Ah man, remember the days when The Stranger - this very august publication - was full-steam ahead on the District + At Large council idea?

The reason these councils were made up of such, is because they were the ones interested in the "job" and the community. In the past, renters felt they had no stake in the matter, so they never applied or attended meetings. Don't make this sound like some Good Ol' Boy's Club that nobody was allowed into. Not every homeowner, just like not ever renter is the enemy.

The idea that renters are worse neighbors and worse community members is prevalent all across America. The ideal of the "American dream" of having a single family home and even owning a condo is out of reach for many people.

We need community land trusts and other ways for groups of people to own property together. If we want ownership to be the ideal we need to reimagine what that looks like.

Also, we need landlords of multifamily units to host community open houses that invite existing neighbors to meet the renters in their community. Invite people to meet each other.

This is a complicated issue and the ordinance signed yesterday does not mean that any groups doing amazing work in this city need to stop. They just will have to request the presence of the city like any other group... they won't have the automatic presence or support of a dedicated neighborhood coordinator... but that doesn't mean they can't request SDOT, or OPCD or other departments to come to their meetings. There is no reason the District Councils need to stop meeting... they just won't automatically have a staff memeber at their meeting.

At least that is the way I understand the changes.

As a long-time renter I have experienced a great deal of misconceptions about my dedication to my community. I have had many people reach out to me in the last 3 years in Seattle with similar stories of being 20-30 year renters in Seattle but still not being made to feel equal in terms of their voice at their local neighborhood meeting.

One group has it in their bylaws that you have to be a property owner to vote. That isn't welcoming to renters.

"The UPCC was chartered as a non-profit community organization by the State of Washington in 1975. It is recognized by the City of Seattle to deal with various neighborhood issues in the University Park area of the University District. Membership is only open to homeowners who reside in University Park, however, other residents are very welcome at our events."

http://www.upcc.org/about-upcc/

Many of the groups meet in churches.... not everyone wants to go to a church to talk about Safe Routes to Schools. The church of at least one neighborhood group has a strong anti-gay sentiment. That is not welcoming to LGBTQ folks.

Here is a lot of sentiment I've been faced with by some neighbors for the last 7 years in the U District:

“Renters, they don’t care about neighbors. We don’t know who’s going to move in."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/busine…

If renters (I am one) are feeling disenfranchised, they have only themselves to blsme. Go to a fucking meeting once in awhile.

Holy shit, Ed Murray has my vote for his re-election!

@5 wait really? Hasn't he he been either easily the worst or second-worse Seattle mayor in the past 30 years?

@1 off-topic.

@2,4 see @3. Some of these councils absolutely do block renters.

Please try to focus on the subject when writing articles like this. The title, the narrative about the Roosevelt Neighbor's Alliance, etc. ... neighborhood groups like that won't be affected by this change. The District Councils did give them a role in some city funding for things like street crossings, but there has never been any voice in major issues, and there has never been any support in it for neighborhood groups themselves. Barely even support for the District Council infrastructure, if I remember right the associated City Neighborhood Council staff didn't rate an office with a telephone. The mayor is dissolving an institution that was never given any important function anyway. The community councils will continue to be an irritating source of informed criticism for the mayor's initiatives - they are not affected at all.

What will be interesting is to see how the DON proposes to engage a representative sample of the community, in a way that really promises to surface whatever reasonable disagreements citizens might have with city plans. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan for example - hundreds of pages of slippery language - how many hours of sitting in a focus group would it take the average person off the street, before you'd start getting opinions that weren't just predicated on whatever the DON staff has been feeding the focus group?

@1: Uh, dude, we're talking about a completely different system. Thanks for trying, though.

go ed! stick it to those white homeowners who care about their neighborhoods enough to show up! they're the worst!

picking this fight makes him look even more ineffectual.

@6 Yeah, in my perfect world, it'd be McGinn* telling the neighborhood councils to fuck off, but I'll take what I can get. I'm pro-growth, pro-transit, and anti-NIMBY, anti-BANANA. I view density as an amenity. Not giving a flying fuck about what neighborhood councils actually gets me to the point of thinking about donating to your campaign.

The only thing that would please me more is if Murray promised to listen to these NIMBYs and then stabbed them right in the back.

*(Before you say it, lemme guess! McGinn is/was easily the worst or second-worst Seattle mayor in the past 30 years.)

@9 I'm a white homeowner. And I have much better things to do than show up to a meeting of cranky old white homeowners. Like work, or... just enjoying life.

Put this public comment bullshit on the Internet, like Sound Transit did with ST3's draft plan. I showed up there, because I could provide public comment while alone with my thoughts, with the Internet at hand for extra research, and at a time of my own choosing. It wasn't in a room full of NIMBY assholes spouting non-factual bullshit at an inconvenient time.

@9:

See @3, per @7.

"Diversity needed: Here's the view at last night's Ballard District Council meeting"

Does The Stranger know that in the 98107 and 98117 zip code (Ballard), according to the 2010 Census, the population is 91% white and the median age of this area is about 40? Some 5% are Asian and 1.5% black.

If you want the group to be properly representative of the neighborhood's demographics, then out of 20 members of the public council, 18 should be white (likely of Nordic origin, as per the neighborhood's historical/ethnic identity), one is Asian, and one would be a mixed race Hispanic.

Just how are neighborhoods (no matter who you think comprises a neighborhood) to have any sayso with the City now that the Mayor has shot down District Councils AND the citywide council that funneled those DCs' comments to the Mayor and instead appointed (yes, appointed) a Commission to give him input? "Tell me what I want to hear; that's why I appointed you!"

Neighborhood councils coulnd't be more easy to overtake by a small number of committed citizens, renters, urbanists, yimbys, or whatever labeled people you wish to organize. If you can't take over a neighborhood council, are you really qualified?

I'm a pro-growth renter in Wallingford who sees Doug Trumm's efforts as little more than politically motivated whining after having no idea how to effectively get involved. What did he do? He walked in to his neighborhood council and basically told everyone what they needed to do differently. Classic social-change fail, and it's equally problematic that The Stranger doesn't acknowledge this. To boot, his cited piece in the Urbanist fails to provide any actionable insight.....we know all of what he pointed out, and he offers just one perspective.

I'm a member of the Ballard District Council. In Ballard civic groups like BDC have been around making stuff happen since Model-T Fords were the thing to drive, since before Ballard was part of Seattle. How many of you take time to be involved in local civic life or non-profits? I was a renter for many years, volunteering since the age of 27, and I never had anyone treat me with disrespect because I was young or a renter. I was in awe of the knowledge and abilities of the older volunteers I served with, and I learned a ton. Pick an issue that matters to you, walk in the door, get in there and commit. Figure out what you care about and contribute to Seattle. It's a beautiful city because of citizen volunteers.

Back when I lived in the CD, I tried and failed to get on the "neighborhood council"... or even find out where/when they met. Or really any information about it. The whole system was laughably secretive and opaque. The only info I could find from the city's website lead to a disconnected phone number and a boarded up retail space. Yet somehow the "neighborhood council" was still functioning and having an influence on City Government.

It's about time something was done.

This article fails to acknowledge that one reason there are fewer renters on the community councils is that they simply DO NOT SHOW UP!

That said, the Capital Hill council is 87% renters, the Waalingford Council is vibrant with young people interested in their neighborhood, and Doug Trumm was INVITED by the Wallingford Council to run for a position on the board, but lost.

What do young techies think will happen when da Mayor is finished using them for his political ambitions? Never thought I would see the day when young people would side with the establishment and corporations against the citizen activists. Open your eyes! You are being used!

@18 Never thought I would see the day when young people would side with the establishment and corporations against the citizen activists.

Citizen activists aka NIMBYs don't build housing. "The Establishment" and corporations do.

Put affordability rules on it, sure, fine, whatever, I get it, and I'm for it. HALA, mandatory inclusionary housing, etc, no problem!

But I'd like to a LOT more single family homes torn down to make way for multi-family housing.

@14- "Just how are neighborhoods (no matter who you think comprises a neighborhood) to have any sayso with the City now that the Mayor has shot down District Councils AND the citywide council that funneled those DCs' comments to the Mayor and instead appointed (yes, appointed) a Commission to give him input?"

With a fucking ballot, the same way every other citizen in a democracy expresses their wishes. And any neighborhood folks who are aghast at this move should direct their anger towards the Queen Anne Community Council and other neighborhood groups that have acted as de facto anti-growth political action committees.

Good old 'alternative' weekly The Stranger taking aim at the neighborhood activists and siding with the Establishment. It's like Savage became one of the Koch brothers and Heidi Groover is too naieve to see the big picture.

Ed's proposal is nothing more than attempt to pull funding and resources from groups that aren't politically aligned with the current council and mayor. It's a highly undemocratic move and The Stranger Et all seem to be fine with it because it serves their agenda. Who really stands to benefit when the neighborhood groups have their legs kicked out from under them? Developers. That's who stands to make billions as they displace low income renters and homeowners alike. Keep pretending the developers care about YIMBYS beyond anything other than harnessing their misdirected rage to bake a buck. They don't.

My neighborhood (not District) council has provided a safe haven for white boomers with easy work schedules to force their own interests on a neighborhood that is much more diverse in race, age, and income. They use terms like "democracy" and "freedom of speech" to intimidate without any actual understanding of what they mean, confusing legal filings with democracy and simple disagreement with censorship. Any emails I get from the council or a handful of people associated with those who've dominated it for 20 years are automatically copied into a folder labelled "evidence" in case I ever have to file a harassment suit. The city needs to connect with its citizens in a way that doesn't pander to microcosmic Trumps like this.

The City Council has taken over Parks and Rec, next districts. How can anyone support something that the council has no idea yet what it will look like or how it will work. Just another anything but the status quo move.

Hmm, cut ties with the only organized system we have to get feedback and input from neighborhoods BEFORE giving details of the system that will be imposed sometime later. Yeah, seems legit.

Good news renters! You know those Neighborhood Councils that didn't adequately represent you because you didn't ever attend them (maybe because once a private individual suggested that as a renter you don't have as much of a stake in the community and this made you feel bad)?

Well Mayor Murray is blowing all that shit up! And what he's replacing it with is surely better for you renters because none of the actual details for it exist yet!

The reason why the majority age is over 40 is because meetings are typically in the evening, when people with families are putting their kids to bed, or people are trying to negotiate leaving work and figuring out dinner. I'm not going to pay for childcare to attend a 2 hour monthly community council meeting and then another 2 hour monthly district council meeting.

That also assumes that the community and district councils are welcoming and open. There's a wide variety out there, and you're pretty much screwed based on geography. I've had district councils (and city district council staff) ignore my email questions despite repeated followups. I've had community councils post the wrong date and location for their meeting on their website, and ignore my first two emails asking to speak at the meeting (the third was finally answered after I cc'd a bunch of people). I've had people at community council meetings (back when I was a renter) tell me things like, "you're a renter, why do you care/matter?" when pushing for making our residential street safer. I've had grant applications denied by district councils for unknown reasons because a community council has their own plans for an area; and then never communicate or implement their own plans. And by and large, district councils will completely ignore your grant applications unless you show up and give them a personal presentation in the evening (usually with only a week's notice). That's just not fair to anyone who has a compelling grant which improves the city, but can't make the meeting.

I've had plenty of positive experiences as well with district and community councils, of course. But the fact that they're geography-based means that if you're stuck with a poorly performing one, there's not much you can do about it other than move. And I can take a look at the varied ages and skin colors of the people that live on my street, and then look at who makes up my local community councils and see an obvious disparity.

Oh, and @1? District Council != (district-based) City Council. The former are volunteers, the latter are elected officials with salaries.