In the City of Neighborhoods: Seattle's History of Community Activism
And Non-Profit Survival Guide

All Rights Reserved © 2004 by The Energy Overseer

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher.

iUniverse, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse, Inc.

2021 Pine Lake Road, Suite 100

Lincoln, NE 68512 www.iuniverse.com

NIMBY articles were originally published in the California Energy Markets newsletter © 1990-2001 Energy NewsData Corporation. Reprinted with permission.

ISBN: 978-0-595-33792-9

ISBN: 978-0-5957-8582-7(e)

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Introduction: In the City of Neighborhoods

Section One: In the City of Neighborhoods

PART I

The Neighborhoods

Dedication, Voices of Seattle

The Death of the Neighborhood Movement?

How Many Communities?

What is a Neighborhood?

Roots of the Neighborhood Movement

Tactics

Central Area Motivation

The City and Neighborhoods

New Federalism—Block Grants

Public Health Hospital

The Home of the Good Shepherd

PART II

Non-Profit Survival Guide

Thinking Like a Business

Corporate Giving—SAFECO

Project Transition

Metrocenter YMCA

Common Ground

Seattle Emergency Housing

The Nature Conservancy

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Randolph Carter Industrial

Community Health Clinics sfx: telephone rings

Section Two: It’s My Backyard, Too

NIMBY—A Reporter’s Perspective

How GWF Won Over the City of Hanford

The Ballad of Crockett: A Company Town Rebels

Under the Volcano: Of Men, Demons and the Goddess Pele

All Steamed Up About Hawaiian Geothermal

It’s My Backyard, Too

Obituary for a Power Plant

NIMBY by the Bay

Rich or Poor, Some Communities Will Not Roll Over

Between Regulation and Reality Lies Playa del Rey

Introduction: In the City of Neighborhoods

FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 15 YEARS, from about 1965 through 1980, The United States witnessed a tremendous surge in political and economic activism at the community level. The efforts of neighborhood-based councils and the social services offered by not-for-profit organizations formed what was recognized as a national neighborhood, ovement.

These activities came about in response to the actions of government. On one hand, governmental policies and agencies encouraged and paid for community organizing efforts. On the other hand, government sponsored highway projects, urban redevelopment programs, and other bureaucratic decisions gave neighbors plenty of reasons to join together in protest. Protests, however, are not the only measure of community activism.

In the City of Neighborhoods was a twenty-one part series of radio programs exploring the history and directions of the neighborhood movement in one particularly active community, Seattle, Washington. During the period in question, the city earned a national reputation as a place where citizens take an active role in governmental decision-making, and in finding solutions to the problems of urban life.

Seattle, of course, was not alone. Other cities—from Portland, Maine, to Kansas City, Missouri, and from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to San Diego, California—engender a sense of neighborhood identity among citizens and mirror many of the types of programs and activities that are documented in this series. And while this project is locked into a specific time and place, many of the themes described herein can be found at work today (and will be in the future) in many American communities.

Far from being an epitaph for a dying movement, In the City of Neighborhoods is a testament that community activity of the 1970s was in reality another stage in the broader social movement that stretched through the 20th century. With its roots in the labor movement and community organizing of the early decades of the century, the social clubs of the 1920s, the Civil Rights movement of the 1940s through the 1960s, and the peace protests of the Viet Nam era, the neighborhood movement provided another stepping stone for activism, and another facet in the framework of social changes that continue to this day.

The two major sections of the project deal with the activities of Seattle-area community councils and neighborhood groups, and the work of non-profit social service organizations. While there are a plethora of community groups, these two major categories can be seen as the most active elements of the neighborhood movement of the 1970s and those most affected by changes in government priorities—at all levels—in the early 1980s.

The Neighborhood Movement

During the 1970s, neighborhood groups and community organizations rose to prominence and generated great amounts of media attention by addressing the social and political issues of urban living. Activity at the local level became so widespread that observers declared it to be a part of a neighborhood movement.

"One clearinghouse of information about neighborhood activism in New York City found that since the mid-1970s several thousand block clubs had formed, addressing issues ranging from rent-and crime-control to healthcare and urban gardening. The National Commission on Neighborhoods compiled a list of over eight thousand larger community groups in the nation. In a Christian Science Monitor poll of communities with populations over 50,000, one third of residents claimed to have already taken part in some kind of neighborhood protest or improvement effort, and a majority declared their willingness to take some sort of direct action in defense of their neighborhoods in the future" (Morris & Hess, Neighborhood Power, Beach Press, 1975).

In all, some 20 million persons were estimated to be active members of community-based organizations during the 1970s, according to Harry Boyte, author of The Backyard Revolution (Temple Press, 1980).

Because it lacked an overt affiliation with left-wing, anti-war politics of the 1960s, the community movement was dismissed and ridiculed by some members of the traditional left. It was felt that the concern with family, property rights and other home-centered issues in the neighborhoods was actually trend towards conservatism on the part of participants.

In reality, the ideals of the community movement shared much with progressive social activism dating back more than 50 years, and especially akin to 60’s-style attempts to win greater degrees of decision-making power in a governmental system that was seen as huge and dehumanized in its efforts to resolve social issues. One Christian Science Monitor report called these efforts, a groundswell movement of citizens calling for return of political and economic power to the local level.

The movement shared a common legacy with the Progressive Era and the Labor Movement of distant decades, noted Boyte. Despite their differences, all have themes in common that roughly define the ‘citizen advocacy’ tradition. They represent an old American practice of co-operative group action by ordinary citizens motivated by both civic idealism and by specific grievances.

Commentators have indicated two distinct spheres of influence sought by citizen activists. One is the creation of permanent political structures that attend to issues of control and governance; the other involves representatives of the poor and special constituencies who seek to secure and deliver social services. Within these two spheres are included many different kinds of groups and organizations.

Here’s an incomplete listing of types of groups that were active on the Seattle scene, according to city planner Steve Shepherd: social clubs, fraternities and ethnic clubs, geographic-specific neighborhood organizations, government-sponsored Community Action Programs, umbrella organizations, which combine those various groups, non-profit social service organizations, and single-issue coalition groups.

What is a Neighborhood?

The idea of community is a much-debated concept among academic observers and activists themselves. At its simplest, community can be defined as a tie that binds individuals into groups with recognizable common interests. These ties can include religion, ethnicity, land, corporate charter, civic organization, market place, collective enterprise and civil morality (like the Temperance Movement).

Perhaps the most easily identifiable constituents of the neighborhood movement are those that represent (or purport to represent) geographic neighborhoods. In Seattle, for instance, there are 113 neighborhoods recognized by city planners. Most of these neighborhoods have identifiable boundaries and characteristics, and at least one organization that claimed to represent the interests of local residents. If physical boundaries are not obvious, some neighborhoods are best defined by proximity to landmarks, schools or churches—say, the University District. In other cities, church parishes might form the most readily recognized neighborhood boundaries.

Most of Seattle’s neighborhoods were formally delineated in school district study conducted in the early 1960s.

Neighborhoods obviously provide a binding tie of locality for their residents, and community organizers fully exploit such ties. Neighbors share amenities as well as problems. All neighbors of a block can claim a nearby park as a resource; each may count an eyesore building or the presence of rats as a shared problem.

Community organizers became skilled in using this shared sense to bring people together. Examples given by activists include crime watch programs and clean-up days at local parks, gardens, or other publicly owned lands. All such efforts are made easier because of the common tie of neighborhood proximity.

Community organizing can also build on fundamental institutions rather than geography. Groups that follow the precepts of organizer Saul Alinsky rely heavily on churches as a base for organizing people. Often, church groups will combine with neighborhood groups to address social needs. For instance, when neighbors in Seattle’s Wallingford neighborhood decided to organize a block-watch system to combat increased crime, the program found a headquarters at the local United Methodist Church but was led by the president of the local community council.

Churches represent stable, on-going organizations whose members often share the common bonds of religion, culture and locality, while also expressing a deep concern for human needs. No wonder churches played such a significant role in the neighborhood movement.

The Federal Government and Communities

Community groups often gain political legitimacy and economic support from their greatest single adversary—the federal government.

The move towards encouraging citizen participation was incorporated in federal laws in numerous ways, many of which eventually backfired on bureaucrats who found themselves confronted with lengthy battles over policies and projects. Prominent examples include Urban Renewal and development of the interstate highway system.

Billed as a slum-clearance program to set the stage for improved housing opportunities for low-income families, Urban Renewal aggravated the housing problem by demolishing more low-cost homes than were ever built in replacement, displacing nearly 300,000 families and 150,000 other individuals.

Federal highway projects raised the ire of communities across the nation. At one point in 1970, nearly 400 communities were involved in disputes over highway construction projects and the urban dislocation they caused.

At the very same time, other federal programs were mandating citizen participation, teaching the techniques of organization, and providing a basis for communities to influence decisions about the distribution of federal funds.

One of the most important of these programs was the Model Cities Program legislated in 1966. Model Cities attempted an integrated approach to solving the problems of urban deterioration in housing, education, healthcare, transportation and recreation. Over 150 cities around the country shared $1 billion in aid.

In Seattle, as in other cities, the lasting legacy of Model Cities was less in forging permanent solutions to such problems than in getting citizens involved in the political process. Wording of the Model Cities Act mandated maximum feasible participation by affected communities.

While this phrase caused no end of problems for many interpreters, it seems to have been taken to heart in Seattle. The former director of the local Model Cities program and later the city’s superintendent of parks, Walter Hundley, stated, I don’t think we would have had the strong neighborhood club, council movement in Seattle without Model Cities setting the pace.

Of course, Model Cities was not the only