From Othello Neighborhood Association (ONA) Chair Jenna Egusa Walden:
As you know, the March 14th, five-hour-long, City-run workshop was the first of the first round of 38 neighborhood update planning workshops in Seattle.
There was the usual litany of red flags present to indicate lack of thoroughness, planning and resources available. There was no agenda available until the day of the meeting, the din of the room from 90 people whispering and talking all at once and within a confined large meeting room made it impossible to hear anyone, the outreach results were very poor (the ratio of residents: city: non-residents were 1:1:1). Even worse, they ran out of half-&-half partway through the meeting. I’m not kidding, folks.
Unfortunately, grassroots community organizations were barely mentioned and certainly did not play any role in the meeting; either as a introductory asset or asked to follow through on anything with their membership/attendees in their subsequent meetings. We came. We saw. We left. Until next time…
I know the City believes that inclusiveness is the key to “keeping the peace” and making all their efforts go smoothly and with as little underbelly as possible exposed, however what it ends up achieving is a marginalized neighborhood with “stakeholders” (non-residents who show up out of interest) having an equal say in our neighborhood.
In fact, the ratio of non-residents to residents was 2:1, and a quick show of hands at this week’s ONA meeting showed that only four out of 25 people attended and that besides them, only three others knew about it.
Obviously, the City needs to think like an advertiser and better promote its purpose throughout the community. Instead, it presents another loooonnng meeting to attend on the weekend. People’s eyes glaze over.
The biggest irony here is that, in choosing not to work with neighbors ahead of time, the City is making the same mistakes with the neighborhood planning process that Futurewise did with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) legislation.
They say they want to collaborate with local communities and then fail to actually listen to those very people.
As chair of the group responsible for stewarding the MLK@Holly plan, I have some agenda ideas that might be valuable to the process, but am not sure they will be taken seriously, or even considered. And that’s not a good sign.
Hopefully, now that the process has commenced, more people will step up and get involved. I realize that this is the first workshop since the 90′s, and the wheels of government may be a bit rusty, but I remain concerned that the community’s voices won’t be heard and that our assets will be improperly used.
Related:
- TOD Debate Good Neighborhood Planning Segue (3/13/09)
- SE Neighborhood Planning Rep Delivers 1st Update, Encourages Neighbors to Get Involved (3/3/09)
- City Announces Upcoming Neighborhood Planning Meetings (2/23/09)
Who to know, where to eat & what to do in one of America’s most diverse zip codes!
{ 26 comments }
I wasn’t available for that meeting, but I’m not surprised that there were a few hitches. In the two weeks leading up to the meeting, members of the NPAC and City employees were admitting that things were moving pretty fast and that the process was still a work in progress. I don’t think any of those people knew for sure how it was going to turn out.
But I have to politely disagree with your criticism about lack of publicity. In the month leading up to that meeting, I received 5 mailers about the meeting and heard it announded at EVERY community meeting I attended that month (I’ve never been to an ONA meeting). I’m sure that they could have been more creative in their advertising, but the date was burned in my memory. I think leaders of ONA and other area neighborhood groups also have to step up and rally their troops to attend the meeting.
“In fact, the ratio of non-residents to residents was 2:1″.
Shame on the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), shame on the Department of Neighborhoods (DON), shame on the city, and shame on Sally Clark! They know better, especially Sally Clark. Sally worked for the Department of Neighborhoods and she understands how to reach out to the community. The city knows how to communicate with the REAL stakeholders who live here if they choose to do so. The city successfully turned-out the community during the original Neighborhood Plan process. They know where we live and how to plan events that bring people together. It’s all about outreach. The 2 to 1 ratio of non-residents to residents would have been unacceptable then and it should be unacceptable now. The results from such an imbalanced meeting would have been invalidated by the city in the prior planning process. I participated in the prior planning process where the city DID invalidate our planning efforts because real residents initially failed to show up and participate. We had to try again, with added financial & adminstrative support from DON.
There is evidence of a more serious problem; faux “stakeholders”. Documents obtained by a Public Discloure Request (PDR) submitted by Dennis Saxman reveal that the city has already developed a plan for Othello. The documents reveal the city’s real objective to seek out organizations that will support the city’s pre-determined agenda. In other words, DPD is only looking for groups that say “yes”. That’s not true neighborhood planning, just more of the same top-down nonsense we’ve been getting from city hall. The only transparency we’re getting is by Public Disclosure Request.
If I were the Othello Neighborhood Association I’d be asking for some real money and administrative support to conduct real outreach; mailers, surveys, door-to-door polling, and so forth. The community has successfully developed a neighborhood plan in the past but it requires tremendous support from the Department of Neighborhoods. Yun Pitre could use a part-time assistant to assist ONA in their outreach efforts.
There is an untapped wealth of ideas among Othello residents and the city isn’t making an honest effort to reach the real stakeholders. Instead, the city’s first event was most successful at turning out non-residents at a ratio which guarantees the residents voices will be outnumbered 2 to 1. That isn’t “neighborhood” planning.
Gidge,
I wouldn’t quibble about the publicity; I think you are probably right though, of course, in order to galvanize you need to do more than tell people that a meeting is occurring and they should attend. So in our smaller groups we need to be able to explain why it is or would be beneficial to “us” if someone attends and speaks out. In addition, to do this properly you would have already discussed the meeting and issues of the meeting with your constituency, which is not always possible. Not everyone uses email or computers for that matter and sometimes events are occurring before I can solicit information from all our members and friends.
Of the three sessions advertised, I attended the one at Franklin and that is all I will most likely make it to. My message has been the same for several years…
Hillman City improvements are recommended in the Hillman City/Columbia City/Genesee Neighborhood Plan that was finalized in 1999 (I believe, or approved). Recommended are streetscape improvements, signage, improvements to safety — pedestrian lighting, sidewalk repair and installation, signalized crosswalks, and many other such items are outlined for HC in the plan. Unfortunately, the only implementation of the plan has occurred is in Columbia City. As I am all too aware of this situation, my message at these sessions is just that — we have a suitable plan and need implementation of that plan.
It is fairly amusing to speak with “community leaders” and City Officials about geo-equity. Apparently, geo equity means Columbia City gets all the improvements they want or need prior to considering any improvements in other SE neighborhoods, especially HC (apparently). Now of course, the trains are a whole new reason to leave neighborhoods such as Hillman City waiting and waiting for improvements the residents, business and property owners there deserve and have already lobbied and waited for.
If you look up the Southeast Transportation Study (SETS Project 32), you’ll find that these recommendations are made again, there. Project 32 would provide HC with many of these improvements. In addition, we have a CPTED review — crime prevention through environmental design — that once again makes these same recommendations. I wrote and asked the Mayor and Council members to fund Project 32 …; it is projected to cost about 3.2 mil and I was told that was way too much money, but they approved 15 mil for N Lynden St and I’d really appreciate if someone out there would calculate and total public investments for SE to verify that the City is paying people to think of ways to not include the community of Hillman City and other similar areas. Seriously, initiative after initiative is created and promoted to leave us out — did you hear about the “main street mapping” project? If you had already participated in the NP process, whether there was any benefit to your neighborhood or not, you could not participate in the “main street mapping” project.
Another thing, I am pretty sure that I did not receive 5 mailed notices. I wonder if it was more important for folks from your neighborhood to attend and be heard than from my neighborhood or the neighborhood I represent — to someone, I mean…. ?
DG
I think leaders of ONA and other area neighborhood groups also have to step up and rally their troops to attend the meeting.
Gidge, we did try to rally the troops. However when volunteers like myself, who are already working on thin personal down-time are burdened with the outreach instead of the paid staffers of the City, then there is something wrong here.
Already, the City is relying too much on NPAC committee members to do their job for them. We can rally troops, but the purpose of this needs to be promoted and advertised more like an EVENT, not another long meeting.
I did not receive 5 flyers. But I’m not basing my conclusion on my own anecdotal experience, its from the discussion at the ONA meetings and with others.
btw Gidge, I would love it if you come to the next ONA meeting (4/28): http://othello.talkspot.com!
I’ve signed up for every mailing I can get my hands on, and I received NOTHING about this meeting. I knew it was going to happen from information coming from other sources, but I didn’t know exactly when or where. The only specific information received was an email from Jenna shortly before, far too late to make arrangements to attend.
My question is – who out there is receiving these mailings? Are they linked to a geographic area? Is our house outside of some elusive boundary, and so we are officially “uninvited” by the City to attend? I imagine most of us located between the Othello and Columbia City stations fall into this margin. It’s interesting to me, because our house is 100 feet away from the boundary of the Columbia City/Hillman City/Genessee plan, and 2 blocks away from the MLK @ Holly boundary.
If nothing else, the lack of outreach suggests that we are unwelcome or that the process is fatally flawed. Certainly the last ONA meeting (not Jenna, but the Columbia City representatives) made me feel like an interloper. This is the kind of thing I personally have both the desire and skills to support, but if its not absolutely clear that my presence is wanted, I have other places to give my time.
I unfortunately do not have the time to go door-to-door for outreach (although that would be ideal). My work hours are 60/wk on a good week plus I administer two small businesses that I own.
But ONA agenda’s and emails have been discussing neighborhood planning since last October and pushing the purpose of it for quite some time. Our last 5 meetings have always discussed it in some form or another.
I have personally met with the director of DPD, the coordinator of the neighborhood planning (DPD), Sally Clark, our SE NPAC representative and others throughout the last 3 months, as well as coordinated with community leaders in Mt. Baker and Beacon Hill about this process. The details such as dates, timelines and agenda for our planning process has been kept extremely vague and no details were given until the 3rd week of February.
Then, there was a mad scramble because the address of the workshop was incorrect and they had to resend the information to wherever.
The whole thing has been extremely unorganized and last-minute.
And tlp, all “interlopers” are welcome guests (inc. Columbia City), but if that was your first time there, it might have been intimidating….discussions at ONA meetings tend to be on the “spirited” side but boy, there is lots of passion! Don’t take that as a sign of being unwelcome, but as a place to express your opinion.
I participated in the full session on March 14. I actually thought the organization and process were not bad, and appreciated having a facilitator and recorder at each table. That said, my experience is that I, as an individual Othello neighborhood resident, had WAY too much influence over what was recorded (wonderful for me as an individual, not so good for having a representative voice of the community). In each of my groups of about 12 people around the table, I was one of two, three or four Othello neighbors – the rest of the folks were from City and County government, social service agencies and other neighborhoods come to see how the process works. Many of these people had great input and great ideas. At least at my tables those were only recorded after residents had been heard. However, on the final list you could not tell which ideas had come from the neighborhood and which had not.
I hope the City, in their other outreach efforts, does a better job of actually getting resident and business owner input. I won’t claim that we have all the answers, and I do believe that input from others can help us in developing the best possible neighborhood plan. However, if the City wants to be able to say this plan represents what the Community wants, we really need to have more of the community at the table.
Daphne-
Wow, that’s very interesting! Maybe its just me, but the process you describe sounds almost rigged to weight certain input over other input… Or at least overwhelm true neighborhood input with other input so the final analysis looks fair, when in fact the ballot box got stuffed…
I just got back from the Beacon Hill Meeting, and I thought it was fine. The city had obviously put a lot of resources into outreach–5 or 6 different language interpreters, mailings, liaisons for various communities etc.–and I heard about it in 3 or 4 ways before the event. There was plenty of food and coffee too. I’m not sure what the ratio was but there were many people from the neighborhood. The only problem was that the room wasn’t big enough, there were pillars that interfered with seeing some presenters, and it was hard to hear because there were so many people talking in a relatively small space. Also, it seems like there should be a way to go through this process without having to meet for several hours on several weekends–that’s a lot of time and I think there could be some streamlining in the future.
Frankly, I don’t believe the process was “rigged” at all. This is a pretty standard process for getting input from a room full of people. What I do think was lacking was a way to differentiate between government and non-neighborhood folks and those that have a home (residence, business or social service) in the neighborhood. I think that was an oversight that can and should be corrected in the future.
I attended and thought the facilitators failed to capture the comments in the group discussions about getting more resources to 1) deter crime: more SPD, better lighting, safety for bikers & pedestrians, traffic calming options, businesses promoting community & literacy like a bookstore, a community mined shop (Trader Joes, Pharmacia, Metropolitan market?) or year round Farmers Market and 2) attracting employers /education to the area: well paid jobs to make the area a Greentech Hub.
Jenna, I definitely don’t think volunteers should carry the bulk of the load, but I’m suprised that people from ONA (who I would expect are probably plugged-in) didn’t know about the meeting.
I think all of the criticisms here reflect the schizophrenic nature of the process thus far. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they didn’t start this early enough and now they’re playing catch-up.
I can testify that sometimes, at least in my experience, specific groups are invited and others not. For instance, May 19, 2007 at the UW; I had to make a lot of noise to HCBA included! Also, one of the organizers, from my alma mater, the Evans School told me that invitations were to come from SEDC and SEDC said that was completely untrue. I am not going to name anyone, but later, when I noted this person had lied to me, some tried to color it differently; it was a flat out lie! Too bad too — coming from our top-notch public service training program…. I was furious! I am pretty sure a couple of folks remember this.
DG
Speaking in generalities, my experience has been the city invites those who they think will be supportive of their agendas and other perspectives, regardless as to whether or not they are respected community leaders, are not welcome at the table. Also, as Gidge points out, there is a schizophrenic nature to the whole process…….that too may be intentional.
Still wondering to myself why Hillman City Business Association still supports SEDC?
Gidge,
How do you mean supports?
DG
Mistake on my part; that was not May 19, 2007 and instead was March 1, 2007. In some ways it was a rather amusing incident, at least looking back. The intention of the organizers, which by the way was not DON, was to gather the opinion of renters. So that was the litmus test for inclusion in what was billed as part of a ESPA’s “community engagement” project, was that you did not own property or perhaps even if you do/did, if you were renting an apartment or house in SE your opinion was significant, otherwise they did not desire to have you at the session.
DG
or was it 2008
geez
anyone remember
I do not believe that the City sent out due notice to people who live near the stations. I say this because I asked a friend who lives four blocks from the Mount Baker station and has owned that property for decades. She received no notice.
Jenna, you should not need to walk around and distribute leaflets. The city should do it’s job and mail out invites instead of some elaborate confusing outreach scheme which I think is gravy. How good is gravy when you have no mashed potatoes?
Actually Gidge, Last I recall it was ONA that was yet to suspend membership at SEDC. HCBA did suspend membership, but I am waiting to learn what you mean by support….
DG
mmmm….is it the kind of gravy out of the packet?
Then no goood.
While there was a lot of good effort made by the City, and certainly the director is very earnest, Othello is being the guinea pig for these workshops. Already, recommendations for improvements were being made in the Mt.Baker workshop and Beacon Hill has mobilized and demanded that the agenda get revised in a way that addresses the work their community has already done.
Gidge, the reason why most ONA members are not plugged in, is because they are not active volunteers; they mostly attend the meetings and stay informed, but that is the extent of their involvement at this time. They’re all busy professionals. It wasn’t until after this first workshop where people could relate the purpose and experience and the impact this could have on the neighborhood, that people figured it out. Then they were excited. But that is why I am saying the City needs to promote its purpose better. People are busy reading a zillion things…neighborhood planning needs to pop out more and stick its head out above all the white noise.
Even if some of you do or don’t agree with the conclusions I wrote (and that was based off of my own observations, combined with NPAC committee members and other residents who attended), I think the cool thing about this discussion, is that perhaps more people will attend the next May meeting.
But if its going to be another 5 hours of noisy round robins with big pads, I’m going to need more 1/2&1/2 there. We need an agenda that is more dynamic, more informative and educational. Don’t you think?
What would you like to see and learn about at the next workshop?
Denise, you point out one of the most glaring problems with city/state politics. Honest and real representation. The city is de-emphasizing the input from actual residents who pay the property taxes. Those who pay property taxes are also more inclined to vote. This group of voters is increasingly marginalized by the city, while those who pay no property tax are asked for their opinions about neighborhood development and costly (tax-payer funded) improvements. The status of non-tax payers is being elevated because they are more likely to offer unflinching approval of new taxes. That’s human nature, they’re not paying these taxes and they feel no pain. Why not let the property owners pay the lion’s share of all taxes? Our government is exacerbating the situation by creating division in the community and, without citizen input, declaring who is a ‘stakeholder’ and who is not, who may sit on a panel and who is unwelcome to participate. City leaders have honed their technique to fine edge. They’ve learned to call renters “stakeholders” even though their stake in the community is much, much smaller. After all, renters may pick up and move with 30 days notice. Homeowners, the real stakeholders, are trapped. They must stay and pay the taxes. Homeowners worry city leaders because homeowner’s cannot be convinced to approve every tax and every city agenda. Renters are more than happy to vote for any new tax the city proposes. This is the reason the city no longer puts much energy into soliciting the opinion of the real stakeholders. Instead, city leaders complain loudly that they must seek out all “under-represented” groups. City leaders decry the lack of diversity at community meetings, then replace the residents with city staff and hand-picked insiders and then loudly proclaim that this ‘diversity’. In fact, new stakeholders are being discovered every day who, by coincidence, seem to endorse the city’s agenda more often than the real stakeholders.
No doubt I would vote for every tax, levy or bond issue including Parks, Schools, Fire, Transportation, Roads, Libraries, Aquariums, Zoos, and much more. However, I must pick and choose among the priorities because each vote raises my property taxes. Each new tax drives up the cost of housing and makes homes less affordable. Every new tax helps to displace low-income residents and those on fixed-incomes. Each new tax promotes gentrification, forcing social changes that city leaders claim to be working to prevent. Each tax creates a barrier to homeownership for first-time buyers. Think about that the next time you vote for a new tax.
There are two solutions; change Washington’s tax structure and vote for candidates that respect voters. Washington State tops the list of the worst and most regressive tax systems in the 50 states. That means our tax system punishes lower income people. The tax code is overdue for change. We need everyone to pay their fair share, including renters and big business too. It would make for smarter voters and better government. Most important, it would reduce the behavior of city leaders to divide our community and invent new ‘stakeholders’.
Observation about the current neighborhood planning: The Neighborhood Plan update process has been designed to produce the outcome that city leaders desire. More time was spent over the last couple of years to develop a framework to produce the desired outcome than to lay out a plan for outreach to real people who live here. Our opinions are merely an obstacle to implementing their predetermined agenda. I predict chaos unless the city changes course and sets aside their agenda. Are you listening, Sally?
Denise,
You keep addressing your responses to me, but I think you meant to address them to “Whatever,” since I didn’t say anything about SEDC or “supporting” anything.
I’m loving the debate, though.
Righto Gidge, my mistake or bad as they say. Yes, it was 2008 — too exhausted to recollect correctly initially. It was “Whatever”
but I don’t know who that is, do you? Anyway, Ms/Mr Whatever, if you would like to outline more specifically your questions regarding HCBAs support of SEDC I would be more than happy to respond.
You know something that I often wonder about? I wonder why all those people you see in meetings and whom are regarded as community leaders aren’t heard from more or even some on this blog… ? I’m sure they read it, aren’t you?
DG
Wow, that is an incredible amount of whining. Most cities don’t even bother having meetings like this. Seriously, your complaint is that taxpayers didn’t buy you enough half-and-half? That they didn’t invite enough people, when clearly there were multiple mailings? That not enough residents attended?
I would guess that the number of non-residents has something to do with the fact that an overwhelming amount of property is owned by people who don’t live in Rainier Valley. Last time I went to a meeting like this, most of the questions were asked by landlords. Nothing wrong with that; if residents want to attend, it looks like they had ample opportunity. Sheesh. In the same breath that you say no one knew about the meeting, you complain that the room was too crowded.
How about actually reporting what was discussed at the meeting, rather than complaining about the process?
“That not enough residents attended?”
It may be obvious to most here, but my neighbors don’t know about any of the meetings that take place in their name. I’m sure this is by design.
If the city doesn’t want the extra input, that goes double for the local powers. Maybe it’s for the best. Keep the filth where it belongs.
Comments on this entry are closed.