Warring Southeast Seattle Factions Nearly Come to Blows Over Their Future

As someone present at the Oct. 24th meeting, the atmosphere was decidedly more civil, than in past meetings. With a quorum present, the council was able to vote on motions deciding this issue of contention.

First, Chris Leman of the City Neighborhood Council executive committee (with Pat Murakami recusing herself) appealed to SEDC to allow mediation to take place before voting on this matter, as Sally Clark would agree to find the funds to do it if both sides agreed to it.

Then, as the order of business came about, the first motion by Tony To, was to vote on changing the bylaws to decide membership as it stands now, with non-profit agencies allowing to stand as individual voting members.

Other motions, such as one suggested to sustain the vote on the bylaw amendments until a determination of what "voting members" vs. "members" of the council were rejected, as well as to allow for mediation to take place.

There were several motions to adjourn the meeting as well as the meeting was coming up on 9pm, when the community center closed and there was still much to discuss. The only motion to pass, in addition to Tony To's original one, was to shorten all debate to 1 minute per person in order to 'get on' with the key vote.

Time and again, the Founding members were outnumbered. There was sadly, no will on the Tony To faction to be willing to mediate.

There was no will of that faction, to even make fundamental determinations such as what is the definition of a "voting member" before allowing votes on bylaw amendments to take place.

There was a profound conflict of interest in that alone for questionable voting members who were not clearly defined with the authority to vote, to vote on NOT defining voting members.

There was no will to sensibly adjourn the meeting and thoughtfully consider the other amendments and issues on the table as they pressured the community center to stay open another 15 mins. so they could rush the motions, debate and vote.

Probably the biggest out-maneuvering of the Founding SEDC members was the presence of a paid facilitator (our $1,000) spent on monitoring proper "procedure" during the meeting. She did nothing but say things like, "you have 3 mins." and, "now you may motion an amendment to the motion". But a mediation of substance? Nothing.

It was clear that the fear of losing influence by adhering to the same consistency standards put in place by original SEDC bylaws, was able to out-maneuver the Founding SEDC members' efforts to reassert the intent of who the council should represent (residents). They were trying to answer the question, "whose interests are being served?" based on the vetting of a member's qualifications.

If FOR-profit businesses are required to form member associations, why aren't NON-profit one's required to?

The tragic irony is that as Tony To's faction echoed that their presence would "create" diversity, the real fact is that by not requiring social service entities to form their own council to send a representative of their own forth to SEDC, they are actually SHUTTING OUT diversity.

I believe each non-nonprofit member represents a range of hundreds and thousands of voices. And if the nonprofits would form a member association, they could also represent far more voices as MORE nonprofit groups could join their association, instead of waiting for a turn at the SEDC council.

The issue was never about being "anti" nonprofit. It was about consistency and the pursuit of SEDC intent upon which it was founded. It was about disallowing special interests to hijack an important council. As boring in minutia it may seem on a surface level, it is important as this vote subordinated the charter's bylaws in order to sustain a power grab by new kids on the block and provide them with exceptions.

It is not a democratic process to provide exceptions just because they come with the sympathetic label "nonprofit".

Tonight, a council of councils is no more, as the principled stand by the Founding SEDC members was overwhelmed by the newly found clout of Tony To.

Yep, diverse Southeast Seattle has been invaded by well-meaning nonprofit agencies with their own social-engineering agendas that they want to shove down the throats of the folks who have to live with the consequences of the agencies actions and decisions.

As long as we're going to allow that, why not allow Bellevue residents to vote for our City Council?

For the record, I am currently trying to buy a house though some of the agencies mentioned (smart, reliable Homestead Community Land Trust and dim-witted Homesight, live in a senior/disabled building managed (or is it mangled) by the housing authority, and have worked with the always politically correct Tenant's Union.)

District Councils are for residents. If the non profits want to have a say, let them join the neighborhood business associations and chamber of commerces. That is what they are for and what the non profits are, businesses.

Or they can form their own association.

From article:
The Tenants Union's Thomas says eminent domain "can allow the community to have control over development instead of keeping it in the hands of private developers." Her organization envisioned a community board that would approve forced sales.

Response:
Yes, and Michele hoped she would personally have a position on that board which would force people of color, harking from every corner of the globe, to sell and, IRONICALLY, allow private white developers to obtain the property at a "discount." Where's the social or racial justice in that Michele? Apparently you prefer the City be an intermediary before the private developer takes over. Free market forces would work just fine and keep prices more affordable in SE if non-profits didn't have the deep pockets of government and private donations behind them. Time and again they pay above the prevailing market rate for property and artificially force property prices up around their site. I've also witnessed property owners of color wanting to improve and develop their properties, only to be hampered by the City...they give up and sell and almost immediately a white developer from outside Seattle has the way paved to develop in a much more intrusive way than the original owner want to. I encourage you to do some homework on the subject. If the entire SE community supported the current property owners (the ones who have weathered the tough times in the area) in the development of their own properties we would retain our rich diversity and allow our fellow community members to share in the wealth instead of shipping the profit dollars out of Seattle.From article:
The backdrop for this face-off is a flurry of development that, as the rest of the city gets built out, has finally hit the South End. "We've been fighting for economic development down here for many, many years," says To, who represents the Rainier Chamber of Commerce on the council, and is also the executive director of HomeSight, a nonprofit organization that promotes affordable housing.

Response:
HomeSight, SEED (SE Effective Development) and other low-income housing developers have supposedly been fighting for economic development in the Valley for DECADES. Collectively the various agencies have been at work in the Valley for over a century and a half. By now we should have the most fabulous community in the City. Instead, we're considered by most to be the worst.

Well, they and the City have failed miserably at the task. It is time for others to take the reins. We need jobs. We wouldn't need all the low-income housing if people could work and earn a decent living. Tony To is lead for job development for the poorly conceived SE Action Agenda. His results over the past 4 years speak volumes. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. The people in low-income housing don't really matter to these agencies...they are a means to hand projects over to developers (private, white developers, most of whom aren't based in Seattle). The social service agencies with ties to City funding in SE Seattle need to be committed to the whole person. Ensure adequate support, amenities and services for those low-income families that already call SE home. Then we can talk about adding to the low-income housing inventory.From article:
Whether adding paid professionals who purport to represent diverse constituencies satisfies this directive is an open question. Bryngelson, for one, notes that she has tried to get NewHolly residents to council meetings themselves, but that the few who have come have been put off by the "scary" atmosphere.

Response:
I urge everyone to read the book "Counterfeit Society". That is what we have in many parts of SE Seattle. Residents are being silenced by the agencies that provide their housing. Why do the agencies insist on keeping clientele under their thumbs? Let the residents form their own councils and speak for themselves, without being dictated to by the agencies. The Founding SENDC members would welcome these new councils with open arms!!!

When Joy brought three NewHolly residents to the SEDC meeting she didn't even allow them to introduce themselves. The complete lack of respect the agencies show their clientele is reprehensible. In particular, low-income immigrants are treated like they don't have any capacity at all. If we let the clientele run the show for themselves (without interference from current agency powerbrokers) we'd likely have the improvements in SE we so desperately need. We don't really know if the three residents of NewHolly found the meeting "scary" as they were never allowed to speak for themselves or interact with folks from other neighborhoods. Pitiful.From article:
In addition, the Seattle Housing Authority launched two major redevelopment efforts in recent years, at Rainier Vista and NewHolly, that turned drab subsidized housing projects into shiny mixed-income communities.

Response:
I encourage you to drive through the recently built NewHolly. Paint is peeling from some buildings. Problems with with the plumbing. Acorn found appliances and fixtures in the units falling apart when they went into NewHolly several years ago to organize the tenants. Not so shiny anymore.