This Week
Monday: 10:00AM Memorial Day Celebration at Sunnydale Elementary in Burien hosted by the Des Moines Memorial Drive Preservation Association. Come see the new utility wraps created by Des Moines artist Daniel Wend!
Thursday: June 1, 2023 City Council Meeting. (Agenda) Highlights:
Consent Agenda
- Speed cameras in Redondo. The item references speed camera studies which demonstrate the need. But I don’t recall seeing these studies. It also isn’t clear the number of cameras and thus the cost. Hopefully we get answers on these. As much as I want the issue addressed, items I simply can’t vote for an item on a Consent Agenda, without that basic information.
Public Hearing
- Staff will walk through the Draft Housing Action Plan and Strategic
Recommendations. I’m struggling with this one. The City and I disagree completely on the quality of the public outreach. We did a survey of only 213 people and in only English and Spanish. And the interventions which will make any real difference are all mandates imposed on us by the State. Basically, we’re being dragged, kicking and screaming, into allowing for more housing options. On our own we’ve done far too little either to encourage new housing or to improve the stock of existing housing. In short, we’re being NIMBY at exactly the moment we need to be building.
New Business
- Upcoming $26MM Bond Sales. This is also deeply problematic for me. We’re voting for a single sale which covers five projects, even though the Council has not seen details on most of them.
- Flag Triangle–216th and DMMD
- Marina Steps & Plaza (New CIP/Subset of MCCIP0022)
- Redondo Fishing Pier (MCCIP0012) and Restroom (MCCIP0018)
- Redondo Paid Parking (TRCIP0017), and Marina, Beach Park Paid Parking (MCCIP0021) to be repaid with a combination REET1 and REET2, One-Time Sales Tax, and Parking Revenue.
Regardless of the merits of any of these projects, they should not be combo-ed together and under no circumstances should we be funding them before we know what they even look like! At the last Economic Development Meeting, the City Manager made it clear that he wanted to have this vote (the money) before talking about specifics. This. Is. Backwards.
Some other details in the fine print of that ‘bond sale’:
-
- The Administration is recommending that we invoke Rule 26a–an override to pass the ordinance in one meeting, which will limit public comment or discussion.
- A previous Council voted to fund a paid parking system which never worked properly. This time? I want to see the system before voting ‘Yes’.
- The Adaptive Purpose Building and any dry stack storage are now being put off for ten years. Wow.
- The item discusses expanding the Marina Steps into Parcel A–where the ’boutique hotel’ was originally supposed to go.
- The item says that there is an urgency to this sale because part of it will use ARPA money. No. Only the Marina Steps would use ARPA money. And besides, we have until the end of 2024 to allocate that money–and 2026 to actually spend it. Plenty of time to have drawings before we sell bonds.
We’re conflating a ‘bond sale’ with yet another re-design of the Marina Floor in one night and you should not want that.
- We will have a first reading on a new rules of procedure, being renamed the Protocol Manual. You say potayto, I say potahto. 😀 The best thing I can say about it is that the current Draft is not as terrible as the first three. The whole thing was unnecessary. We could (and should) have had a Study Session, with each Cm’s suggested amendments thoroughly debated and tweaked the current document. What really grinds my gears is that the idea of an ‘update’ came about at our 2022 ‘planning meeting’ and the process that emerged was nothing like the Ad Hoc Committee. There was no ‘consultant’ input from each Cm. If you read the agenda item, the new Protocol Manual is essentially a re-formatting of the old one, followed by twenty pages of scolds to Cms and the public about ‘the first amendment’. After about the age of twelve, most of us get tired of being told how to behave better in public.
One last thing: this meeting is referenced as a Study Session. A Study Session is meant to be a deep dive into a single issue. This meeting contains not one, not two, but three items that should be the subject of separate Study Sessions. Apart from anything else, the fact that we’ll be limited to only a few minutes of discussion on each of these complex topics should not make you happy.
Last Week
Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission (Agenda) From the City perspective, the Port will fund a $1MM grant to keep Maritime High School going.
Thursday: Economic Development Committee (Agenda) (Video) This was a biggee. There was supposed to be a recording, but so far I haven’t seen it. To a large extent it was a preview of this Thursday’s meeting and that is why I always encourage residents to attend these Committee meetings. Often, this is where you will hear the real discussion.
Highlights:
- City Manager provided details on our upcoming Bond Sales, which will include a $900,000 fee.
- Staff walked through the Draft Housing Action Plan and Strategic
Recommendations - The City Manager mentioned ‘great interest’ in the property referred to as ‘the Pit’ along Marine View Drive and thus wants the Council to approve a ten foot height increase. In my opinion, this is one of the real flaws in our approach to zoning. The Council is asked to offer these sorts of gifts, before knowing what the developer’s intentions are. The City Manager simply goes ‘hint hint’ and that does not thrill me.
Friday: South King County Housing & Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP).
Campaigny Stuff…
Two weeks ago, in addition to filing for my own re-election, I spent a certain amount of time encouraging any number of extremely qualified people to run for our City Council, as well as various other offices. I’m only bringing that up because I strongly believe that every race should be contested, and contested hard. People often ask me some variation of a question, “Why is Des Moines (insert the blank)?” And at the most basic level, the answer is the simple fact that so few people actually run for office. It’s awkward to say, but it just makes sense: more applicants, more talent.
Competitive City Council Races Des Moines 2001-2022
Before…
For example, in Position #2 (my race), this will be my competitor’s sixth campaign for office. He was unsuccessful in three competitive races, then won in an uncontested contest in 2015, then was defeated in 2019 in a competitive race. In Position #4, this will be Jeremy Nutting’s fourth shot. He was appointed in 2013, then faced no hard opposition in either 2015 or 2019. In Position #6, Yoshiko Grace-Matsui is running unopposed after two previous attempts (one campaign, one try for appointment.)
Regardless of your feelings about any of us, fewer people run for office here than in most other cities. And beyond that, the few people that do run, have almost none of the strong incentives that tend to select for top quality board members. Again, awkward to say, but true nonetheless.
- There are literally no requirements for attaining or holding office. No one makes you ‘take a test’. There’s not even a filing fee.
- In 2019 I ran one of the most competitive races in our city’s history and had exactly four public opportunities to speak in the same room with my competitor. (There were even less in 2021!)
- At none of these forums are you likely to be challenged in any real way, either by a moderator, competitor or audience member. You get to say your prepared piece, respond to a few questions and that’s usually about it.
- Since almost none of those ‘candidate forums’ ever go recorded, in total, I doubt they are seen by more than a few hundred residents.
- And if you’re lucky enough to run uncontested (which often happens here), you have no good reason to engage even in the above level of scrutiny.
In our highly polarised environment, all your incentives are to avoid losing voters. And one of the best ways to do that is to not say anything that might potentially offend anyone.
After…
Once you are elected you are under no obligation to study anything. Ever. There’s no civics test. And no one will test you to make sure you read or understand the often ginormous packets. (This week’s packet is 300 or so pages–very typical.)
Despite the fact that there are numerous opportunities for electeds to network and engage in continuing education, almost no Des Moines electeds choose to do so.
But let’s say you do have questions about an issue. You can ask questions of the administration. In fact, most electeds have families and/or day jobs, so their sole source of information ends up being the administration–the branch of government you’re supposed to be keeping tabs on, btw. But currently? The City is under no obligation even to reply to your question without the assent of the Council majority–which you can’t get until the meeting where you vote on an issue!
You are also under no obligation to do anything other than show up for the two full Council meetings every month. Strictly speaking, you don’t even have to show up for committee meetings because they are unpaid and attendance is not even mentioned in our Rules of Procedure.
You also choose who you cooperate with and to what extent. If you’re not particularly interested in hearing different points of view, and you don’t need someone’s vote, you have absolutely no reason to return anyone’s call.
Also, unlike many other cities, there is no reimbursement for travel or any other independent research materials without a majority vote.
If you get no reward for preparation, rely on a single source of information, have no incentive to cooperate or understand other points of view, and can in fact be ostracised for disagreement, it creates a ceiling on good government.
In short, the job does nothing to encourage the preparation, professional cooperation and intellectual curiosity that all of us would expect from a successful, innovative organisation. And even writing the above will likely sound harsh.
- Because if you support the current majority, your reaction will likely be “How dare you!”
- And if you like a candidate, you do not want to hear any noise about any possible need for improvement. (Who does, right? 😀 ) All most people care about is “First you have to win, JC.” We’ll worry about all that other stuff later.“
Speaking as a manager, those incentives actually prevent good government. They’re 100% true, but they’re so awkward to talk about that they keep things from changing for the better.
Over the past few months, there’s been a lot of stock placed in “improving communication”, including the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), an idea I fully support. However…
In my opinion, a part of the ‘communication’ problem stems from the fact that you have the same very small group of people, decade after decade, engaging within a very small bubble. And I think that the people on the new CAC will learn quickly that the Council is (and has been) fully aware of their concerns for many, many years.
Which is to say, if the public really wants the biggest improvements to our government, with the least amount of effort? Volunteering is great, don’t get me wrong. But the biggest bang for buck would be to (somehow) expect more from candidates. Before we get elected is the time to make sure we’re prepared. That’s the time to raise concerns and obtain commitments concerning the next City Council.
In short: the campaign is literally the only time you get to hold your representatives to account. So my advice? Make the most of it. 🙂
Take offense. Or take the note. Your call.