Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary, Politics

“My Very Own Voter’s Guide to the 37th District”

3 Comments

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the following commentary are solely those of the author and  do not constitute an endorsement of any particular candidate or public policy by The Emerald.

By Sandra Vanderven

Deepthroat, the high level white house official who served as an informant to the journalists who uncovered Watergate, famously said, “Follow the money.”  It was true then, it is true now, and it will be true for years to come.  So stay with me while I tell you what I see in the candidates and the donors who love them.

State Senate

When Adam Klein announced he wouldn’t be running again to represent the 37th in the WA state senate, there was a lot of anxiety among residents and political insiders.  Who would step up?  Who could do this shitty, thankless job?  Who would even want to?  Senator Klein was about to leave some big shoes in Olympia.  People talked amongst themselves.  They started cutting up straws so someone could pull the short one.  Then Pramila Jayapal announced she would be running, and there was a collective sigh of relief, “Oh good, this is handled!” Pramila has founded and headed impactful organizations like Hate Free Zone and One America.  Her life has been dedicated for decades to making things better for others.

In this case, following her donations gives us a picture of broad based support.  Individuals, organizations, businesses all over the map are maxing out their donations to her, giving as much as the law allows.  At this point, she has $260,000, roughly quadruple the kitty of her opponent.  So money isn’t inherently bad, especially when it comes from diverse sources and funds a good candidate.  SEIU, Nick Hanauer and Mayor Murray don’t write checks for just anyone.  These guys look for someone who can figure out how to operate in Olympia, and how to win in their district.  She has smart, connected fans, and she will win.  Be on the right side of history, and vote for her.

Louis Watanabe seems like a well-meaning guy.  People who care about their fellow humans often think that the way we behave is due to a lack of information.  The theory goes, if only we knew what he knows, we would have the same values he does, and we would act on them by voting for him.  So his campaign seeks to educate us on Juneteenth, on internment, on Abraham Lincoln, and what the name Redskins refers to.  All very important.  What he unfortunately leaves out is a sense of how he’ll make a difference on our behalf.  Lots of his donors live in California, many of them with the last name Watanabe.  There doesn’t seem to be much organizational buy-in to his campaign, and judging from his website, no good advice coming from anywhere.

State House Position 1

Sharon Tomiko Santos:  She is great on education, and doesn’t appear to slobber over Boeing as much as some of her colleagues, so she is probably on balance good for our state.  But wait, what is this all about?  Tons of donations from tribes… I hope they are not trying to put more entertainment at the end of that two lane highway that goes to the White River Amphitheater.  Have you ever tried going to something there?  What a mess.  I will never do that again.  I also see donations from airport concessionaires.  You will recall that Seatac Airport is ground zero for the $15 minimum wage fight.  I am curious about why she is getting all kinds of money from folks who are still looking for ways not to pay their employees a living wage.  Other strange bedfellows:  Pharma, timber, BNSF, insurance, alcohol distributors…I guess if I were running I’d take the money too, and laugh all the way to election day.  Let’s hope that is what is going on, because her opponent, well, she doesn’t really have an opponent.

Daniel Bretzke has raised a cool grand for this election.  Actually, I am rounding down, which isn’t fair.  He has raised $ 1,239.88.  Don’t you think it is crass to bring it down to money?  And yet, a story is being told here.  This guy isn’t going to win.  Last red flag I’ll bother to mention is that he was endorsed by the Seattle Times.  I have an idea!  If you ever decide to run for something, just put an R next to your name.  Ka-ching!  Times endorsement received.  An aside:  What is that newspaper doing in Seattle?

State House Position 2

Eric Pettigrew:  Oh shit–donations from education reformers.  Has he drunk the Kool-Aid?  People!  If you don’t know by now that education reform is code for privatization, I just told you!  Now you know!  Eric Pettigrew should read this.  Unfortunately he’s working across the aisle on the union-busting, education killing bullshit we call charter schools.  For 100 years, our country has upheld our values by providing free, public education.  Over the last several decades, conservatives have applied leeches to our schools’ budgets.  After so much bloodletting education is dizzy and can barely stand, those same folks scream education isn’t working, and it needs to be “reformed.”  Of course their solution is to start down the road of privatization; e.g., charter schools, to fix what wouldn’t have been broken in the first place if only it was properly funded.  If we wake up one day with our public schools replaced by a private school system, I will blame Eric Pettigrew and all the rest of the gullible suckers who think charter schools are going to solve a problem created by chronic underfunding.

Eric Pettigrew has an opponent who isn’t going to win, and we wouldn’t want that anyways.  Her name is Tamra Smilanich and she sounds like a tool.

—

I’m delighted that we are about to be represented by someone operating at the caliber of Pramila Jayapal, but the rest of the stable do not represent the people of the 37th.  There’s only one thing to do about that.  You lovelies have to start preparing to run for office.  I’m not talking about posting some half assed website and running a losing campaign.  It looks like some other folks already have a corner on that around here.  I am talking about really finding out what it would take to run and win.  There are resources for that, including Wellstone Action, which provides candidate trainings in Seattle once a year, and Progressive Majority, which exists to get people ready to run for office.  There is no reason in hell we should be stuck with these folks.  As the kids used to say, bust a move!

But wait, there’s more!  Here are some of our juicy initiatives:

1351:  Smaller class sizes are a good thing, and our kids need it.  The Washington State legislature could go to the pokey for refusing to give our kids the education they need and deserve.  True story.  Voting yes on this will add more pressure which these assholes obviously need.  Vote yes.

591:  Don’t vote for this unless you think mentally ill people and spouse abusers should have it enshrined in law that they can buy guns too.  Vote no.

594:  There is a wide range of opinion about gun ownership, but the vast majority of us, including NRA members, believe that people who are mentally unstable and people who beat their spouses shouldn’t have ready access to guns.  This initiative would seek to close loopholes so everyone trying to buy a gun in our state has to have their background checked.  We should place a reasonable limit on who gets to have a gun.  Vote yes if you think murder is bad.

Prop 1: Shall we, the owners and drivers of carbon spewing cars, spend $60 per year ($40 if you qualify for a rebate) plus a sliver more sales tax to protect bus service in Seattle?  I like the bus and often intend to take it.  I look at the schedule, figure out when I need to leave to catch the next one, take too long applying mascara, and end up driving.  In this way I end up parking downtown at $20 a pop just to meet a friend for happy hour or see my shrink.  For you mathematicians, I do this way more than 3 times a year.  We drivers pay thousands per year for the car, gas, insurance, parking and maintenance.  I spend almost $60 every time I fill up my tank.  Please pony up to preserve service for people who have jobs and need to use buses to get to them.  Pay $60 in an entire fucking year so that little old ladies can visit their grandchildren.  Pay $60 to keep the buses running so I don’t drive to happy hour and accidentally drive through your yard on my way home. Vote yes.

Early Childhood Education 1A vs 1B:

  1. First say yes to early education.  No-brainer.  Kids need it.  Boom.  Done.
  2. The choices are 1A vs. 1B.  Sweetjesusinheaven.

1A, invented by the organizations representing the people who are already doing this work; i.e., the real experts, stabilizes the workforce by ensuring wage parity with burger flippers (not that there is anything wrong with flipping burgers), and provides for continuing education as needed.  This is good because next year at this time, 38% of childcare workers (mostly women, mostly mothers, mostly of color—so in other words the most poorly treated people in this country) will have quit their jobs and moved on to something else.  We desperately need more stability in this field, which 1A would achieve.  This will benefit all of the kids in pre-k.

1B is a pilot program which will eventually provide more access to childcare, but it is also more Kool-Aid.  Early education is crucial for positive outcomes to kids, which is why we should not leave the planning in the hands of Tim “his eyes were silently begging me to help him” Burgess and a bunch of consultants.  What about love, patience, creativity, and cultural relevance?  According to Burgess, the hell with all that.  1B was forcefully kept separate from 1A so he doesn’t have to negotiate with unions.  These ballot measures should never have been pitted against one another.  They should both win. Do what the Progressive Voters Guide suggests and vote for both to send a message that we do not appreciate the shenanigans.

Whatever you do, please do vote on or before November 4th.  People who do not have your best interests in mind have their hearts set on you becoming demoralized and no longer participating in democracy.  If you don’t vote, they win.

Sandra Vanderven is a Community Organizer and Board President of the Backbone Campaign.

Commentary, Politics

McCleary: A Major Opportunity For Washington State

by John Stafford

The McCleary decision (McCleary vs. State of Washington, 2012) is one of the most momentous events for public policy in modern state history.  It asserts that the state is failing in its paramount duty:  “…to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders” (Washington State Constitution, Article IX, section 1).  This decision calls for a major increase in funding for K-12 education – roughly $4.5 billion per biennium by 2018.  The upcoming legislative session will be dominated by negotiations on how to meet this demand.  This article offers seven observations on McCleary.

  1. The McCLeary decision represents a direct indictment of Washington State governance.  High income states tend to spend more per pupil on education – but not Washington State.  We are 44th in the nation in per pupil spending as a percentage of personal income.  The state’s courts have ruled repeatedly that public education is not appropriately funded (e.g., 1977, 1978, 1983, 2007, 2009).  Moreover, citizens have voted for increases in educational funding (e.g., I-728 and I-732 in 2000).  For a variety of reasons, these efforts have not led to sufficient reform.  Thus, despite repeated judicial interventions and citizen initiatives, the state’s educational financing system remains dysfunctional.  Worse, prior to McCLeary, there were no consequential plans afoot from the governor or the Legislature to address this glaring problem.
  2. The McCLeary decision represents an indirect indictment of Washington State’s taxation system.  The biggest factor driving inadequate education funding is a poorly designed tax system.  With no personal income tax, constraints on property tax increases and a corporate tax code filled with exemptions, Washington operates at a severe competitive disadvantage relative to other states.  In my last article (“Washington State’s Broken Tax System,” September 2, 2014), I noted that between 1995 and 2011, Washington fell from 11th to 37th in tax revenue as a percent of personal income.  A broken tax system leads to a broken educational financing system.  Period.
  3. Holding the Legislature in contempt of court is entirely appropriate.  Despite a court order to develop a funding plan by April, 2014, the Legislature did nothing.  Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision to find the Legislature in contempt is appropriate.  I disagree with the former Washington governors who argued against the ruling for two reasons:  their argument was an after-the-fact attempt to defer a contempt finding rather than a before-the-fact effort to change the compliance deadline; and the Court’s directive for the Legislature to develop a funding plan for McCleary prior to the 2015 session was both reasonable and desirable.
  4. There is no easy way to fund McCLeary.  In the upcoming legislative session, there will be large claims for extra funding for K-12 education, higher education and the state transportation budget.  The improving economy will provide some additional revenue, but not nearly enough to meet these demands.  Thus, a tax increase and/or spending cuts will be mandatory.  Citizens (and the Court) should be wary of accounting gimmickry, whereby funds are taken from a non-education account and moved into education in order to comply with McCleary, leaving the raided accounts to be backfilled later.  Many analysts (including retiring Senator Adam Kline) claim that several hundred million dollars of the initial wave of McCleary funding was “achieved” in this manner.
  5. I-1351 should be rejected.  This initiative calls for a reduction in class sizes.  This is an important endeavor, as Washington State has average class sizes that are among the highest in the nation.  However, the initiative should be rejected for fiscal reasons:  the money necessary to finance it is considerable (several billion dollars per biennium); this funding is incremental to McCleary; and no one in the state has any idea how to pay for it.  I-1351 is exactly the right initiative at exactly the wrong time.  The focus should be entirely on McCleary.
  6. McLeary should provide the impetus to overhaul the state’s tax system.  A confluence of factors make this an ideal time to modify Washington State’s tax system:  the current system is broken (as noted above); McCleary requires significant additional funding that the current system is not well-equipped to provide; and the improvement in economic conditions makes tax reform more viable.  A restructuring should include a combination of strategies (e.g., a major repeal of corporate tax breaks, an income tax on higher income earners, a capital gains tax, a reduction in regressive taxes, etc.),  leading to a modest net tax increase.  An inferior approach is the mere tweaking of the existing system – with Democrats working for the closing of several tax loopholes and Republicans calling for “education first, other priorities later” (which is, of course, code for cutting social programs to pay for McCleary).
  7. McCleary represents an opportunity to rethink public education in Washington State.  Anytime an institution (in this case the education system) is infused with a substantial amount of additional funding, an opportunity exists to redesign the system.  The McCleary funding can support significant new investment in early learning; efforts to more tightly integrate early learning, K-12, and higher education (rather than managing them as separate, standalone entities); and other reforms.  McCleary should not just be about educational finance; it should be about education system design.

The Legislature can address the McCleary requirements using one of two philosophical approaches.  The first is a narrow, partisan approach that sees McCleary as a burdensome problem to be begrudgingly solved using incremental adjustments to the existing system.  The second is an expansive approach that sees McCleary as a unique opportunity to simultaneously restructure three major and persistent state problem areas – tax policy, tax level and education system design.  The adoption of this second approach will require powerful leadership and bipartisan support – attributes that thus far have not emerged.  Indeed, all initial indications – the approach to generating the first $1 billion in McCleary funding; the failure of the parties to meet to develop an April, 2014 funding plan; and current rhetorical posturing (the depressing “close some loopholes” versus “education first” debate) – indicate that the narrow approach will be pursued — to the immense detriment of the state.  Rahm Emanuel stated that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  The McCleary challenge provides a rare opportunity for Washington State to restructure its troublesome tax policy, tax level and education system.  One hopes that this occasion is not squandered.

John Stafford is a substitute teacher for Seattle Public Schools and a former management consultant in corporate strategy.  He recently completed a run for State Senate in the 37th District.  He is writing a monthly article on public policy for the South Seattle Emerald.

Commentary

Emerald in the Rough: Arm Yourself

1 Comment

By Cindi Laws

Special to the South Seattle Emerald

It’s rough out here. But people aren’t protecting themselves with their best weapon. Not only are people the world-over dying to have access to this weapon, people in this country are dying because the weapon isn’t being used.

The weapon? The Vote.

It’s getting a lot of attention lately. Not enough attention, in my opinion, because it is indeed a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or at least a matter of life and death.

48 years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, last year the US Supreme Court severely weakened this landmark legislation. Since that time, red state after southern state enacted limitations and barriers to prevent people from voting. Those most affected are, of course, the poor and people of color. It is an outrage that the same country ostensibly led by those fighting for democracy planet-side watch gleefully while hundreds of thousands of African Americans are culled from voter lists. Presidential aspirants claim allegiance to the myth of voter fraud in celebration of such discriminatory actions.

But the real tragedy, the appalling, horrifying, head-slapping, the what-the-HELL-are-you-thinking Act of Idiocy, is that tens of millions of American Citizens let this happen because they don’t vote. They don’t even register to vote. And when that happens, shit happens.

Ferguson, Missouri. You’ve watched the video. Heard the heartbreak. And while political and partisan divisions are rife throughout the country, the greatest division is that which comes between the voting population and those who are elected. Those who cast their vote hire the police chief, the city prosecutor, judges. Ferguson is 67% African American, yet the mayor and five of six city councilmembers are not. In Ferguson, only 6% of African Americans actually cast ballots in that last election for mayor and councilmembers. Six is the age a first-grader learns that they have rights in this country. It should not be the percentage of people who cast ballots.

As the Federal Department of Justice investigation of Seattle police actions under different mayors and police chiefs indicate, shit happens here in Seattle too. In 2013, voters city-wide had enough of Mayor Mike McGinn’s obstructionism in regards to the DOJ’s decree and demand for police reform. They tossed him out of office. But voters in the Rainier Valley overwhelmingly supported McGinn’s re-election. Say wha….??

These past few years, there has been great “discomfort” in the Rainier Valley with many of the actions of City leaders, whether it is in zoning and other land decisions, transit and transportation issues, proposals to increase rents in public housing, and more. People are posting and protesting. People are screaming or stalking out of meetings in silent disgust. People are fomenting and frothing about this action or that apparent inaction. But what people are NOT doing is voting.

According to the Washington Redistricting Commission, each legislative district holds 137,235 residents (that’s the state’s population of 6.7 million divided as evenly as possible into 49 legislative districts. But here’s a problem: only 58% (80,710) of our people in the 37th LD are registered to vote. In comparison, a whopping 74% of those in the 36th LD, which includes Queen Anne, Magnolia and Ballard are registered to vote. Any guesses why they get attention from city leaders?

It gets worse. Fewer than 25,000 people in our district voted in the August primary. 30% of registered voters. But the math works out so that just 17.7% of the people who live here cast ballots.

But wait. There’s more. Census figures show that 25% of the entire population in the Southest Seattle area is African American. Yet fewer than 5% of our registered voters are African American. And those who cast ballots? Do the math. We are far, far worse off than Ferguson. Similar patterns are spread across many of our racial groups.

But the good people of Ferguson have armed themselves. They are gathering the most important weapons in this country. Since Michael Brown was murdered on August 9, voter registration booths have sprung up throughout the city and surrounding neighborhoods, registering nearly 3,500 people in a town of 21,000.

Southeast Seattle: arm yourselves. Use your weapon.

Register to vote online before midnight October 6, 2014 at http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/myvote/

Or, register to vote at the counter up until Monday, October 27 in person at King County Elections, 919 Southwest Grady Way in Renton, and.

Don’t yell. VOTE. It scares the Hell out of those who want to take away your rights.

Cindi Laws is a resident of the Rainier View neighborhood and a long-time activist. 

Commentary, Education

Seattle’s Universal Pre-K Smackdown

by Sandra Vanderven

The Seattle Channel hosted a debate last Wednesday between the sponsors of dueling initiatives on Seattle’s ballot in support of access to and quality of pre-kindergarten education.  Both plans start with the worthy goal of improving pre-k.  The choice we face is how to achieve that goal.  We shouldn’t be having to choose between them, because they each address different aspects of early childhood education, and taken together the plans would be complimentary.  Unfortunately, the City opted to put them onto the ballot in competition with one another. The City Council’s (really, Tim Burgess’s) plan privileges educator attainment of official credentials and a mandated curriculum.  The union backed plan seeks to leverage the wealth of experience among practicing professionals.

The situation right now is that the cost of preschool is so high that many families who need it can’t afford it.  At the same time, there isn’t enough money to pay the teachers adequately, so every year, 38% of the workers leave the profession.  Until the new minimum wage kicks in for smaller businesses, the turnover will be even greater, as people will leave to flip burgers instead when it becomes more lucrative.

Burgess’ plan seeks to raise money through a levy to pay for a new department of Early Childhood Education.  This new department will mostly pull people from work they are already doing for the city in that field, causing work disruption and delay, and likely requiring a new layer of management (watch for that, because expenses will go way up).  It will mandate methods used in the classroom for 3 and 4 year olds, and will serve about 200 kids in two years, and 2,000 in four years.  This ballot measure requires preschool teachers to get college degrees.

The union-backed plan doesn’t directly add enrollment capacity.  What it does do is provide access to preschool to more families by lowering tuition costs to no more than 10% of a given household’s income.  The means of paying for this has not yet been determined.  It will also create better conditions for the estimated 30,000 kids already being served from birth to age 5.  One way to do this is to raise the minimum wage sooner for pre-k teachers, so they can afford to stay in the profession, providing a consistent presence for the kids.  Another is by offering a variety of training opportunities accessible through an affordable training academy. In this way, the union backed plan honors the experience of the people who work with kids, and provides them with opportunities to grow professionally in a way that is tailored to meet each teacher’s needs and goals.

At last Wednesday’s early education smackdown, I sat next to former Seattle School Board member Michael DeBell.  He supports Tim Burgess’s initiative, which on the ballot will be labeled 1B.  From chatting with him, I got that he explains away the merits of the union backed initiative (1A) with an attitude that naysayers are gonna naysay.  I didn’t talk to him long enough to get a sense of whether he’s always a democratic establishment guy, but he sure wears their perfume.  The hallmark is a subscription to a smarty pants attitude, as evinced by his statement, “There’s always going to be some group or another ready to oppose a good plan.”  Never mind what the supporters of 1A think, or why.

This debate boils down to people’s a priori beliefs.  Some feel strongly that to support kids we need to support teachers and families.  Others think the answers lie with testing.  The catchword in education for at least the last decade or so has been “outcomes.”  This is an important and productive development.  But making all education conform to standard outcomes would be a mistake.  Here’s why.

Since I am totally objective, you know it is true when I tell you that the best teacher to ever walk the planet happened to work at my high school.  His name was Jerry Elarth.  Elarth was a feral thinker.  Because it was 1984 and no one had put a stop to it yet, he taught a class called Science Fiction and World Philosophy.  I learned more in that class about what it means to be human, and how to continue learning beyond school, than in any other.  What would have happened if that teacher had been hammered by our current obsession with outcomes?  Who could write the test questions that might evaluate what I got out of that class?  Even I couldn’t do that, and if I could, a different set of questions would have to be devised for every student he taught, because we all had a unique experience.

I love science, and I have a healthy regard for all things science-y.  This is how I have come to know that the enemy of science is hubris.  If you are convinced that we are always asking the right questions, then by all means, support Tim Burgess, who positions himself as having science on his side, like a member of a religious sect claiming that God is actually in his corner and no one else’s.  Check this out—if a nurse visits the home of a new, at-risk mom once every two weeks from before birth to age two offering guidance in nurturing, the child’s prospects rocket in all regards.  Significantly more of them graduate from high school, they go to jail in far fewer numbers, get in trouble at school way less, and have higher I.Q.s.  That’s science too, bub!

This all boils down to beliefs.  Do we Seattleites believe that there’s value in supporting teachers in their creative quests to guide students toward richer lives, or do we continue to find ways to standardize education?  Let your beliefs guide you when choosing between the two early education plans.

Sandra Vanderven is a Community Organizer and Board President of the Backbone Campaign.

Commentary, Op-Ed

Civic Salvos: Pre-School for All, Maybe…

2 Comments

by Sandra Vanderven

There’s a plan afoot to make sure 3 and 4 year olds in Seattle have access to affordable preschool.  What great news!  Families struggle to get care for their kids, and science tells us it is crucial to offer rich learning opportunities during these years.  Unfortunately, things aren’t as straightforward as they seem.

The Good  

Access to preschool on a sliding scale is needed and important.

The Bad  

This plan was created by the city’s staff and paid consultants, while intentionally excluding the true stakeholders.  We know from experience that when collaboration does not occur, there is less of a clear shot at success.  That doesn’t mean it will fail, but it is more likely to.  The teachers, organizations who serve young children, and others who stand to be most affected by this plan are understandably upset that they have not and will not have a place at the table.  Someone needs to take the reins, but excluding people and entities whose work will either make this fly–or not–is the opposite of leadership.

The Ugly

The American Federation of Teachers and Service Employees Union International 925 have been working for a dozen years with early childhood educators to help them build an organizational voice in order to secure a living wage and job stability.  They have a plan for early childhood education. It covers birth on up, not just ages 3 and 4.  Probably politically driven, our city’s leadership has made some pretty slimy moves to ace them out of the picture.  From the look of it, it is all about who is in control.

This is disturbing, coming from what one would think is the most progressive city leadership, in a country which now has a pervasive climate of union busting.

The work of AFT and SEIU 925 laid the groundwork for Yes for Early Success, which collected 30,000 signatures to place an early childhood learning initiative on the ballot.  This initiative would provide preschool teachers with a training hub so that they can stay up to date on their profession’s best practices.  It would also phase these workers in to the $15 minimum wage more quickly, and give them a voice in determining how the program runs.

In contrast, get this:  The City would require all of the early childhood educators to get a 4 year college degree, with the exception of assistants, who would only have to have a two year degree. Where are these minimum wage workers going to get the time and money for this?  And why put such an onerous burden on them?  This is even more of a head scratcher when you realize that 38% of preschool assistants leave the profession in the space of a year.  Also, strangely, under the City’s plan, every family that enrolls is eligible for some amount of subsidy.  This would give scarce city money to some of the richest families on Earth, should they decide to enroll their kids.

It gets weirder. The city budget office created a memo fallaciously predicting the AFT/SEIU plan would incur costs calamitous to the city budget. Someone (likely a council member) leaked the memo to the press. The Seattle Times credulously used it in an editorial slamming the AFT/SEIU initiative.  But when the unions asked to see this memo to rebut the bogus claims, they were told that it is still covered by attorney client privilege.  These same predictions of budget destruction are being made to pit local trade unions against the plan.  These guys are being led to believe their livelihoods are threatened by day care workers.

But wait, there’s more. Tim Burgess and Mayor Murray are attempting to muscle the AFT/SEIU early childhood education initiative out of the way by making sure a competing initiative is presented on the ballot as either/or rather than complementary, muddying the waters as voters must choose between the two.

I am a voter, and here’s what I would choose if I could:  I would choose to be represented by elected officials who are motivated by service, not power.  I would vote for collaboration and effective leadership.  Not this nonsense.  Let’s hope kids can get a little preschool despite this mess.

Sandra Vanderven is a Community Organizer and Board President of the Backbone Campaign.

Commentary

Washington State’s Broken Tax System

by John Stafford

Washington State has a dysfunctional tax system – arguably the nation’s worst.  It is critical to understand the mechanisms by which this flawed tax system adversely impacts progressive public policy development in our state.

Washington is one of just seven states with no personal income tax.  This leads to an excessive reliance on the highly regressive sales tax.  It is also one of just three states that tax corporations based on their revenues (the business and occupancy, or “B&O” tax) rather than their profits.  This penalizes unprofitable firms (often start-ups), who would not pay taxes until they were profitable in other states.  And Washington is the only state in the nation that uses both of these inferior approaches.

This taxation system has numerous drawbacks.  First, as is commonly known, Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country.  Washington’s poorest 20% pay 16.9% of their income in state and local taxes, compared to 2.8% for the top 1% — a ratio of six, the worst in the nation (source:  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy).  The business tax is regressive as well.  The conservative Washington Policy Center writes:   “The problem is that the base includes unprofitable businesses, so if you readjusted the base to exclude unprofitable businesses, those who are profitable would see their tax rates rise.” The business tax structure also contains numerous exemptions, whose benefits are skewed toward large, profitable firms with lobbying clout.  Second, it is the regressive nature of Washington’s tax system that precipitates the ongoing stream of voter initiatives to limit tax increases (e.g., I-695, I-747, I-960, I-1033, I-1053, etc.) as lower and middle class citizens seek to limit the burden placed on them by the regressive system.  Even though some initiatives fail and others are overturned, the movement-at-large is influential.  The Economic Opportunity Institute comments on this connection between regressivity and tax reduction:  “…the disproportionately high tax burden placed on middle and low income families by Washington’s regressive tax system has led many to support tax cutting initiatives that hobble state and local government.”  Third, and consequently, Washington State has become a low taxation state.  Higher income states tend to have higher state and local taxes per capita.  But this is no longer true in Washington State.  Despite being a high income state (13th in the nation), Washington fell from 11th to 37th place in state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income between 1995 and 2011 (source:  Washington State Office of Financial Management).

This decline in tax position is hindering the state’s ability to adequately fund its most important obligations – a recurring phenomenon that is on constant display in our daily news.  Washington’s K-12 education spending per pupil as a percent of personal income is 44th in the nation.  This has brought forth the State Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, calling for a significant increase in spending.  Predictably, Washington’s legislators are having a difficult time complying with this decision.  Washington is 49th in the nation in mental health treatment capacity.  This has also triggered a judicial intervention.  Higher Education suffered major reductions in state funding during the Great Recession, which gave rise to the second highest tuition increases in the country.  State employees and teachers have forgone cost-of-living wage increases for years.  And so on.

Washington State is generally seen as one of the most progressive states in the nation, and yet it has the most regressive tax structure in the nation.  It becomes important to ask:  is this merely an ironic dichotomy, or is there more to it than that?  Here, it is worth noting a loose parallel between national and state tax dynamics.  In Washington D.C., a common conservative tactic is to reduce taxes in order to deprive the government of the funding needed for liberal programs (“starving the beast”).  In a more roundabout way, Washington State’s tax structure engenders a similar dynamic.  A poorly designed tax structure drives intense regressivity, which foments efforts to constrain taxes, which has contributed to a decline in Washington’s rank in tax revenue as a percent of personal income, which has led to a series of institutions to be underfunded.  To address this challenge, legislators, with progressive taxation options off the table, are forced to consider additional regressive taxes.  In this manner, Washington’s tax structure forces the progressive agenda to work in opposition to itself.  That is, there is the desire on behalf of liberals to fund progressive priorities – K-12 education, mental health, higher education, cost-of-living wage increases, etc.  But to do so, they must decide whether to inflict further financial burden on the lower and middle classes — the very classes that these programs are intended to support.

In Washington, our dysfunctional tax system frustrates the progressive policy agenda – to the detriment of the state.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine the state successfully meeting its basic institutional funding obligations over the long term without fundamental tax reform.

John Stafford is a substitute teacher for Seattle Public Schools and a former management consultant in corporate strategy.  He recently completed a run for State Senate in the 37th District.  He will be writing a monthly article on public policy for the South Seattle Emerald

Commentary

Cinema Verite: The Real Stars Aren’t on the Screen, They’re in the Seats

1 Comment

by Devin Chicras

Fade in: Interior, Skyway VFW, late July. West Hill residents pour single file into the basement for a community meeting called to address the growing concern for public safety in the wake of a recent spike in gun violence – including one memorable incident where two groups exchanged dozens of rounds across the main street, injuring six.

One woman is overheard mentioning “it’s a good thing it’s still light outside, or I wouldn’t have came. Not safe to be out here at night”. Older gentleman over her right shoulder nods in agreement.

They’re not alone. While the level of violence was analogous to many other surrounding areas, many residents and businesses had seriously considered moving out of the area, the tension and anxiety was palpable and online discussion was exploding. On top of an already difficult situation, we had just lost our beloved Storefront Deputy, someone many looked up to and regarded as a change maker in our community with his compassionate community policing model. He had given us hope, and now many felt lost.

If you had watched the news coverage of the meeting you would have assumed that it was entirely about how devastated the community was about Deputy Barnes’ departure. What you didn’t see was that the majority of the event was actually dedicated to brainstorming solutions to crime, and specifically, gun violence among youths. What the cameras didn’t catch was the incredible energy, empathy and problem solving that our neighbors brought to the meeting. Some mentioned that they wanted to do something for their community, but they seemed to be waiting for some direction.

I was in the crowd that night. I didn’t have a grand solution to end the violence. As a board member of the nonprofit, volunteer-run West Hill Community Association (WHCA) I felt inclined to focus on the positive side of our neighborhood and shared a list of opportunities for folks to get involved and contribute to a safer, more vibrant neighborhood – from work parties, annual cleanups and ways to get connected to neighbors, to an upcoming event called Skyway Outdoor Cinema.

I (among others) made a similar speech at an earlier WHCA meeting immediately following the police captain’s update on the recent major shooting (and neighbors asking what they could do about it) but the camera also stopped rolling after they had gotten the footage they came for, lest they complicate their neat paradigm of Skyway as lawless, crime-ridden area – a stigma perpetuated by the media which has not only been embedded in the consciousness of those that do not dare visit Skyway for fear of their own safety, but also in that of our very own neighbors. It breeds mistrust and serves to further isolate an area that already suffers from a severe lack of resources due to its unincorporated status and creates major challenges in building unity and expanding communication within our richly diverse, wonderfully unique neighborhood.

Two days after that public safety meeting – just two days after hearing folks say they wouldn’t want to be caught on the streets after dark – the 14th season of Skyway Outdoor Cinema kicked off behind the 7-Eleven on Renton Avenue South to an all time record crowd.

Myself and Mary Goebel served as the two lone volunteer organizers of WHCA’s Skyway Outdoor Cinema, and we’d worked all year, but still SOC2had much to do just before the opening day. The majority of expected funding had fallen through, and the timing couldn’t have been worse as by last season we had already doubled the crowds with a complete re-brand, expanded marketing efforts and a comprehensive overhaul of the whole event. Our ultimate goal was to continue making the event sustainable by securing sponsors and purchasing our own equipment, rather than renting.

To that end, we decided that we needed our own A/V equipment. While a grant from King County covered a bit less than half of an all-in-one unit we intended to buy, we were still about $4k short. So we turned to the community. We started an Indiegogo campaign, uploaded a silly but heartfelt video and put our fate in the hands of our neighbors. We didn’t have much money available to rent equipment, so the stakes were high. We received an incredible response, and in less than a month, we surpassed our goal by a total of 9%, thanks to some amazingly generous folks.

Similarly, calls for volunteers were met with responses from some of the kindest, most hard-working folks I’ve ever met.

As the emcee for the event, I needed some impromptu volunteers to help raffle off prizes after the film. The request had barely finished transferring from the mic to the speakers when a sea of tiny hands shot up. I quickly selected a group of children at random – not immediately realizing that some couldn’t have been much older than six or seven – to help hold the prizes up, spin the raffle drum, draw tickets and call out numbers over the microphone in front of hundreds of people. I have rarely seen the level of professionalism shown by these tiny humans displayed by fully grown adults. I’ve now repeated the same process over three nights with a completely different group of kids each time, with the same exact result.

We had no idea how many people would show up after seeing all of those negative news stories. We didn’t expect 300 attendees, from babies to seniors, to show up at a 7-Eleven in Skyway and stay until 11pm on a Friday night in August. And we certainly didn’t expect whole families to flock to Skyway of all places from Redmond, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way and beyond.

While there may be some people that are quick to write us off, we are a community of leaders and compassionate supporters, who are simply searching for an opportunity to get involved. Something special is happening here in Skyway, and I think it’s only getting started.

Photos courtesy Skyway Outdoor Cinema

——

Skyway Outdoor Cinema is showing “Frozen” for its final event of the season is this Friday, 8/22 behind the 7-Eleven on Renton Ave. S. & 76th Ave. S. Preshow fun runs from 8-9pm, with a free prize wheel, silly photo booth featuring Olaf the snowman made out of balloons and a free ticket for the raffle after the film. Concessions range from 50-75¢, so bring all the change in your couch cushions. Don’t forget to bring your own chair, beanbag, blanket or picnic table. Princess costume optional.

Facebook.com/SkywayOutdoorCinema

MyWestHill.org/SOC

Commentary, Op-Ed

Emerald in the Rough: When The Dog and Pony Show Came to Town

2 Comments

By Cindi Laws

Special to the South Seattle Emerald

The latest tools of the City of Seattle, Find-It/Fix-It walks, were designed to have regular citizens meet their city leaders, to chat with police officers, and to point out things like graffiti and trash. Those need to be pointed out because, obviously, no one from the City has noticed these things recently.

These walks were designed to assuage the fears of people living and working in South Seattle. To show that city leaders were indeed paying attention. Attention to the fact that, since April 19, more people have been killed in the 37th Legislative District, which South Seattle dominates, than in the War in Afghanistan. Attention to the fact that, while violent crime has fallen city-wide, gun violence in the South Precinct is up 165 percent over all of 2013. Attention to the fact that the South Precinct has its 8th new police captain in five years. Attention to the fact that 75 percent of robberies in the South Precinct occur within 250 feet of transit stations, and that robberies are way, way up.

On Tuesday, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray joined in the fifth “Find-It/Fix-It” walk, the second in the Rainier Beach area. It was gratifying to see the Mayor in the neighborhood, especially since he missed the July 22nd Rainier Beach event. Tuesday’s walk was also attended by Councilmember Sally Clark (a resident of the Brighton neighborhood), and Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes (who lives south of Seward Park). Councilmember Bruce Harrell, a lifelong resident of South Seattle, participated in the first three walks.

But residents of South Seattle should be very concerned that none of the other seven members of the Seattle City Council have bothered to show up at the Find-it/Fix-It walks. Not the only member who served as a police officer. Not the only member who served as a Deputy King County Prosecutor. Not the Vice Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Of the 80 people participating in Tuesday’s walk, more than half are paid city employees, representing the departments of police and fire, parks, neighborhoods, transportation, and lots of young interns and junior staff from the Mayor’s office. It was uplifting to show such a huge city contingent that the Seattle city limits extend beyond McClellan Street. Welcome to Rainier Beach, Mr. Mayor.

One could be forgiven for being skeptical that these walks would accomplish much. Since the first Rainier Beach walk two weeks ago, we’ve had numerous drive-by shootings, the home break-in and sexual assault of a child, and the pistol-whipping of a young woman in the Rainier Beach Public Library. Within hours of the Find-it/Fix-It walk around the Genesee Station, teen girls were robbed at gunpoint. More shootings here, there, everywhere in South Seattle.

Refreshingly, newly-hired Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole walked side-by-side with real neighbors genuinely excited by her presence. But while it was great to rub elbows with police brass, there was a disturbing disconnect.  Capt. John Hayes seemingly wanted to fill Robin Williams’ void by serving as jovial entertainer-in-chief. If he was describing, at any point, the violence that occurred in our library a few hours earlier, it wasn’t apparent because his demeanor was nothing but casual and flip. DJ, play me some Bobby McFerrin.

The first Rainier Beach Find-it/Fix-It walk had us leaving the light rail station, heading east on Henderson. Tripping on overgrown, unkempt street trees and broken sidewalks, my friend, who is blind, could see more blight and decay than city staff.  A nine-year old girl was bleeding from overgrown blackberry vines arching over sidewalks and onto city streets. I asked a representative of the Department of Transportation why the city couldn’t take care of this, especially when it’s on a block served by light rail and several bus lines. “This is private property,” she said. “It’s the owner’s responsibility.”

“I don’t (expletive) care,” I exploded in exasperation at her arrogant, let-them-eat-cake attitude. “Take care of it! Look at this bleeding girl and a fallen blind man; this is a hazard that needs to be fixed.” She argued with me, sputtering excuse after excuse why SDOT couldn’t help. Worse, with a straight face, she said that Rainier Beach gets the same resources as Queen Anne. And so goes the denial; so the lies are framed.

It’s one thing to ignore problems in South Seattle, as city leaders have done recently. But to take us on a stroll around a neighborhood, acting as if all is under control, as our city leaders praise their own responsiveness, is simply a Dog & Pony Show. We need the promised increase in police presence; we need those officers out of their cars and meeting youth and families; we need city administrators who won’t make excuses and will make progress; we need elected leaders who care as much about South Seattle as they do about South Lake Union.

Cindi Laws is a resident of the Rainier View neighborhood and a long-time activist.

Commentary, Politics

Analysis of Seattle City Council’s Approval of Mount Baker Rezone

2 Comments

by Young Han

Council Vote

Yesterday, the Seattle City Council voted to approve the Mount Baker rezone by an 8-1 vote, with Councilman Bruce Harrell in opposition (http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2021450). The legislation allows for greater urban density, a wider range of commercial uses, and tighter design standards around the Mount Baker Link Light Rail station.

The rezone’s intended effect is to transform an area currently dominated by strip malls and parking lots into a pedestrian-friendly hub of commercial and residential activity. Spurred by a neighborhood planning process that began in 1999 and a design framework developed 10 years later (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/completeprojectslist/northrainier/documents/default.htm), the rezone is a culmination of nearly 15 years of consideration. It also represents the city’s commitment to fostering growth in areas now served by investments in Link Light Rail. This is a major win for the future of Rainier Valley.

The Future/Back to the Future

Speaking of the future, two other developments stood out at this meeting. The first is Councilwoman Sally Bagshaw’s enthusiasm for further positive changes that can be made to the area, now that the rezone issue has been decided. She cited the original Olmstead Brothers’ plan for Seattle parks (http://www.seattle.gov/parks/parkspaces/olmsted.htm) and her interest in “reclaiming North Rainier’s Olmstead parks and boulevards.” The Olmsteads’ 1903 plan initially called for 20 contiguous miles of parks and green space throughout our city. While the city built out much of this plan in its early years, including space along Lake Washington Blvd and in the heart of Mount Baker, it breaks down into a sea of congestion and concrete along Rainier Ave S. Many area residents have called for the beautification of this area by bringing more of the Olmstead Brothers’ original vision into fruition and making concurrent traffic changes at the intersection of Rainier Ave S and Martin Luther King. They may have an ally in Councilwoman Bagshaw.

Opposing Views

The second thing that stood out at this meeting are the opposing votes by the two Councilmembers who reside in Southeast Seattle, Sally Clark and Bruce Harrell. With district-based elections starting next year, both Councilmembers will be up for re-election. Harrell has already registered to run for the district-based seat, Position 2, while Sally Clark is running citywide, for Position 9. Even while withholding all opinions about districting, which I mildly supported/still loosely support, it is nonetheless interesting to note.

Sally Clark voted in support of the rezone, along with seven other Councilmembers, while Bruce Harrell voted against it. In opposing the legislation, Harrell echoed the opponents of the rezone in saying that it shouldn’t occur until the city can identify developers who have an intention to build. “There are no pending development projects contingent upon this planned rezone… It would seem to me that this is when you start talking to the developer community,” he said. Later he also claimed that, he had not heard a single comment in support of a 125 foot height allowance for a parcel currently occupied by Lowe’s Home Improvement.

Both claims came across as strange.As Clark herself pointed out earlier in the meeting, by the time a developer has intentions for an area or a particular parcel, the city is already behind the curve. “The city will not act fast enough in order to change the land use map to make sure the neighborhood gets what it has been asking for.” This seems prima facie evident considering the duration of the current process. The Mount Baker rezone, from the time the city released the 2009 Design Framework, has taken five years to approve. This is just for theoretical development. Perhaps, as Harrell says, the city can wait until developers draw up specific plans. The question is, then what? There is no reason to believe the process will be any less drawn-out or contentious in the future. Furthermore there is a question of whether the city wants to get into the business of micromanaging future development. This is a recipe for years of added uncertainty and chaos, not greater democratic participation.

Harrell’s claim that he has not heard any support for raising the height allowance for the Lowe’s parcel is also confounding, given that he attended the same Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee meeting that many of my neighbors and I did. Some of us, myself included, spoke directly about this issue. Either way, Harrell will find political support among the vocal opponents of the rezone should he run again next year. This may be exactly the point. He appears to have taken a less reasoned policy stance to gain well-organized political backing. Clark took a simultaneously more principled and practical position by recognizing long-standing planning principles and supporting means to ends on which most Valley residents can agree: we needs smarter growth and more jobs. For that she should be commended.

Young Han is a Columbia City resident interested in economic history and the economics of technological change as well as an advocate for cooperative development, and expanding economic democracy

Commentary

Race Matters

Editor’s Note: Race Matters is a new column which provides a nuanced take on race and its impact on the culture of the South Seattle area.

by Sam Louie, M.A., LMHC

Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA team Dallas Mavericks provoked controversy following his interview with Inc. Magazine regarding his views on race and culture.

“I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of. So in my businesses, I try not to be hypocritical. I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house, and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”

His comment comes after the NBA’s actions against Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught on audiotape making racially charged comments.  The NBA banned Sterling for life and fined him 2.5 million dollars after he told a female friend, V. Stiviano, not to bring Black people to Clippers games.  Sterling is in the midst of having the NBA force him to sell his team as well.

Some have accused Cuban of being a bigot but I think this misses the point.  In the interview he adds, “While we all have our prejudices and bigotries, we have to learn that it’s an issue that we have to control.”  Control and how we handle our prejudices is the operative word here.  Just because Cuban has prejudices doesn’t make him racist.  Being aware of race, culture, context and the implications it poses to us personally is much more valuable than people ignoring the subject matter by hiding behind the veil of being blind to color when they say, “I don’t see color”.  What these people are implying is that their decisions and how they treat someone aren’t based on another person’s ethnicity, skin tone, or appearance.  I believe for the most part, Americans don’t discriminate in hiring practices, housing, and other significant racial issues, but when it comes to issues of socialization and our own personal comfort zone, we do discriminate and have our prejudices.

Despite our best attempts to not think about race, there will be times and situations where race, culture, image, and stereotypes form our decision-making.  I believe if we deny this part of ourselves, we deny our humanity.  We are at our core, primal creatures.  We make automatic decisions that are unconscious, reflexive, and based on our need for survival.

There’s an almond-shaped part of our brain in the temporal lobe, called the amygdala, that is hard-wired to any threat (real or imagined).  The amygdala, controls autonomic responses associated with fear, arousal, and emotional stimulation.  This is the “fight or flight” portion that we hear about and as much as we may want to turn this part off in the name of cultural sensitivity, the neurons that fire in this region are automatic and can’t be shut down.  Now I believe we can learn and grow in our sensitivity to threats but that takes much effort since what you perceive as a threat is based on your upbringing and as adults hard to change without significant work.

For example, I grew up in South Seattle and graduated from Rainier Beach high school.  I lived, played, and went to school with African-Americans for my formative years.  Consequently, in my adult life I gravitated towards Black journalists when I was working in t.v. news because I felt most comfortable around them.  This didn’t make me a racist but since I never knew or was surrounded by “middle-aged, white men” growing up (except teachers), I had no context of how I would be treated and hence saw white men as more threatening to my sense of security.  I remember at one point, my girlfriend at the time asked me, “Why do you only hang out with Black people from work?”  I got defensive because I wasn’t purposely ignoring White folks but had just gravitated towards African-Americans since I thought had more in common with them.

This same logic applies when I’m in other urban areas around the U.S.  I don’t have fear being in ethnic communities (i.e. Asian, Black, Latino, etc.) because there’s a certain familiarity I’m accustomed to.  However, if this isn’t your upbringing you’re going to feel uncomfortable, wary, and possibly scared or fearful.  The same applies to people who present a certain stereotypical image.  Whether it’s the stereotype of an Asian gang-banger, a White Supremacist, or a Black thug, I know for myself these images create different responses to me depending on the context.  In all the conversations and stories I hear about race, context is often left out.  Context is vital because context is what make the amygdala in the brain is searching for on a real, everyday, moment-by-moment level.

For example, if there’s a group of young White men with tattoos and shaved heads walking around South Seattle, I’d think they were lost and this wouldn’t trigger my amygdala as a source of threat.  Same thing if they were walking around downtown Bellevue.  However, if I’m in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, a city close to the original headquarters of the Aryan Nations, and saw this same group walking down the street, my fight and flight response would be screaming at me.  I’d be foolish to ignore it.  This same response comes up when I see Asians who dress and look like gang members driving or hanging around South Seattle.  I am vigilant not to look at them in any way that could be misconstrued to provoke them.  Am I being racist?  I don’t think so because based on the context, it’s simply my sympathetic nervous going into autopilot.

I will acknowledge there are times when clients I work with have undergone significant childhood stressors and threats to safety (i.e. consistently getting bullied, beat-up, teased, etc.) that in adulthood they remain in a hyper-aroused state of fight or flight around men of any ethnicity.  Even if the perpetrators were of one race, the level trauma can be so damaging that any man, regardless of race, is seen as a threat.  The same level of trauma happens to women who are raped.  If race was a role then there may be extra sensitivity to the offender’s race but the damage can be so encompassing that the women don’t discriminate on race per se but the entire male gender could be seen as a threat.
Issues of race need to be further explored instead of simply compartmentalized or having people ostracized for their views.  Honest discussion, openness, education, and socialization can break down our preconceived notions of those we know little of or know only through caricatures or stereotypes.  It behooves us all to know where we fall on the continuum of prejudice, racism, and bigotry.

Adobe Stock Image May Chanikran

Sam Louie is an Asian-American psychotherapist with a private practice in Seattle and Bellevue.  He focuses on issues of culture, race, and addictions.  He is also an Emmy-Award Winning former t.v. news journalist and can be reached at: www.samlouiemft.com. sam@samlouiemft.com and on Twitter @SamLouieSpeaks  Sam Louie