Peter the Uncommonly Good

I went to Peter Steinbrueck's City Hall going away party tonight. After ten years on the Council, he's called it quits. His announcement last summer prompted one of the most memorable passages I've ever read in The Stranger, this from Councilmember Licata:

When I was living in the commune, one day we all decided we were going to go and eat some meat. We had gotten tired of eating nothing but vegetables. So of course, this being a commune, we had to go out to where the cows were and watch the cows get slaughtered. So we set out one day in the morning through the fields—the mist was rising from the ground—and we came up to a field where about eight cows were standing around eating grass. And the guy who was going to slaughter the cows got out his shotgun, and he put the shotgun to one of the cows’ heads. And the cow just looked up at him, kind of curiously. And then suddenly, BAM!—he just blew its head off. And the other cows looked up, and they all looked really freaked out. And then, after about a minute, they all took a few steps backward, and then they all went on eating. That’s about what it was like.

The going away bash was a sort of a cross between a very good office party and an Irish wake, but without the booze. The majority of the room was thinking the same thing: who the fuck is going to stand up to the Mayor now? Venus Velazquez was the shoo-in heir apparent, but that didn't quite work out. So, Herrell? Not bloody likely.

The pain of the Council losing it's fire and growing fat and happy on the comforts that only the money that runs this town can provide is only slightly mitigated by the fact that nearly everyone I know assumes that Peter will be back soon to take on Nickles. The second best bit I've ever read in The Stranger, incidentally, was Dan Savage's description of the Mayor looking "like Ariel Sharon dipped in goose fat and shaved coconut."

Peter and I first got to know each other well across a negotiating table half-dozen years ago, when Real Change's Initiative 71 campaign both qualified for the ballot and had some decent polling that showed it could pass. The initiative would have created another 600 shelter beds and increased human services spending. Our effort was a last minute affair, and our fundraising capacity was very limited. Right around the time we qualified, the economy tanked and the City was grappling with dire general fund projections. If it went to ballot, we could count on the dailies aligning against us and not being able to afford an effective counter-campaign. We settled for a more limited win. Tom Byers played the hard-ass from the City. Peter was the Council pragmatist working on a five vote compromise. Together we achieved what was probably the best concession possible. In the end, support was unanimous.

Since then, he's been the stand-up guy for the City's low-income people, and I credit him with the Council's shift over the last decade toward putting people first. Many of us worry that this is might become a thing of the past.

Money and politics is the issue. There weren't a lot of solid progressive candidates willing to jump into this year's race. Apparently, it now takes about a quarter-of-a-million dollars to run a competitive council race.

Tom Rasmussen ran unopposed and raised over $201,000. What the fuck is that? I guess everyone likes a sure bet. Joe Szwaja showed us that it only takes $94K to run a purely symbolic race. Burgess raised over $300K to beat Dave Della. I'm sure he could have done this for less. Herrell, Steinbrueck's successor, raised $263K.

Can one still win a seat on the Council without selling out to corporate Seattle? In another few years, we'll see.

Still Time to Vote: Day or Weil?

Yesterdays election is over. Herrell decisively trounced Venus "what the fuck was she thinking" Velazquez, and Tim Burgess banished Dave Della, who didn't even drink and drive or accept a huge bribe from the downtown interests during his campaign, by an even bigger margin. All of that's finally over with, but you can still vote on the big issues right up until about 9:30 tonight.



Which radical intellectual who converted to Catholicism would you most like to date: Dorothy Day (at left), the journalist turned activist who founded the Catholic Worker movement, or Simone Weil (at right), the overwrought "red virgin" philosopher mystic?

As always. look to the top right of this blog to cast your vote. Day or Weil? It's up to you! This poll closed. See the original post for the winner.

Thoughts on the City Council Race

This seems like as good a time as any to reiterate that Apesma's Lament is my personal writer's blog, and that I reserve the right to maintain an identity of my own, independent of the guy that works at Real Change. More importantly, this blog is maintained with my own funds on my own time, so I can say whatever the fuck I want. So there.

Which brings us to this morning's City Council Candidates Forum, sponsored by the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, featuring Jean Godden, Venus Velasquez, Bruce Harrell, Tom Rasmussen, Dave Della, Tim Burgess, Sally Clark, and Judy Fenton. The SKCCH website will soon have full questionnaire results from these and other candidates, including those running for office in King County outside of Seattle.

First, who is running against who? Godden, sadly, may now be running unopposed. Joe Szwaja was expected but didn't show and didn't phone in. (This turns out to be untrue. Joe is still in the race, and the no show was due to a communications error with campaign staff). The rumor is that a recent meeting with community supporters to parse the ramifications of Susan Paynter's "When Did Joe Stop Beating His Wife" column didn't go so well. That's too bad. Szwaja is someone who progressives recruited to run based on a long track record of proven values and service. Apparently, some have changed their minds. It's an old saying, but it's true. When the left holds a firing squad, they stand in a circle.

Venus and Bruce are squaring off over human services champion Peter Steinbrueck's seat. Human Services Chair Tom Rasmussen is running unopposed. Burgess is taking on Della, and the sadly clueless Fenton says she's running because Clark needs an opponent. Whatever.

So, what was new and surprising or at least entertaining about this morning? Let's start with Godden. She's charming and somewhat beloved. You hate to beat up on her because it never feels like a fair fight. She graciously recognized me as I stood in the back as Real Change, which caused our real reporter, Cydney Gillis, who was covering the event from the second row on Jean's side, to turn in my direction and snarl.

Godden's best line was that we should "reuse, recycle, and refit available buildings" to create affordable housing. But, seeing as how she doesn't really do anything, those words don't mean all that much. She'll likely coast to victory, and will continue to be a mostly reliable ally of the downtown interests while trying to also do right by the poor and homeless. Things could be worse.

The Harrell/Velasquez showdown was much more interesting. Ironically, Harrell, as an attorney, is a much stronger communicator than Velasquez is as a communications consultant. My sense is that she has the better politics, while he is probably the stronger candidate. He was Obamaesque. In comparison, she seemed almost sullen. Maybe she's just not a morning person.

But, you know? I don't give a crap. She says that she'll continue Peter's legacy of being a human services champion and I believe her. She said when the B&O tax revenue downturn hits and things get tight, she's in our corner, and that she favors dedicated funding for human services so we're not dependent upon the vagaries of the general fund. And she referred to Seattle's "class war" four times in her closing statement, which kind of cinched it for me. Harrell makes a better impression, and uses lines like, "I believe power has to be kept in check," but there's nothing in his background to make me believe that, once in office, he'll be a reliable ally of the poor. And we've seen plenty of that.

Speaking of unreliable allies, David Della seemed kind of dazed and kept talking about how very, very complicated homelessness is. It must be hard to come before a room of human service advocates knowing that you're widely resented for having turned your back on the people who got you elected. That must suck. Della talked incessantly about the multi-family tax credit, as if this idea were somehow adequate to the tidal wave of inequality that now engulfs our city. He did, however, say he'd vote to protect core services, whatever that means. Burgess didn't seem so bad, but all of his statements were careful and hedged, as were Della's. I don't get the sense that either of them deserve our support, but these are the choices we have.

I have to say that both Rassmussen and Clark are growing on me. When Fenton said she'd prioritize mentally ill homeless people over alcoholics, Tom drew himself up to deliver an indignant little speech about the difficulties of people's lives. While going after Fenton was a little like kicking a retarded puppy, it was still very endearing. He also acknowledged the dark side of the ten year pan to end homelessness with a pledge to sustain emergency service levels until it is clear that the need has decreased as well. This, to me, was unexpected and welcome news. When Tom first became the Human Services chair, lots of people found the rigidity of his instant expertise more than a little annoying, but he seems to have grown into it and to have real passion for the issues. He seems more solid, and it's nice to see.

Clark seemed smart, well-informed, and very genuine, and offered a variety of thoughtful strategies for moving things forward. She was honest about her support for workforce housing as well as low-income housing, and put her concerns with the potential for a divisive fight right out on the table. She even showed flashes of humility and humor. Clark definitely seems like someone we should work more with.

Conventional wisdom is that this election is unlikely to shake up the balance of power in the Council, and that there aren't any big changes on the horizon. That seems about right to me, although I found myself feeling more hopeful after the forum than before. When a cynical guy like me sees reason to hope, that's probably a good sign.

And today, this will be a committee of one ..."

The Seattle Channel video of Wednesday's Parks, Education, Libraries and Labor Committee Hearing is on line, and it's amusing on numerous levels. Dave Della opens the hearing by noting that none of the other committee members are present. Then Irene Wall testifies on the irony of the city destroying housing to create more Green Space in Discovery Park while destroying green space in Phinny Ridge by ramming a big parking parking garage through at The Zoo over neighborhood objection, and then another speaker highlights the city's bogus manufacturing of consent for the project. Looks like natural allies to me.

Then, at 12:20 into the video, the hearing briefly turns to the matter of bringing on a new board member at Seattle Center, and Bill Block eloquently testifies to the suitability of said appointment before getting the hell out of there while Twin B and I play patty-cake just behind his head.

At 21:00, I lumber to the microphone while holding her hand, and deliver a speech that differs slightly from the one I posted from memory in the wee hours of Thursday morning. Mike Ruby then addresses the import of this "rather momentous moment," and is followed by Discovery Park Advisory Council's Heidi Carpi, who describes the years of fending off "good causes" who have vied for this space. Then Patricia Stambor addresses my comments, by saying that while she "appreciates most" of my work, the city should keep the complete unsuitability of this property for homeless habitation in mind "when dealing with his opinions."

This is a remarkable rhetorical feat, in that it is a deft dual deployment of the "Seattle Straw Man" tactic. By "most of my work," she's probably referring to the Kate Elston PI article of a few weeks previous, in which I'm portrayed as having a "support your local crack trade" position on panhandling that I don't actually hold. Then she goes on to offer a vision of homeless people being dropped into Discovery Park — shopping carts and all — to forage for berries along with the raccoons.

I never said this housing should be set aside for homeless people. I said affordable and workforce housing. I know that Magnolia doesn't want homeless people as neighbors, but do they freak out at the prospect of teachers, cops, and firefighters living among them as well, drinking their Francesca wine out of cartons and slaughtering the adverbial form every chance they get?

See? I can use that tactic too. It's easy and it's fun. Anyway, watch the video. The testimony and presentation that follows is a good quick tutorial on the issue.