Neighborhood activism and activists haven't changed - Mr. Valdez has (and not for the better).

It's like an article by a developers tool.

Though the era of US economic and political superpower may be slowly coming to an end, the economic and political influence of the Puget Sound (i.e. greater Seattle) region, as well as a dozen or so other American metropolitan areas, may be at the beginning of a sustained period of growth. This success will not be shared by all cities – some will grow and prosper, others will not.

Some may wish for Seattle not to grow or change, but that is simply not realistic. PSRC projects that this region will add another 1.7M people by 2040, representing average growth of over 50,000 people per year. Even during the worst recession in modern history, the Puget Sound has had net in-migration of approximately 200,000 since 2008 [Conway Pederson]. The rate of growth will likely only increase as the economy recovers. Seattle has created almost 40,000 jobs in the last year. Change is inevitable.

Given this, we face an important question: How do we want to grow and what sort of a city do we want to become? I think Roger's piece thoughtfully addresses this issue and I agree that "neighborhood advocates need to recognize that it's all about planning for growth, not stopping growth or shifting it somewhere else. Change is scary and even painful. But the city and its neighborhoods need to organize around something other than trying to stop bad things from happening."

I hope that as a metropolitan area, we can think big and set bold, ambitious, and inspiring goals for ourselves.

Roger, you really need to give up the idea that because you once worked on neighborhood plans you're a neighborhood guy. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, out here buys it.

The neighborhood movement is doing just fine, thank you, despite concerted efforts to kill it. Every day, committed VOLUNTEERS help concerned citizens connect with City Hall to get a dizzying array of issues addressed. Sidewalks, public safety, business building, speeding, traffic ontrol, transit, exploding gas lines, and land use are only samples of what real neighborhood volunteers -- most of us elected by the neighborhoods we serve -- handle on a MONTHLY basis.

Neighborhood volunteers provide millions, if not tens of millions, of free labor to this city every year. We are often the first call or email made, dramatically increasing city efficiency and resident satisfaction. We use our knowledge to help people navigate the byzantine pathways of City Hall.

I also reject the consistent claim we're anti growth. No real neighborhood person is anti growth -- particularly those of us who volunteer in largely single family neighborhoods. We are fiercely committed to growth in our city's urban villages and centers and we completely buy into the concept of creating walkable communities.

The much maligned folks in Roosevelt, remember, created a plan that calls for more density in their neighborhood than even the Mayor's self-created revisionist plan.

So , Roger, quit declaring dead a "movement" you were never part of. We're doing the little things every damn day that keep this city moving and will continue to do so long after people like you disappear.

What is even more disconcerting is the dismantling of the Department of Neighborhoods by the current mayor, another self-annointed "neighborhood activist," along with the shuttering of community centers. Yes, budgeting scarce resources is difficult, but small investments in our neighborhoods pay big dividends as people connect with and help each other to build stronger communities and in the process have a stronger voice in the civic affairs of the City. Jim Diers and his department are greatly missed.

I resent the idea that I must accept growth and that stopping growth cannot be a goal for those of us who wish for a less crowded city. Why shouldn't I resist it if that's how I feel? In my north Seattle area I see a majority of the projects with housing above retail space less than fully occupied by residents and far less than fully occupied by retail. That suggests to me that, hello, some relatively significan number of people are not interested in this model. So we have these big light killing buildings like the one on the lot where Albertson's once stood on the east side of Greenlake, looming, with near empty ground floors.

I am just fine, thank you, with letting other cities become warrens of tenements if that's what they choose. It's not what I choose for Seattle and I believe I have that right. I believe the property taxes, and all the other taxes I pay, buy me a voice in this issue. I am tired of reading about people accepting the flawed premise that growth is inevitable without any questions. That's what's leading to the blight of ugly condos and townhomes, poorly constructed for the most part and without any charm, interest, or character. In my opinion, that's what growth's costing us and I find the price too high.

The neighborhood matching fund program did provide some excellent brick and mortar improvements to Seattle's parks, playgrounds, school grounds, etc. More troubling were the requests for studies, surveys, outreach, social justice, awareness, consultants, f.t.e's. with benefits, and ongoing mission creep. 'Neighborhoods' became a job resting place for strategic planners and city employee wannabies. As for the density issue, just look at the monsterous, hideous townhouses, and the inability to build decent under-level parking for all the new units. Add to that the failed policy of forced commercial/retail ground floor level and the overall end result of ignoring years of neighborhood planning and you get a burned out, aged bunch of single family zoning activists who were and are mostly correct in their ideas of what makes for a decent and vibrant local neighborhood.

Speaking as a former participant in the neighborhood planning process on Capitol Hill (1995-98) and very briefly in the Phinneywood Area, I think this tension was always present. The old guard (anti-growth) was centered around the Community Council and the new guard was recruited into the planning process. Many of the old guard were single family homeowners from north Capitol Hill and did not live inside the planning boundaries. Old guard walked away from the planning process. I think they viewed the process as controlled by City Hall. It was a sham designed co-opt the neighborhoods to get them to accept the City's Urban Village ideas. Because of this walk out planning moved forward pretty quickly. Lots of new ideas were incorporated. We felt like we were going to make Capitol Hill available to everyone who wanted to live there. Later when the planning process entered its final phases, many of the old guard returned. They strongly opposed many of the plan elements. The plan was watered down.

I left Capitol Hill around this time. Ironically, my departure was due to the lack of affordable family housing options, something we were pulling for in the housing element. There weren't many two and three bedroom units available. I have heard that the implementation of the plan was more problematic. the goals of the plan were not pursued.

Ironically, the Pike/Pine planning area which didn't have this tension has really prospered. In contrast, I see a lot of vacant storefronts on Broadway when I go there now.

As a footnote, I moved to the Greenwood area. I went to some of the library siting meetings. I was amazed how nasty people were to each other. The debate was whether or not to site the library in the old McDonald's that now houses the Green Bean. I remember someone flat out saying that children would die if the library was up there. The rejoinder was that the first person was a yuppie snob from Phinney Ridge who already had a library, in Fremont. I have no idea where McGinn was in all of this because I got turned off and left. I seemed like more of the same and I was tired.

@mspat - well said. Endless growth is a paradigm that we need to move beyond. Some folks, sometimes including those who depend on growth for their paycheck, are loath to recognize that there can be "enough"; and the definition of "enough" does not have to equal the theoretical limit.

I'm not buying this, either, Roger... The Neighborhood Movement is alive and well and doing just fine in many corners of our city. One of the bigger problems is that the City no longer supports these efforts in the same way it used to. Funds for staffing support and resources have been cut, and the City has no trouble simply ignoring the wishes of the neighborhoods at times.

However, I do like your suggestions above about creating some groups that might have an interest other than just geographic and reminding existing groups to be welcoming of renters, business owners, and others.

Get out and visit a little more, though... As someone who just spent a Sunday morning volunteering to distribute 1,250 flyers directly to residents about an upcoming forum planned solely by concerned neighborhood residents, the "movement" is doing just fine.

Oh by the way the neighborhood groups got Children's Hospital to reduce it's employee trips by auto by 50%. So Children's got creative, increased the price of parking, and built bicycle facilities (lockers, showers, bike cages), and subsidizes those who ride a bike at $100/mo. The net result was this year's Group Health Bike to Work month had these results:

Seattle Children's 64 (teams) 458(total riders) 122(new riders) 4430(trips) 56513.2(miles) 52.7% (Days of work ridden)

http://commutechallenge.cascade.org/organizations/

It is the organization with the most number of teams & riders, beating out Boeing!

Which is both good for the employees, better health, it probably reduced the costs of healthcare for them as well. In addition to reducing the traffic in the neighborhood.

Somebody up above ("Urbanist") wrote this: "PSRC projects that this region will add another 1.7M people by 2040, representing average growth of over 50,000 people per year."

PSRC estimates are not reliable. The PSRC is, for the most part, just reps of local governments charged with distributing federal grants. Those individuals always overstate population (and employment) trends – it’s in their interests to do so.

PSRC data were used for the 1996 Sound Transit ballot measure. That measure notes there were about 2.5 million people in the RTA boundary then. It also said that about 1.4 million more people would be living here by 2021. Well, we’re only ten years from 2021 now, and there are only 350,000 more people in the RTA boundary now than there were in 1996. That's an average increase of 23.3K people per year (well less than half the projected population increase rate).

The crystal ball the PSRC uses these days is no clearer than the one it had in 1996, and its overstatement biases are stronger than ever.

Get rid of the at large council and you will see a change.

Break the council into 4 at large and 5 districts.

The busybody network breeds its own type if cronyism.

I think the point here is that the "neighborhood movement" is so detrimental to the city right now that either it needs to change to allow people to move here, or activists will focus their efforts on taking away the neighborhoods' ability to stop new growth.

Don't expect a warm welcome, Ben.

Yes that was likely the point, Ben. What you missed was its self-serving falsehood especially the part about all activists are single family home owners. DDMiller's error is assuming all activists are members of community councils. Even if that were the case, not even all members of community councils are single family home owners. These premise errors stem from and further the assumption that only single family zoned areas are "neighborhoods."

Roger still needs mega-help with effective argumentation. His evidence of the claim just clarified by Ben is Children's Hospital being effectively called on its effort to take the easy route and very oblique opinions from his efforts to enter the fray of Roosevelt's sense of betrayal over its "designated growth area," i.e. transit station. Slim Pickens!

The neighborhood movement is what has caused low-income housing developers and proposed shelter providers to be sued and slammed for trying to fill the needs that almost every neighborhood (except perhaps Laurelhurst) has. The neighborhood movement allowed three people--three--to stall a Compass Center project in Ballard and cause Compass to be ought several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to fight a zoning lawsuit that should never have been brought. The neighborhood movement is what enabled one single naysayer in Lake City to be able to make McGinn back down from putting a shelter into the old fire station. The naysayer simply sent 40 hours a week in City offices presenting himself as "the neighborhood". The neighborhood movement is basically at least 50 separate mafias, and it's destroyed any sense of civic--or civil--community.

Thank you sarah for showing the problem with loose definitions. From what I can tell, what Roger takes offense at and claims to have been a part of is the "neighborhood movement" that the City Council promoted in order to realize the comprehensive plan it was modifying and even more to the point to keep it from going down to defeat in Council. Roger objects to the "stewardship" efforts of a single place informed by those who remember the movement. Getting Children's Hospital to act responsibly was also the effort of a single, neighboring community council.

Other than that, there is not much of anything like what one could call a neighborhood movement. Furthermore, the City currently sees one as inimical and has returned to divide and conquer. The irony is that Roger's constant efforts to rally opposition to something that no longer exists represents the best chance of revival of the genuine article —one, BTW, that works with, not against, non-profit housing providers. Check your history.

As always, Mr. Valdez fondly remembers the "good old days" before he became a shill for the density addicts and hyper-developers. In north Seattle we currently are "updating" a Neighborhood Plan that has already increased density to several times the high 1999 goal, and is now being required to even further increase it without even a hint of the infrastructure concurrency required by Seattle's Comp Plan.
The resulting warren of "instaslum" high-rises packed with low-income residents, with a dearth of social services and scarce transportation options serves mostly as a conduit for channelling dollars to low-income housing providers and to developers looking for the next easy buck.

mspat refers to the tenements of other cities, which some, such as Baltimore, have now bulldozed in response to decades of mismanagement and crime. The fewer we build here, the fewer we'll need to inevitably destroy to restore some semblance of "neighborhood" to our neighborhoods.

As noted by afreeman the Mayor has not only hindered the Neighborhood Planning process by his heavy thumb on the balance, he has essentially gutted it by removing virtually all of the Department of Neighborhoods' reps from the actual process.

What, me worry?

Roger, I try to think of a fast growing city I would consider living in. There's Brasilia, that's the screaming model for fast growth but, of course it's not a reasonable comparison. Think instead about Phoenix, Denver, LA (another model), Dallas-Forth Worth, Huston. Compare their growth rate to what Seattle "must" plan for. Do we really want to be in that category?

Roger Valdez: “neighborhood advocates need to recognize that it's all about planning for growth, not stopping growth or shifting it somewhere else.”

Ben Schiendelman: “I think the point here is that the "neighborhood movement" is so detrimental to the city right now that either it needs to change to allow people to move here, or activists will focus their efforts on taking away the neighborhoods' ability to stop new growth.”

Both way off base—

First, there is no all-powerful neighborhood movement. I have been deeply involved in neighborhood planning from the early 80s on. In Fremont, a neighborhood where “growth” has never been primarily focused on single family zoned (SF) areas; we have a large percentage of L, NC, and I zones. Our concerns have always been about the impacts of growth on residents’ (current and new) quality of life: adequacy of infrastructure and concurrency, not “keeping people out.” The City’s promise in the ‘90s neighborhood planning process—take more growth and we’ll provide the roads, libraries, parks, etc.—was in large part broken by the City because it had and has inadequate funding or process to make it so. The City in turn was simply complying with the dictates of arbitrary population (and job) growth allocations by non-elected bodies like the PSRC. The ultimate result, exemplified by Mayor Nichols’ first day firing of Jim Diers, has been the almost total emasculation of DON in favor of the developers’ DPD. The anecdotes by some posters notwithstanding, the “neighborhood movement” currently has very little ability to “stop growth” in this town. Don't forget we have a huge unused zoning capacity without a single change in the code.

Second, missing from the article and most posts is any consideration of the actual impacts of growth, and whether and how we should consider those impacts as we regulate and permit development. Valdez, Schiendelman, and others say we must accept growth; it’s inevitable. We are very good at evaluating the potential consequences of various future scenarios of growth, but very poor at using those evaluations to direct where and how it should occur. (On the bigger picture of why growth is not “inevitable” or even necessarily a “good thing,” I recommend Richard Heinberg’s latest book: http://www.amazon.com/End-Growth-Adapting-Economic-Reality/dp/0865716951 .)

Roger Valdez finishes by saying we need to add more “citywide perspective to neighborhood projects and city budgeting.” This is backwards; the neighborhood planning process already largely excludes the “neighborhoods.” We already have plenty of citywide perspective and control over the planning process. Neighborhoods are not “citywide,” they are by definition local. It is time for the power to plan for growth and how to mitigate for its impacts to be shifted back toward the neighborhoods, not further away from them.

A first step (as suggested by Mr Baker) would be district city council elections.