Neighborhoods: Can they matter again in McGinn's Seattle?
The Seattle Model of involving neighborhoods is emulated in much of the world, but it fell from favor here over recent years. Even after making a smart hire for a Neighborhoods director, Mayor McGinn faces big decisions.
There's a lot to be learned from talking to former Department of Neighborhoods Director Jim Diers about community building and what he’s learned from his travels promoting what has come to be known as the Seattle Model of neighborhood organizing and bottom-up planning. His book, Neighbor Power, a sort of “how to” of neighborhood organizing has been well received around the world — there’s now a Chinese edition — and given him the opportunity to travel to other places to see firsthand how communities deal with some of the same problems and opportunities he worked on here in Seattle.
Diers is excited to see other places embracing strategies and practices that were developed right here in Seattle but laments the fact that they have fallen out of favor at home. Nearly a decade after his departure, Seattle's department lacks leadership and is struggling to find its mission.
There are a lot of reasons why we should care about what happens with the department. With the right leadership and focus, it can again be a valuable tool for people across the city working to improve their neighborhoods.
It will be up to Mayor Mike McGinn to figure out what he wants from Neighborhoods. Will he merge it with the Office for Economic Development and Human Services? Will he make a commitment to giving more power to the neighborhoods? And what does that mean and how will it be structured?
McGinn is the inheritor of questions that have, in fact, gone unanswered for nearly a decade and have led to poor morale and frustration for a group of people committed to helping neighbors understand their government and help them build projects and community.
So how did we get here?
When Greg Nickels took office in 2002, he made some very good moves organizationally and some moves that would be perceived as heavy-handed. He created a system for making decisions, solidified power in the mayor’s office that had eroded to the city council, and created a strong policy team.
Entering office in the economic downturn of the dot-com bust, Nickels had to make some severe cuts. At the same time, Diers was advocating forcefully for his department and the neighborhoods it served. There was also unease within other departments that the Department of Neighborhoods was more on the side of the neighborhood activists than city departments.
In fact, Neighborhoods, through its neighborhood service center coordinators and neighborhood plan managers, was driving a lot of city policy. This was all part of the Seattle model of bottom-up planning. And a lot of people didn’t like it.
So, Nickels fired Diers and eliminated the neighborhood development managers — who were responsible for neighborhood plan implementation— but kept the service center coordinators. He also created the Office of Planning and Management (OPM) and moved the planners from the now defunct Strategic Planning Office (SPO) to various departments, mostly to Seattle Department of Transportation and the Department of Planning and Development. He hired a new director for Neighborhoods, changed its mission, and gave it the difficult task of managing the newly created Race and Social Justice program.
This lasted just long enough for the new director to alienate other department heads and many community members, who wondered where this was all headed. It was, in fact, headed to another department, the Office of Civil Rights, where it is currently staffed by former DON and human services employees. While there is still a Race and Social Justice component within the Neighborhood Matching Fund program, the training and outreach is largely handled at the Seattle Office for Civil Rights.
Eventually, Nickels had to replace another Neighborhoods director. A new director was hired, had similar success in alienation, and has now been replaced by the current mayor, Mike McGinn.
The good news for the department is that employee morale should improve with the hiring of Bernie Matsuno. Matsuno worked with Diers in the department, has strong community ties, believes in the mission (the original one), and has the support of the staff. However, Nickels also brought her in as an interim director at one point in the post-Diers era, so it remains to be seen whether this signals a change in direction in the new administration.
So, the larger question for McGinn is still what to do with the department? He deserves praise for making a good hire. But now he must make a decision: Should Neighborhoods be the conduit for interaction between the public and line departments, or should departments do this work themselves? Currently, we have both, which is the worst of all worlds given the budget constraints at the city. A decision must be made.
For Diers, it makes the most sense to have a single department, geographically located, with close ties to neighbors to act as the connectors or the conduit for interaction with the city. The department's staffers develop the relationships both within the city and within the neighborhood and across neighborhood interests, making it easier for the city and the neighborhoods to work as partners and help people understand what the neighbors want and what the city can do.
That approach also includes targeting investments and helping neighbors match it with sweat equity and volunteerism. This is the strategy of the Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF), which has been copied in Sydney, Dublin, Victoria and many other cities. Diers does a lot of traveling carrying the word about how to build community and get things done.
And while we still have a NMF program it is about a third of the $4.5 million a year it used to be under Mayor Paul Schell. (The value to the community is probably further reduced after you factor in inflation and the fact that some staff salaries are now paid out of the fund.) And while I wouldn’t expect it to be at those levels anytime soon, nor would that probably be a good idea, the model works as a way to leverage public investments and build community at the same time. It also forces departments to work together, as many of the projects are interdisciplinary.
In the United Kingdom, Diers is helping develop a Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF) across the country. The fund is currently set at $126 million and they are hiring 500 organizers and training 5000 community members to help communities create and develop projects. The UK is doing this at a time of slashing pensions and public spending, because the government sees it as a way to make investments in community go farther through community participation. Other strategies include neighborhood challenge grants, time banking, and participatory budgeting.
In Australia, Diers is helping the Municipal Association of Victoria develop bottom-up planning. When farmers in Golden Plains there were picketing city hall to protest inadequate services, the local council members said there was no money to enhance services. The community initiated bottom-up planning. About one-quarter of the 16,000 residents participated. Not only did they develop a plan, but the residents implemented most of the recommendations themselves. The Golden Plains Council soon had the highest citizen approval rating of any local government in Victoria.
Diers also has an interesting observation about the strength of community: Those places that have a high number of non-profit agencies generally have weaker community ties. He sees this largely due to non-profits taking the lead and neighborhood people thinking that someone else can do the work. The professional advocacy groups are also much better at lobbying and can devote staff to setting the agenda.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Governments crave stable growth. But volunteerism is far more volatile, peaking and contracting as issues occur and leaders step forward. The Dept of Neighborhoods is stuck in the middle. Sucking off the annual Matching Fund tit became the consuming purpose of many neighborhood groups. So if I were in charge, the Matching Fund would sunset for five years every five years.
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate
One way to address this question, of course, would be to elect our City Council members by district rather than at-large. Most American cities do it this way. The reason: Members elected by district are responsive to their districts. Voters in their neighborhoods reelect or reject them.
Members elected at large are accountable to everyone and no one. Most often, they become responsive to downtown money and power. The theory, hereabouts, is that Council members elected at large will have a larger, wiser citywide vision than those who would be elected to represent supposedly parochial neighborhoods. Is that our experience here?
How would we feel about a state legislature and Congress all elected at large?
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
The hiring of Bernie Matsuno, who worked with Diers in the department, and has spent decades getting to know the inside workings of our government, is the brightest ray of hop our neighborhoods have seen for a very long time. Matsuno has a proven track record of navigating the often treacherous shoals of competing City departments and the powerful "non-profits" that have increasingly shouldered their way into every discussion, too frequently resulting in decisions not in the best interests if Seattle's neighborhoods.
Some of the load once carried by neighborhood and Community Councils has been taken up by the completely independent umbrella organization, the Seattle Community Council Federation (seattlefederation.blogspot.com), an all-volunteer 501(C)(3) corporation that dates back to 1948 when it was incorporated as the Jackson Street Community Council, and due to citizen demand gradually expanded to cover the entire city. Time and time again the Federation, the longest running organization of it's kind in the US, has been the catalyst for change of a wide-ranging variety of social issues that sometimes are too much for a single community to successfully deal with. The monthly meetings are open to all and are ADA accessible.
See (seattlefederation.blogspot.com) for details.
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 11:23 a.m. Inappropriate
A council elected by districts eliminates the shroud cast over many controversial issues like access to finite city resources and allocation of funds. This is definitely a problem in this city where a few influential neighborhoods enjoy inordinate attention and favor.
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 12:16 p.m. Inappropriate
With district elections, we'd each have eight councilmembers who wouldn't have to care about us. Or nine if our own person didn't agree on whatever topic. I'll take the current way any day!
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 12:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Ummm, not quite, Matt. Seattle isn't all that large, and offended citizens can easily cross district lines to doorbell and raise funds for an opponent.
Neighborhood issues too frequently get little or no attention from any councilmember precisely because councilmembers' attention spans, their political horizons, are focused only on city-wide matters. Frankly this is one reason why the Department of Neighborhoods gained power and influence over the years -- it was filling the vacuum created by the absence of local legislative representation.
Other cities do just fine electing all or a majority of their councilmembers from districts. In fact, of all the big cities in this country (over 500,000), Seattle is one of only three that elect all their council at-large.
Personally, I'd like to be listened to by one rather than ignored by 9.
Posted Tue, Feb 15, 11 p.m. Inappropriate
I had to leave Greenlake and Phinney when the neighborhood coalitions of the 90's started going. To much interference of my privacy, too many regulations, and way, way too much city angst in planning my neighborhood, which actually grew all by itself for more than 80 years, just fine.
My home is my castle, and so is yours. Please don't ring my doorbell either, as my home is my sanctuary.
I agree with this statement "the last thing I want to see as a taxpayer are ineffective city departments hiding from the public by routing all inquiries and criticisms through neighborhood entities."
Posted Thu, Feb 17, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
The Department of Neighborhoods, before Nickels, served as a great conduit for support and resources to help improvements get realized. Residents understand best what works in their neighborhood and what needs improvement. The neighborhood plans developed in the 90's provided a blueprint to maintain continuity as volunteers got burned out and new blood was recruited to continue, providing institutional memory.
It was unfortunate that Nickels threw away all that work and left neighborhoods vulnerable to less informed city officials who "knew better" than residents what neighborhoods really needed.
Hopefully the changes being made by the Mayor represent a return to helping empower residents to make projects happen. The City benefits by realizing improved neighborhoods at significant savings through a 2:1 or 3:1 multiplier on expenditures because of the volunteer labor match.
Posted Thu, Feb 17, 12:29 p.m. Inappropriate
R on Beacon, being represented by 9 is VERY different than having the right do doorbell in elections.
Posted Thu, Feb 17, 12:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Regarding the Neighborhood Matching Fund (NMF):
NMF is not just a hand out of public funds to neighborhood groups. Every dollar in a grant requires volunteer hour match at the rate of $20 now. Diversity and outreach are major requirements of every grant. Because of these requirements, communities are built in addition to neighborhood improvements such as p-patches, parks and play grounds. Neighbors work hard, together, and make friends in the process. Because people have a vested interest in the improvement, they continue to be involved in their neighborhoods and know their neighbors. This is community building and what the Department of neighborhoods is about with safer and cohesive neighborhoods.
Posted Thu, Feb 17, 1:41 p.m. Inappropriate
"There was also unease within other departments that the Department of Neighborhoods was more on the side of the neighborhood activists than city departments."
Herein lies the crux of the problem with the City today. What we have now are those within DPD and SDOT that have taken control of the shape and direction of the city without adequate engagement with the neighborhoods. Emasculating DON has freed development interests from that pesky nuisance which is the citizenry of Seattle who actually may want a say (and have the right) to actively engage in what Seattle will become.
Witness the contrarian perspective voiced in 5 (or 6) dissenting reports out of the Neighborhood Planning Advisory Council last year which challenged the process and assertions made about the DPD lead planning process around three southeast neighborhoods. Self promotion and aggrandizement, inflated attendance and participation statistics, and gratuitous photo ops of underrepresented citizens all to distract from the reality that the department had predefined agendas for those areas related to upzoning (including MINIMUM densities) around station areas of the floundering Link. Royer's comment about non-profits taking the lead is especially true in the southeast and there we also see the growing influence of what is Seattle's "Iron Triangle": developers - non-profits - government (and citizen boards).
Or take the lamentable Trees policy direction that DPD pursued in stark opposition to the framework laid out by Council, guidance provided by the Urban Forestry Commission, and the ongoing feedback from citizens.
Further weakening the community are the substantive resources required to "squabble" over the paltry matching funds or SDOT streets fund monies made available. This year, citywide, communities will spend thousands of hours of citizens' time deciding how to spend $1.2M on streets, sidewalks, etc projects. At $30K per traffic circle or $25K per curb bulb, the net result is a drop in the bucket relative to the need - while at the same time distracting the community from real issues where their time and voice should be applied.
While many applaud the appointment of Bernie Matsuno back into DON, this will not counteract the greater change that is necessary. The departments will need to be directed and 'retrained' to shape their direction and priorities to be based on needs of the neighborhoods and not those of other "special interests".
It will be especially interesting to see which McGinn emerges - the community activist or the Great City visionary. One leads down the path to real neighborhood empowerment. The other leads down the path of disconnected benevolent leader who entrusts control to those that, to date, have not supported true community engagement.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.