New talent coming (finally!) to City Hall

Longtime Seattle politicians are deciding to retire rather than face reelection under a new district-election system that requires them to talk to voters instead of just raise money.

This is great news. City hall will get new talent and may ultimately be more responsive. There’s at least a chance for smarter transit and other policy that reflects the more urban city Seattle is becoming.

I’m excited about the news elsewhere this week, too. In New York the longtime assembly speaker Shelly Silver is finally on his way out after being charged with $4 million in shakedowns – an open secret that everyone in local politics there long suspected but wouldn’t mention. In my current home, Mexico City, local elections got underway, less than 20 years after residents were first given power to directly pick their mayor. The energy at the local level seems in contrast to frustration with state and federal corruption and crime.

Seattle thinks it’s more innovative than either of those places. But in fact its council mostly represents people who benefit from the status quo. There’s been only one upset in recent years. Most of the time incumbents raise so much money that they scare away most challengers.

The new system leaves two of nine council seats electable citywide, a constituency of 640,000 people – the size of a congressional race – that costs serious money to reach. As a result they’re in hoc to the several hundred mostly conservative donors who can write the maximum $700 check for their campaigns. These donors were largely behind the disastrous downtown tunnel project since many of them stood to gain.

The remaining seven council members, however, will represent smaller geographically contiguous districts. Residents will have one person to call in city hall and any lack of responsiveness or visibility in the neighborhoods presumably will be remembered. A candidate could theoretically win a district by doorbelling thousands of houses instead of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for city-wide advertising.

On Twitter, I noted that the first council member to retire, Nick Licata is a big loss. Since 1997 he has been a compassionate leader on progressive issues, the only council member to support the homeless and a leader on paid sick leave and other issues. He was wrong about the downtown tunnel project, but now at least seems willing to consider a Plan B.

Tom Rasmussen, who announced his retirement on Friday, won office in 2003 during a fluke scandal that upset politics across the city. As head of the transportation committee he dragged his feet on transit and generally was the poster child for the do-nothing city council. Yet, like other incumbents, he raised campaign money because people didn't see feasible alternatives beating him in a city-wide race.

He lectured other council challengers (like me in 2011) that you could win without money from vested interests. The irony is that he's stepping down rather than lose to an upstart who might challenge him doorstep by doorstep.

The new mix of at-large and district elections should make council members focus on community needs rather than be “mini mayors” that micromanage citywide policy. The trick is preventing parochialism that could hurt city-wide initiatives such as a vibrant downtown. Judging from this week, it's a risk worth taking.