Recently the Council has received several messages (and I have personally received more than several messages) concerning the need for improved communication with the City. As you know, I have always been completely on board with this notion.
Since the various Marina Hotel proposals we’ve seen an increasing number of requests for better public engagement on a wide variety of issues; not only the Marina floor, but also the 223rd Marina Steps, 223rd Green Streets to Pacific Highway, to the Masonic Home, to park,s to Redondo, to Events Planning, and on and on. These are all important discussions to have, and I believe the City is trying to address them, but certainly at nowhere near the pace the public would like.
Stepping back, ‘communication’ is a very broad term. I think that is one reason why it’s so often used–precisely because it can mean so many different things. Ironically, it is that flexibility which can make the word almost meaningless unless one is very careful.
But when it comes to the specific issues the Council has been hearing about most, the message I’m getting is that people not only want information, but also some form of predictable, ongoing, two-way input into the projects we undertake. Residents want to understand, and also feel like they have a voice in ‘how it all fits together’.
I believe that the most immediate and impactful way to address most of the communication concerns I’ve heard would be to immediately restore the 1Public Planning Commission (PPC) our City had until 2013.
Although we had a PPC for the vast majority of the City’s history, it’s been over a decade since it was shut down, a quick explainer may be in order. First off, though they vary in structure, a public planning commission is standard equipment in every city in the area–except Des Moines. The versions that best serve the public interest share a few features:
- They consist of a group of residents (not developers), appointed by the City Council for fixed terms.
- Members are mandated to consider planning for the entire City in a holistic manner–not any specific project.
- They meet according to a publicly available schedule.
- They operate in a transparent manner, including publishing their work, both to inform and encourage the rest of the public to engage in the process.
- As such, they are open to comments from the public.
- And since they are not an elected body, the rules of discussion can be more flexible, and can potentially offer more of the ‘two-way discussion’ so many people have said they want.
- They report routinely and in a structured manner to the City Council, who incorporate their work product as part of the City’s ongoing comprehensive planning.
The reasoning for ending our PPC in 2013 seemed to boil down that our City’s finances were so precarious staff felt there just wasn’t all that much to ‘plan’. Obviously that is no longer the case.
As just one example, the City will soon unveil a new Marina Master Plan. But at the same time currently has separate outreach efforts for the 223rd Steps Project and the 223rd Green Streets project. I find it dismaying that the City is jumping ahead to a ‘Master Plan’ before concluding outreach on either of those individual projects, especially since there has been no real two-way discussion on how they fit together with the broader vision for the Marina District.
Almost every project the City receives feedback on is not only long game, it also has significant impact on every other project. For example, any project on 223rd Street cannot be considered apart from the Marina Steps project. And any event planner needs to know what spaces they will be working with, across the entire City, in order to develop an effective program which will attract vendors and maximise revenue.
Also, I used the word holistic because if a member does not live in a particular area, and may not benefit from any particular project, everyone will have to pay for every project. So, like the City Council, all members are asked to consider the best interests of the entire City; the costs as well as the benefits. Otherwise the tendency would be that everyone votes for everything.
In other words, planning should be an ongoing discussion, not isolated into separate groups, events or outreach efforts. Everything really does affect everything else. And in my opinion, this approach would do a world of good to address many of the concerns many of you have regarding ‘communication’.
One other thing. As you also know, we will soon undertake a search for the next City Manager–a process that will take several months. Interim City Manager Tim George recognises his position as a caretaker. To me, that means leaving it to that next City Manager to make key hiring decisions–which is definitely what a Comms Director should be. For that reason alone, I am looking to ideas like a public planning commission that can (and should) be implemented now without tying the hands of our next City Manager.
To be clear, I am not saying a PPC is ‘the solution’ to public engagement. Overall that is a much bigger discussion. But a public planning commission is something we know how to do, it can be done now, at relatively little cost, and most importantly, it is something we should have in place regardless of any other steps we may take to improve public engagement. At the risk of using a tired cliché, we can’t give you a seat at the table, until we provide the table.
I hope you will support the idea of restoring the Public Planning Commission we used to have, to give you that seat at the table, and help give the City Council the best sense of what you want our future to look like.
I thank you for your consideration and welcome your feedback.
—JC
1To dive in deeper, I would strongly recommend watching the August 8, 2013 meeting where the PPC was dissolved with Ordinance #1571. There is a very good discussion of the pros/cons. It also includes links to the original PPC Ordinance #611, how they are organised under State law, and how PPCs work in our sister cities of Burien and SeaTac.
August 8, 2013: Full Agenda Packet, Minutes