Seattle Press on Line - Taking the Initiative: Why no citywide initiatives made it to the ballot this year

Taking the Initiative: Why no citywide initiatives made it to the ballot this year

By Adam Richter

Nov 08, 2001 -- Initiative 63 received 30,000 signatures this year--well over the amount needed to bring it before the voters. But the measure, which would have encouraged water conservation and salmon recovery, never made it to the November ballot.

The reason? City Council made a deal and passed a law that ended up including most of I-63's provisions. Yes For Seattle sponsored the initiative. Knoll Lowney, the group's co-chair, calls the deal "a 100 percent victory" for his organization.

"There was little doubt that if we went to the ballot, we would win," he said.

It sounds shady and underhanded, but in Seattle, it's simply the way things work. Countywide and statewide initiatives have a relatively easy time: once the backers get enough valid signatures, the measure goes before the voters, who either pass it or not.

But Seattle initiatives have a third step. Once an initiative receives enough valid signatures it goes before City Council for a vote. If they vote for it, it becomes law and never needs to get voter approval. If they vote it down, the measure goes on the ballot.

"It's a great safety valve for the security of the political system," said Dick Falkenbury, who worked on three monorail initiatives: I-39 in 1996, I-41 in 1997 and last year's I-53. City Council voted down I-41 after a two-year delay. A judge told them to either enact it or kill it, so they killed it. When I-53 revived the monorail debate last year, it passed so overwhelmingly that this year no city office candidates dared speak out against building a monorail.

"You've got to be able to have this circumvention of the whole process," Falkenbury said.

The initiative is a deeply entrenched element of Seattle's political process. The city's charter, in fact, grants the initiative as the "first power reserved by the people." Lowney pointed out that some significant laws, such as the Growth Management Act, came out of the initiative process.

"The initiative process is part of democracy in Seattle," he said. "It's an effective tool for setting an agenda and obtaining action from your elected officials."

David Bloom is the president of the board of Citizens for Shelter with Dignity, an interest group that backed I-71, the initiative that called for more shelter beds in Seattle. As with I-63, City Council was able to strike a deal with the backers to keep it from getting on the November ballot--for next year.

Due to a delay in validating signatures by the county, I-71's supporters missed the deadline for putting it before the voters in this year's election. That could have killed the initiative for good, but Bloom's group sued City Council and won, forcing City Council to consider the initiative. Both parties reached a compromise, so voters won't have to vote on increased funding for shelter beds.

Bloom, a longtime homeless advocate, said he chose to push an initiative to bring a greater awareness to the issue of homelessness. "We have been increasingly concerned and even frustrated with the growing numbers of people on our streets," he said.

Council member Peter Steinbrueck helped negotiate the deal between City Council and the backers of I-71. He said that initiatives don't always take budget considerations into account--something that City Council has to deal with every day.

"Often these things happen in a vacuum," he said of initiatives that have a specific focus, and may not look at the larger picture. Although the city reached deals on I-63 and I-71, Steinbrueck said it's impossible to say that the initiatives "represent the will of the majority of the public."

"In a democratic society our first priority ought to be to care for the neediest of us," said Bloom.

He doesn't like the idea of using initiatives too broadly, however. "I don't think we should legislate through initiative," he said.

Council member Judy Nicastro said the popularity of initiatives shows dissatisfaction with the current system.

"Elected officials do not take policy as far as the public wants," she said. Voters want stronger leadership, but that's difficult to manage in a system where money plays such a large role in a candidate's electability.

"The causes you may care about morally...they're not going to get you reelected," said Nicastro. She should know. As a strong advocate for renters in Seattle, Nicastro has drawn her share of criticism from the city's landlords.

But the solution is not to have initiatives dictate public policy. Instead, Nicastro said she'd rather see stronger people in office, willing to act aggressively to solve the city's problems.

Grant Cogswell, who worked with Falkenbury on the monorail initiatives and also ran a statewide initiative campaign to stop public funding of Safeco Field, said he thinks initiatives give political power back to the voters.

"I think it's an excellent way to break through the logjam of big-money influence and incumbency," he said.

"Our elected officials don't always follow the popular will," said Cogswell.

Cogswell acknowledged that initiatives alone won't get elected officials to listen to their constituents. Greater participation from voters would go a long way, as well.

"We could just get ordinary citizens to realize that voting doesn't mean validating a flawed process," he said. "It's self-defense. So is getting in there and running for office."

That's a solution that Nicastro recommended, and one that Cogswell himself tried. This year he ran for City Council against incumbent Richard McIver.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!