I have for a long time been a critic of the hegemony of angry single-family neighbors over land use and housing policy in the city. In fact, I described single-family neighbors “as angry, entitled, immoral, classist and racist, as zoo animals and as bloodthirsty dinosaurs.” I was also a neighborhood activist and planner myself in the 1990s, working with the City’s planning office and Department of Neighborhoods (DON). Later, I became a Neighborhood Development Manager working at DON to implement 7 neighborhood plans. Based on that experience, and my years advocating for growth and density and more housing in this city, I am unimpressed with Mayor Murray’s recent Executive Order that would scramble the 13 District Councils used by the City to gather input and review for various City initiatives and programs.

First, let’s consider what the Executive Order actually says. It starts out by “establishing public engagement and outreach principles and mandates that City departments would have “equitable outreach and engagement practices that reaffirm the City’s commitment to inclusive participation.”

So far so good, pretty standard boilerplate inclusion language for any local government in our region. What’s the outcome that the Order hopes to achieve?

To build relationships and improve outcomes, especially for under-represented and under-served communities, including, but not limited to, renters, immigrants and refugees, communities of color, people experiencing homelessness, LGBTQ, low-income households, youth and seniors [by] successfully engaging community members in decision-making processes increases the likelihood of public support and better outcomes.

Oddly, many of the people who, even less than a year ago when the Times article quoted my sobriquet for angry neighbors, said I was too mean in my characterization single-family neighbors have jumped on that anti-single-family band wagon. Today, Facebook feeds of “urbanists” are often rife with articles pointing out the financial, economic and racist motives of single-family neighbors. And many of these people are constantly sniping at single-family zoning, calling for it’s elimination or at least its attenuation.

I don’t disagree. I was anti-single family when being anti-single family wasn’t cool. But I’ve also argued that bashing single-family neighborhoods might be a waste of time. Maybe we should let them have their suburban wonderland if they’d agree to let the City abolish zoning in urban villages, areas in our city designated in our city’s real Grand Bargain, the Comprehensive Plan. But OK, I’m on board the idea of breaking up single-family hegemony that keeps a wall against change around single-family neighborhoods and launches expeditions outside the castle walls to de-densify other zones as they did with low-rise legislation and microhousing, not to mention Downtown, South Lake Union, and the U District.

But here’s the non sequitur in the Order:

Avoid characterizing District Councils as representative bodies reflective of the communities they serve [and] ensure growing demographic groups are represented in City decision-making processes and barriers that discourage people from participating are eliminated . . . all City departments to develop community involvement plans

The implication, not missed by Publicola, is that the District Councils are the source point for neighborhood hegemony that have led to our horrible trajectory in land use and housing policy. But Publicola and many breathless posts on those same Facebook feeds have missed the point and have over subscribed to the idea that District Councils were somehow the heated staging ground for NIMBY opposition to growth. That simply hasn’t been the case in my 20 years in this town dealing with NIMBYs and District Councils. Sure there are NIMBYs that attend District Council meetings, but they also ride the bus, go to the local market, and ride bikes all over town. There isn’t anything in the Order or anywhere else, including in the Auditors report cited in the Order, that establishes that the fact of District Council’s lead to the exclusion of all the groups listed in the Order, or as a hotbed of NIMBYism.

The “to do” section of the order is full of stuff that DON should be doing anyway. Why aren’t they already working to

• Improve and expand inclusive outreach and engagement, as well as the creation of more equitable representative systems that are more reflective of, and accessible to, communities throughout the City of Seattle.
• Create well-designed, responsive and culturally-relevant public involvement plans.
• Build community capacity for meaningful participation and authentic outreach and engagement.
• Provide a wide range of opportunities for obtaining information and involvement in decision-making processes.
• Achieve greater equity with meaningful involvement of under-served and under- represented communities.
• Effectively and efficiently manage the use of all resources, including community members’ time

If DON hasn’t been doing these things it kind of makes me wonder what do they do all day long?

What is the big punch line of the Order?

A new citywide framework and strategic plan for community engagement, including the creation of a Seattle Community Involvement Commission

So more meetings about meetings about meetings is the proposed answer to, “What do we replace the District Council system we just blew up?”

Mayor Murray often seems to prescribe medicine that doesn’t seem to line up with the condition of the patient, like pushing for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) which will likely boost overall prices in the name of responding to “skyrocketing” housing prices. It’s kind of like treating a headache with Preperation H.

As for the “urbanists,” (I’ve started calling them ‘clickers’ because they love clicking ‘like’ uncritically on Facebook and in real life) I feel like the whole attack on District Councils is like shuffling a deck of single-family jokers in hope of getting dealt an ace — a person of color who is a renter and supports MIZ. The Order changes absolutely nothing about the fact that City Councilmembers listen to NIMBYs who are very good at organizing themselves without the District Councils. Remember One Home One Lot that goofed up small-lot legislation, and Too Much Building and Not Enough Sky that beguiled Sally Clark to start disastrous low-rise downzone legislation?

If the Mayor want’s to eliminate the greatest barrier to advancing progressive, innovative land use and housing policy, he shouldn’t prorogue the District Councils but the City Council itself. And if he wants to repeal other bad policy with the stroke of a pen, he can eliminate the Directors Rule that drives the last nail into the coffin of microhousing. The first is unconstitutional and the second, although within his power, is unlikely. But District Councils are dead; long live the Community Involvement Commission.