There was a lot of gloating in pro-density/pro-growth blogs when initial results of City Council elections came out Nov. 3. These were the first elections under our new district system, and in all but two of the nine races (for District 7 and two citywide seats), developer-backed candidates were leading by wide margins.
Many political observers saw this as victory for the status quo. Indeed, it looked bleak for candidates aligned to any degree with the neighborhoods, backing developer-impact fees or promoting tenant rights.
However, only about a third of all votes were tabulated Election Night. Later, results tipped dramatically toward more progressive candidates.
With the final results in, here’s our analysis.
District 1: West Seattle
Following a hand recount, tenant-rights and neighborhood advocate Lisa Herbold pulled out a stunning victory over Shannon Braddock, by a scant 39 votes. Trailing by nearly 6 percentage points on Election Night, Herbold chipped away at Braddock’s lead over two weeks of vote counts, inching ahead when the last ballots were tallied.
Apartment owners, developers and the downtown chamber of commerce poured $150,000 directly and another $210,000 in PAC money into Braddock’s campaign. Herbold was no slouch at raising funds, most from small contributors, but she still was outspent more than 3-to-1.
It’s highly unlikely Herbold could have overcome this funding disparity running for a citywide seat. Under a district system, she only had to reach the 60,000 voters in West Seattle, not 460,000 citywide, so she could afford to hit every voter with more than one direct mail. And she reached many voters by doorbelling.
Her message of managing growth, making developers pay their fair share, tenants rights and economic justice got through.
District 2: Southeast Seattle
Incumbent Bruce Harrell was expected to win in a landslide and likely would have had this been a citywide race. He had big developer bucks, name familiarity and several “big-shot” endorsements.
Mainstream media dismissed his opponent, Tammy Morales. But behind the scenes, she quietly ran an effective progressive and pro-neighborhood campaign. She raised about $70,000 mostly in smaller contributions to Harrell’s $227,000. Under a district system, it was enough to compete but not quite enough to overcome the gross funding disparity. Harrell won by only 400 votes.
What if the community had raised just a few more dollars for its own direct mail to Southeast Seattle voters supporting Morales — an action possible under a district system?
District 3: Central Seattle
With her progressive message, unprecedented grassroots base, unique ability to garner press attention and fundraising prowess, incumbent Kshama Sawant handily defeated developer-bankrolled Pamela Banks.
District 4: Northeast Seattle
The more progressive Michael Maddux narrowly lost to Rob Johnson with a $240,000 war chest, much of it from developers and their PAC. Despite being outspent 4-to-1, Maddux nearly pulled off a colossal upset. District elections made this possible. Like Morales, the same “what-if’s” come to mind.
District 5: North Seattle
Debora Juarez won a surprising landslide victory. She made no particular appeal to neighborhoods but expressed support for developer-impact fees and had a strong equity and social justice platform.
As a Native American, she drew funding from the tribes, which allowed her to get her message out to district voters and surpass her developer-funded opponent Sandy Brown.
District 6: Northwest Seattle
Mike O’Brien, no friend of effective growth management, crushed neighborhood-backed but little-known Catherine Weatbrook. Nevertheless, Weatbrook carried most precincts in Ballard heavily impacted by runaway growth.
District 7: Downtown/Queen Anne
Corporate-backed Sally Bagshaw easily won, given no real competition from Deborah Zech-Artis, who lacked funds, name familiarity and ability to get her message out.
At-large seats
As is typical of citywide races, establishment-backed candidates Tim Burgess and Lorena Gonzalez took the two at-large seats. While Bill Bradburd offered a strong neighborhood message against Gonzalez, he was outspent nearly 4-to-1.
Meanwhile, tenant rights advocate Jonathan Grant was outspent by a staggering $620,000 to $75,000 but still garnered 45 percent of the vote against Burgess, darling of the downtown establishment. Given this gross disparity, Burgess could swamp voters with his “feel-good” message, while Grant lacked adequate funding to reach voters citywide.
Our takeaway: Because of our district system, now for the first time, pro-tenant, pro-neighborhood candidates can compete and win even when outspent 3-, 4- or 5-to-1 by developer-backed opponents.
We speculate that if more of the progressive candidates had fully embraced a neighborhood agenda in opposition to the mayor’s upzones, it could have made the margin of difference to win.
We also wonder if more community leaders had endorsed these candidates instead of sitting on the fence, this, too, might have turned the tide in close races.
Our new City Council will have a few voices, but not a majority, to speak for our neighborhoods.
But over time, all seven district council members had better remember they are accountable first to their own district.
If not, good challengers can step up with the ability to raise the more modest amounts it takes to run and win in a district system.
No more free rides for the status quo.
JOHN V. FOX and CAROLEE COLTER are coordinators for the Seattle Displacement Coalition (www.zipcon.net), a low-income housing organization. To comment on this column, write to MPTimes@nwlink.com