There’s no way around talking about problems without hurting feelings. I am always sorry.
On July 21, Sheila Brush posted the following in the Des Moines Community Action Network Facebook Group (DMCAN), which she created.
Now the same people who were facilitating the Burien Forum had told me months ago that they would be happy to do the same for Des Moines at no cost. (I had first researched the idea because CM Martinelli had suggested doing a Town Hall in March.) So the logistics were ready to go. Obviously it would be unethical for me to organise such an event so when I read this post I immediately contacted Admins of the various Des Moines Facebook pages (including DMCAN) and passed my contact info along to see if they would take it from there.
B-Town Coverage Of Airport
In the meantime, The B-Town Blog did another, very good article, asking each candidate for a statement on airport issues:
Here is a link to the full discussion. And here is a screen capture screen capture in case you’re not a member of the group.
And a couple of people, including Sheila replied:
“Majority Tone Deaf.” and “Sad, but true. Ironic how certain political issues fire people up, and most others leave them uninterested.”
And I hate that kind of comment. Because it’s simply not true. So I wrote the following reply:
This is long and it's gonna be painful. But I believe it's worth studying carefully. I was willing to work pretty hard to get elected based on this. READ FIRST BEFORE WATCHING VIDEO... won't make sense otherwise. Also, I get yelled at for 'all complaint no solution.' There is a short, simple solution, but one has to first be willing to acknowledge the validity of the complaint. Candidates and electeds are not tone deaf. Or uninterested. Local electeds are part-timers and most are extremely well-meaning people who want to do the right thing. Some may be against your idea, but most people want to try to do something about the airport. However, politicians are generally not subject matter experts. And they have, even at a local level, a STUNNING range of complicated stuff they're supposed to vote on like they know what they're talking about. They come into their campaigns with personal biases and are usually total numbskulls on complex policy issues--and the airport is the Queen Mary of complex policy. They depend on guidance, which in this case either comes from the Port or trusted advocacy groups like this. They need, at most, 400 words on the subject. And they rarely get it. So they scan all this 'stuff' and try to draw some conclusions. If you put the entirety of this forum through a lexical analyser the output would have five main themes: 1. The public complains incessantly about the noise, the pollution. Noise and Pollution are what they truly care about. 2. However, any meaningful relief on noise and pollution is only at the federal level. And even then, it's many years, probably decades away. 3. We need a second airport--but that too will take so long and be so far away that it will never provide relief on Noise and Pollution for people here. 4. So overall, the public is essentially powerless on the issues they truly care about (Noise and Pollution). 5. The only meaningful discussion at the local level involves side issues like: "health studies", "filters" and occasionally "trees" or -maybe-... "sound insulation". Nice, but none of these affect operations. Now, those are themes--not objective reality. But they -are- what this page -says-. BIG REVEAL: Those themes completely MATCH the essential messaging of the Port Of Seattle. The Port sincerely agrees with all of that. And they have legit evidence that they agree with all of that--a Legislative Agenda that they spend real money to pursue. Like it or not, and whether people realise it or not, to the novice, this page largely agrees with the essential messaging of the Port Of Seattle lobbyist. Everyone knows their lobbyists, and they seem to sincerely believe they are doing their best. They are convincing. My former Mayor is one of them (more on that later.) So if candidates and electeds are not particularly jazzed about the airport (or environmental issues writ large), that is the reason. It's worse than that, in fact. This page has told them that the above agenda (which requires no effort or study on their part btw), is the -only- reasonable approach. Just by looking at the text of this page over 4 years, this page lavishly praises and supports the few people working on hepa filters and trees and parks and glide slopes. It ignores or heavily criticises the one local elected who believes in working locally to reduce noise and pollution and GHG--the things that the public -truly- cares about. (that would be moi.) Remember: candidates generally only care about what they think their voters truly care about. I know what voters truly care about in Des Moines because I doorbelled every inch of my City in 2019. Trees? fine. Filters? OK. Glide slope? Whatever. What they are willing to actually vote for are candidates with some balls concerning NOISE AND POLLUTION. Everything else? Meh. Whether they should or not is irrelevant. That is what they care about. And those 5 themes are not worth their vote the moment they realise that they are mostly aspirational. To demonstrate my points: here is a short discussion of the Des Moines City Council to leave StART in 2019. The actual issue is irrelevant. It's the attitude that matters. And if you don't know any better EVERYTHING the Councilmembers say sounds like they are 100% committed to fighting the SAMP! Now, some quick background: I ran for City Council in Des Moines for one basic reason: because the City Council's outrage bore no relationship to their policies. At that time, the City had an Aviation Advisory Committee, peopled by leadership of Quiet Skies (including Sheila Brush)--which sounds wonderful, right? However, the actual City Council and City Manager were (and are) 100% pro-Port. So, you have the City totally pursuing pro-Port policies, while -saying- in public tough anti-expansion bullshit like this video. And the public believed it because they trust Quiet Skies so much. Now here's my dilemma: the Cities were first informed about the SAMP in 2012. I hired a lawyer to walk me through the process. It takes years to effectively prep if you actually want to be effective on something this scale. Following the process with patience (as the Mayor says in the video) is the total sucker move and in fact, no one succeeds who simply 'follows the process'. And by that time, both the City and the QSPS people already hated my guts. So I reasoned that the only chance in hell to actually -do- something about the SAMP was to start my own process: replace the City Council, hopefully with people that would be willing to listen to another POV.... and hopefully before the train had left the station. So I ran. And it sucked... because I was running not just against these pro-Port Councilmembers, I was also, in a very real sense, running against Quiet Skies. But I had no choice--the City was using QSPS to cover the fact that they had no intention of handling the SAMP (or Port expansion in general) in anything other than a total 'pro-growth' manner. Eg, I would doorbell people, with Quiet Skies yard signs no less, and they would swear that my opponent (a Port employee, btw) 'is working with Quiet Skies. You're lying, JC!' Hoo boy. So given all these considerations... 1. Some of the most complex policy imaginable, 2. The Port's agenda looks a lot like this page in the broad strokes. 3. That agenda does -not- seem to address what voters care enough about to vote on (Noise and Pollution) 4, Our local politics has more layers than a spy novel. Showing disappointment at candidates (or electeds) is ridiculous. It's -not- their fault. The messaging is confusing and does not seem to address what voters actually demand. And the few genuine activists don't work well together. Why -should- any candidate get near this beyond a few sympathetic words and the Port's aspirational leg. agenda? AND PS: Lest you think this is me slagging on QSPS or my colleagues on the City Council, I could do a dozen versions of this about other 'issues' and 'personalities'... I used -me- simply to avoid mentioning anyone else. But this sort of crap is -really- what has prevented progress on the airport---not so much the legalities that everyone bitches about. It's a bit like COVID---you'd -think- that there would be issues so intense that people would rise above. But... ?
And then this to a commenter located in California:
I have never felt like things were hopeless. Rather, I see a series of the same mistakes over and over and over... The only 'hopeless' factor is sort of like COVID--but again, that's self-inflicted. And I'll just close by noting this: the fact that you (or anyone thousands of miles away) can comment on local politics says to -me- that everyone thinks that local politics is irrelevant--we're all screwed no matter where we live or what we do. That is the sense I get from talking with people all over the country. So again: why -should- local politicians engage on those terms? I reject the whole 'it's all at the federal level' assumptions not only because they are not accurate, but also because they are not helpful. You cannot have politicians or the public willing to fight meaningfully on an issue if you yourself do not believe that they can make a real difference. Best.
Here’s how ya know…
OK, ya know how I know that neither electeds, candidates or activists really care about this issue? Because that article is about Burien and most of the QSPS people live in a very small area of south Des Moines and Federal Way along the track of the Third Runway.
Wanna know how much political coverage… of any kind… there was been in Des Moines for the entire Primary Season? Here it is. A very enterprising woman organised a candidates forum for one Condo building. In Redondo. So all the questions related to the interests of those few residents.
But still, that Candidate Forum was excellent. Despite the limited range of questions, every person I’ve spoken with who watched them said that they gave the public a tremendous amount of insight into each of the candidates.
Quick Recap…
Now remember: On July 21, I contacted the various admins of Des Moines Facebook pages and offered them a way to get a candidates forum going. I knew of at least two organisations who were willing to facilitate… and no one picked up the ball.
What did happen?
On July 28, Sheila Brush held a get together (fund raiser?) which included candidates Gene Achziger, Yoshiko Grace Matsui, Dave Upthegrove, Port Commissioner Peter Steinbrueck and Port Comission Candidate Hamdi Mohamed. Which is totally fine. But that is not the Candidate Forum she originally proposed.
Also, the unspoken message of this event is exactly as I complained in my Facebook comment on DMCAN: People in that video are cheering for Port Commissioner Peter Steinbrueck, even though he has absolutely nothing specific to say other than the fact that he is with everyone in spirit. I like Peter as a person. But the Commission’s objective performance in doing anything Des Moines voters actually care about related to the airport? 1 Zero.
The City Council candidates generally know nothing about airport issues. But their takeaway is likely to be: get on stage with Port Commissioners, show support for Quiet Skies and… done. They have no other incentives to learn or to offer any proposals that the Port may disagree with. I’ll keep reiterating this: that is not their fault.
September…
Whenever anyone (well, me) complains about a lack of candidate forums before the Primary, there is always the excuse “We’ll do that in September.” OK, so what you’re saying is that the Primary doesn’t matter. And if you feel that way, you have no right to complain about low voter turnout.
You also have no right to complain about which candidates make it through to November.
The bottom line is that Burien does these events partly because Scott Schaefer (the publisher of the B-Town Blog and The Waterland Blog) lives in Burien. But part of it is the fact that people in Buren expect it and ask.
Why candidates are ‘tone deaf’
Airport issues are complex. Very few residents ask about it, partly because they haven’t been educated and partly because we’ve had over a decade of pro-Port government which has sold the notion that there is nothing we can do.
Candidates have almost no opportunities to speak to the public on anything. And apparently there are no civic-minded residents willing to organize candidate forums–even with Zoom!
And remember: candidates already come to the table with other issues they care far more about. So unless or until there is a mechanism that rewards candidates for doing more than getting on a stage with the Port Commissioners? Why should any candidate do more?
1In fairness, the Port recently announced that it was finally re-starting it’s Port Package sound insulation program–focusing on some largely BIPOC apartment buildings in Des Moines. It’s expensive and commendable. But it’s work that was left undone twenty years ago. And it has nothing to do with addressing the source of the problems: noise and pollution.