The two documents you should be reading this week

Two “long read” documents came through my inbox in the past week that, upon reflection, are likely to set the tone for a good chunk of the political debate over the next few months as we head into the primary and general elections here in Seattle.

Compassion Seattle Cost Analysis

As the debate over the “Compassion Seattle” proposed charter amendment has heated up, a central question has been how much it will cost. The City Council, who will be responsible for finding the money if it passes, wants to know too, so it sent its central staff off to do an analysis. Here is their report.

And the answer is complicated, because there are varied interpretations of vague language in the bill. At the low end: $30 million up-front capital costs, and $40 million annually in ongoing operational costs. At the high end: $839 million in capital costs and $97 million annually for operations.

The memo walks through each of the sections of the charter amendment, explains the range of possible interpretations, and costs each out. That includes housing and shelter, behavioral health services, and the changes to city regulations and fees.

The memo doesn’t provide definitive answers to many questions, but it’s a good baseline for discussion — we will all still disagree, but at least we’ll know what we’re disagreeing about.

Racial Equity Analysis of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan

At the request of the City Council, the Office of Planning and Community Development developed an analysis of the racial equity impacts of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and in particular its “growth strategy” (i.e. concentrating growth in urban villages and urban centers). Earlier this week OPCD quietly released the report, in advance of a presentation to the City Council’s Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee tomorrow.

And it says exactly what progressive leaders and advocacy groups have been saying for years: the “urban village” village strategy has exacerbated displacement in BIPOC neighborhoods while insulating disproportionately white, richer “single family zoning” neighborhoods from change. The report says a lot more than that, and it’s worth reading in detail, but that will be the headline when everyone talks about it. For better or worse, this is the report that those who are pushing for eliminating (or heavily revising) single-family residential zoning have been waiting for.

The weakness of the report is its lack of objectivity. OPCD commissioned PolicyLink to do it, an advocacy organization that describes itself as:

a national research and action institute dedicated to advancing racial and economic equity with a focus on delivering results at scale for the 100 million people in the United States living in or near poverty. PolicyLink takes an “inside-outside” approach to policy change, working with grassroots advocates focused on economic and racial justice, as well as with policymaker and government champions, to achieve equitable policies.

The domain expertise that PolicyLink brings on racial equity issues is great; the baggage it brings with it not so much, because it opens up the analysis (and OPCD) to criticism that the outcome was pre-determined. OPCD and the City Council certainly knew what they would be getting when they hired PolicyLink, and it didn’t disappoint. That doesn’t mean its conclusions are wrong; it certainly re-raises and amplifies many well-documented criticisms, including the history of racist, exclusionary zoning and loan policies that systematically excluded communities of color from many parts of the city. But there will be ample criticism on how it packed its workshops with representatives from advocacy groups (page 16 of the report), and how its recommendations are all over the map and largely cover the full spectrum of progressive policy, well beyond what one might expect in a racial equity analysis of the city’s growth strategy: more affordable housing in high-displacement neighborhoods, better support for BIPOC-led businesses, addressing racial health disparities, community control and ownership of land; but also eliminating single-family zoning, climate justice, middle-wage jobs for people with less education, stronger unions, participatory budgeting, and paying reparations for BIPOC Seattleites. It also recommends power-sharing with community-led organizations, which is a double-edged sword: “neighborhood control” helps communities fight displacement, but it also helps richer, whiter neighborhoods fight change — including increased density.

Break out your reading glasses, get educated, and get prepared to ask some tough questions of our neighbors, our elected officials, and the candidates for office. We’ve got a lot to talk about, and some fresh red meat to chew on.

I hope you found this article valuable. If you did, please take a moment to make a contribution to support my ongoing work. Thanks!