't add to a district without taking from it somewhere else and you don't once mention how'd you make up for the changes you propose in each district. so until you show the map you're like someone looking at a painting and saying "huh whatsa big deal. I coulda made it better." You can't so you distract. and you err in critiquing the redrawing process -- at large didn't get redrawn ever. districts get redrawn in a few years. a handful of years. like, in a few more cycles. so why not man up, admit you lost the election, and either show us a map and go get the signatures and change it, or if you think it's racist go file a suit, otherwise you're just bluster.

here's the fact: lump all downtown into one district, you'd get criticized for the sin of packing. just like you critique district 2! split loyal heights from ballard, ohmygod now you cracking! those are two neighborhoods that think the go together. and btw when you mention industrial areas you seem to ignorantly think district maps are drawn based on jobs -- they are drawn based on residence addresses pal. many industrial or marine areas don't have many residences and the people who work there live all over, didja know>?
half the critiques of the district map are "hey you split our community!" the other half are "hey -- you put our entire community into one district!" it's like the people who protest immigrants are both lazy, and work too hard.

show us your better map. till you do, it's just smoke.
I never said anything about "industrial areas", you lying sack of shit.

Basically, this map was designed roughly as a series of "pie slices" -- the better to outweigh each urbanized area with a sprawling outer area." Picture a map drawn in a more concentric fashion, and you've got a more representative map.
Who will run in the 5th district?
“[Our highest aim must be] to make preservation of neighborhoods and the existing single-family zoned housing an overriding priority and a criterion by which citizens may evaluate prospective mayoral and Seattle City Council candidates.”

-- Richard Morrill, sole author of the above boundary map

But I'm sure that when he made the 1/2-dozen questionable cartographic determinations listed in @28, he was totally looking out for the proportional-representation interests of renters, apartment dwellers, transit users, and people who actually wish to live in a city.
@39 Wow, he actually did say that:…

Seattle's doomed to four basic residential structures: chunky towers, 4-8 story breadloaf boxes, townhouses, and a motley assortment of single family houses. It's going to be one fugly San Francisco Jr.
He's also a liar, Colin, claiming to endorse retrofits of existing housing stock to support higher unit densities and room for more families in the city... and then explicitly working for the prohibition of those very things.
I love it when urbanist start calling their opponents 'racists'. Funny cuz I've never met a black urbanist. This is shit white people like.
How can you tell an urbanist is lying?

His lips are moving.
can't wait to see the Rings of Saturn map proposed by mr. disguntled person (d.p.). It makes so much sense: you have upper seattle, say above 135th, united with the southernmost part of w seattle and SE seattle -- you can have a district cross water the way water separates two parts of michigan, see? since they're united in being suburban or something. then middle ring districts say about five of them you draw with a compass centered on downtown. sure, put loyal heights in with morgan junction! makes total sense. progressing inward, see, we see descending ratios of homeowner to renter! this is the only way to be fair to renters. then in the core, an urban core district. Sure! show us the map, we can throw darts on it as it will look like a target, which is why you're not showing it! it would be laughable.

now here's the fact. these are pretty good districts and in EACH there are renters and SF home owners. in EACH there is a pro transit majority of about 75 to 90% -- the seattle norm. in each the obama vote was 80 or 90%. each district has people who vote for minorities, how you think cheryl chow and that guy luke and others got elected like mciver, sims, rice or harris or harrell? fact is seattle is ALL pro transit and liberal. as to density, sorry, you're arguing against the majority of voters who are concerned about unregulated density without limit and who saw at large as just a way to empower developers making the big donations. your argument is with democracy --not districts. but again, show us the map an tell us how it cleverly narrowly empwers some group with you know, data and numbers and such? thanks.
Exactly. It is democracy that these urbanist authoritarians hate. They are like corrupt Chinese communist cadre ordering the destruction of old homes in Beijing and Shanghai, driving old people out to help make developers rich.
In d.p.'s world Edith Macefield was the enemy. The developers were the good guys.
Gotta love the abuse of Edith Macefield's legacy. What Edith really disliked was assholes and liars. Like you.
...Oh, and people who told other people how to live. (That's you too.)
still waiting on the map you'd suggest DP.

a picture's worth a thousand "you too"'s, or charges of asshole and racist, right?

got a map?
"What Edith really disliked was assholes and liars."

Yes, green washing Urbanists who wanted her out of her single family home for 'progress'.
Edith lived on a block where she hadn't had a single residential neighbor in decades.

She was no "neighborhood activist" and she did not give the slightest shit what kinds of buildings were built where and when.

All she wanted was to remain in her home, which she refused to sell, as would be anyone's right anywhere.

When you try to co-opt her as a Lesser Seattle Single-Family Martyr, you disgrace her memory with your total fucking lying.
"people who told other people how to live"

I'm sorry it's the Urbanists who want to tear down single family homes like Edith Macefield's, call us racists when we dare to complain. Not all us of want to to live in an soulless Urbanist utopia like you're building in SLU.

DP, you need a good greenwash, you stink of developer profits.
Dude I met Edith Macefield. She hated the condos and all the changes and Ballard. She hated you green washing yuppie tech types.

Now fuck off back to the Seattle transit blog. You lost the districts shit. Democracy won.
Anyway, curmudgeon troll, I don't owe you one more second of my time. I listed four of Morrill's most blatantly urban-representation-dismantling decisions @28.

Any districting proposal that was designed to yield issue-neutral results would have appointed an independent commission to draw up the boundaries. Instead, the boundaries were drawn by someone with an open vendetta against apartment dwellers and vibrant, heterogeneous urban environments. His motives were clear. His results speak for themselves.
"Dude I met Edith Macefield. She hated the condos and all the changes in Ballard."
I met Edith too. She didn't love change, but she didn't particularly care as long as others let her be.

She refused to sell, and no one could force her.

But your aim is to belittle all who don't covet your bland little life, to force your priorities upon us by fiat, to kill the affordability of the city, and then to dance in your little endzone.

I have no doubt that Edith though you were a gigantic asshole.
I like how you ignore actual voters supported this change and focus on one man. It shows your devoid of intellectual honesty.
All Prop 19 proved was that a few cranks with money can fake a "grassroots movement", mislead voters about their proposal, and buy themselves an election just as well as anyone.
But your aim is to belittle all who don't covet your bland little life, "

Ha ha. Now I know what the problem is you think you're really cool.
@58 we understand it, you hate democracy. Just be honest the lie
@54 -- riight after being asked about four times to show your proposed map, YOU CAN'T SHOW A BETTER MAP. so you continue the ad hominems. nice. btw, how is it trolling or curmudgeonly to simply ask you for a better map, if you got one? See, the fact you can't show one just undermines your whole position, and you can't admit you're ....just.....wrong.

Bit of an ego blow, right?

as to independent commission drawing the map -- that was tried and didn't work previously. VOTERS WANTED TO SEE THE MAP, duh.

You say this disempowers apartment dwellers -- yeah they had all the power with the high dollar elections of at large.

the proof? the constant election of one renter after another to the city council for YEARS. Not.

"heterogenous"? minority precincts voted overwhelmingly for districts.

go ahead. show us your map. still pushing the concentric rings? how about a barber pole rotating slices approach? or the ever popular "districts a la neapolitano" with multi bands going east and west so you lump rainer beach in with lincoln park, is that your map?

what is your map? cuz if you were right, there's obviously a better map. wonder why you can't show it.
Mock all you want, @61. You'll still be full of it.

The renters on First Hill and the renters in Lower Queen Anne have a whole lot more in common with each other than they do with the Madison Valley or Magnolia, but that's who will "represent" them. This isn't an accident.

And Sugarshit, get it through your head that "democracy" is not a synonym for "no change ever".
" get it through your head that "democracy" is not a synonym for "no change ever".

I agree. that's why the majority of Seatteites voted for change and got districts. Sorry you're so bitter. Is this what happens when you leave the echo chamber you have going on at the Seattle Transit Blog?
@62. pointing out you have no better map isn't mocking. you are claiming the map was rigged but can't show a better map -- obviously you have to show one to sustain your claim. this argument is called logic, reason, debate. your failure to debate reasonably then opens you up to legitimate mocking. You want a map with renters on first hill and QA put together, FINE, SHOW US THE MAP. because that's going to be quite a loopy gerrymander hooking them up. so you are proposiing this ridiculous map?
1. a core district of downtown. 2. a so called renter's district of QA looping through SLU I guess? or a tiny sliver of it? to part of cap hill and reaching to first hill, somehow magically avoiding the single family homes on QA and the condos. 3. what is the next district, the next, the next, the next? you need seven. do it, show us the map. Fact is ALL parts of seattle that are blocks of 88K voters have some renters some SF homes some multi since hello, multifamily and renters are sort of spread out all over. I guess you now want to divide the renters of lower QA from the homes on the top? divide QA, that makes a lot of sense for a district, when we all call it QA, it has its own chamber of c, it's own identity.....just how are you going to stretch to get first hill into lower queen ann, will you use contorted districts like the ones in north carolina where they unite a minority population here and one there with an umbilical cord type elastic link producting a district that looks like two bowling balls with a band of chewing gum stretched out thinnnnnly to connect them, is that it?

fact is after you do all that you ahve EXACTLY THE SAME number of renters and SF in seattle as before. case closed. you got nothing.
and besides, had the map been drawn to lump renters together in each district then you'd be whining they were "packed together"! this is the mockable part, you critique putting like folks together and you critique putting them apart, NO map could satisfy your odd and unrealistic and internally inconsistent demands.

also, "renters" isn't usually recognized as a voting block. you want to have one? start the renters party, run a candidate for council, I am sure they will find running in a district a lot easier than at large which produced ZERO RENTERS ON THE COUNCIL.

jeez. you're just not that into logic, facts and reason, are you?
I think DP has run back to the Seattle Transit Blog for more gratifying circle jerk. No one asks him to back up his bullshit there.
@ unregistered
DP is not a crank or intellectually dishonest. Hes not always popular, or positive, but he is always honest and thinks before he types.
I for one do see the downtown core as "cracked", but I think it will become a strength. Its growing really really fast. Fast enough that it might actually be able to seriously contend with the SFH activists in multiple districts.
For example, there is a single development happening in DT that alone represents 5% of the population of QA and Magnolia combined.
" but he is always honest and thinks before he types. "

Urbanist with Tourettes. There's a lot of that in that community.
Reading all this crap a day later in comments is hilarious. I support density and I voted cheerfully in favor of the district proposal after lots of hemming and hawing, because it's a tool, and one that I think -- whatever it's originally envisioned intentions by it's authors -- cannot be controlled once unleashed. All it will do is take away central power and authority from the historical powers and authorities in the city to some degree. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Surprised by the district boundaries? Well The Stranger at least shouldn't be because they were fully described in the charter amendment that The Stranger endorsed (…).

That's right- gerrymandered or not, the majority of Seattle voters endorsed a district map written by the "neighborhood activist" charter amendment writers, who, by The Stranger's own admission while they were endorsing the amendment, "have opposed density, have opposed transit, and basically want to send Seattle back to 1972." Great job, Stranger, and great job, Seattle voters! Redistricting will be done by a committee appointed by the sitting mayor and councilmembers, so, good luck with those 'fair and balanced' districts in the future.

I was never for this plan, and I was very disappointed to see it pass. I believe the Stranger endorsed this initiative under the rubric of diversity. Instead, what we we will get is a council more dominated by NIMBYism, gerrymandering, and inter-district squabbling than it already was, while these vested interests (mostly Faye Garneau, the primary funder of this amendment, and her commercial property interests on Aurora).

In conclusion, if you voted for this amendment, you're either an asshole or an idiot (or both, it's not mutually exclusive). If you voted for it and are complaining about it now, eat a bowl of dicks.
* while these vested interests take advantage of the political divisions for their own ends.
"you're either an asshole or an idiot"

Urbanists - such nice people.
@26 and @28
Just look at the House of Representatives. More people vote for Democratic House members, but Republicans control the chamber. Even without gerrymandering, you could easily get the same result, just by drawing "natural" boundaries. This is because urban areas are overwhelmingly Democratic, and suburban areas are just barely Republican. Or the suburban area is completely split, but includes enough rural voters to make the difference. This is the problem with districts.

Of course, the advantage is that you have regional representation. So now, if you really care about sidewalks, then you can elect someone who can bring it up at every meeting (and be shot down at every meeting). If there is a bigger issue that needs a vote, then maybe you get your sidewalks. That isn't really more representative, of course, unless you think one of the advantages of a republican system (note the little 'r') is the horse trading. I think it is a disadvantage, personally (the best part about republican rule is that smarter, more knowledgeable heads can prevail).

A better system than both is to simply elect at-large representatives (which is what we used to do) but elect them proportionately. Dozens of people could run, and voters pick their favorite 9, in order.

Of course, candidates with more money might have more influence. That is the other advantage of smaller districts. But as we saw last election, money isn't everything (Conlin lost despite spending more money). Furthermore, this is where parties (formal or informal) as well as endorsements can play a big part. Part of the reason Sawant won is because she called herself a socialist. The other reason, of course, is because The Stranger endorsed her.
I always love when people point at a map and say it's gerrymandered because it wasn't drawn to favor their personal political persuasion... District 1 has approx. 1/7 of the city's population, and that helped make the decision to go with 7 districts, and they began there which is why it fits so much more geographically than the others. In other places you have to make adjustments to fit the population requirements, so some group is always going to lose.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.