Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council
In Memory of Magnolia’s Advisory Voice for the City, 1988–2016
By Janis Traven
In June of 2016, members of the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council shared disbelief about a rumor that was circulating: the Mayor planned to end an official neighborhood advisory and feedback structure, Seattle’s District Council system. Soon after, we saw what purported to be a memo from Kathy Nyland, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods, spelling out the City’s intention to cut ties and funding for District Councils. Weeks later, Mayor Ed Murray issued an executive order, and City Council passed a resolution and ordinance, that indeed eliminated District Councils. To dedicated volunteers like me, it felt like we were fired, that the City had told our group of organizations in Magnolia and Queen Anne—and the other twelve throughout the city—that our service no longer mattered. The Mayor and City Council told thousands of Seattle’s wonkiest, dedicated, and effective grassroots volunteers that they no longer wanted our input or feedback. And there was no real plan to hear from neighborhood advocates in the future.
Here’s my story about and tribute to Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council: what it was, why it mattered to Magnolia, and what its sudden elimination meant—and still means—for the community.
First, some background about this particular wonky, dedicated grassroots volunteer
In 1986, I left my hometown of Philadelphia and moved to Seattle, settling first on Queen Anne, then Magnolia in 1988. The main attractions of both neighborhoods included their distinct character with a walkable center, amenities, and easy proximity to downtown. I noticed early on that other neighborhoods had a recognizable character that was cheerfully lampooned every week on Seattle’s local late night sketch comedy program, Almost Live! (1).
I felt instantly and surprisingly at ease and at home in both neighborhoods, like I belonged. I wanted to deepen my connections and expand my community. In many ways, that was simpler then. There was a morning paper, and an afternoon paper, delivered to your door. Neighbor kids would also deliver a hefty Magnolia News that reported everything, including Little League scores. Reporters attended City Council and community meetings. What was happening in the neighborhood came to you.
As a newcomer to Magnolia, I was motivated to connect to my neighbors and larger community. Walking my beautiful dog Hassle made conversations with strangers happen easily. Conversations with literal people on the street is something I’d had a lot of experience with during college and postgrad years, usually centered on political campaigns and organizing about issues. There are many ways to envision community and to create community. I see it as more than making friends. I see it as making change with my neighbors, for my neighbors.
As a way to get to know people, especially neighbors in my community, I attended my precinct’s presidential caucus in 1988, which was hosted by a neighbor in her living room. How local can you get? I gravitated toward and turned my attention to our 36th District Democrats. I knocked on doors, volunteered on campaigns, and got to know candidates both during their campaigns and when they served in office. I spent a decade in leadership with the 36th District Democrats before being named to represent them in 2000 on the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council.
I’d aligned my community organizing—my North Star—around the adage “all politics is local.“ While I didn’t know it when I moved here, Seattle politics was also reimagining itself to focus on neighborhoods. I must have internalized what was happening; I felt like making connections very locally, and I believed making change from the bottom up was possible.
The District Council system
In 1987, Seattle had a great idea that emerged during its planning process: create an official bottom-up, two-way street way for neighborhoods to communicate internally, within and among each other, and with the City. Resolution 27709 was approved “to create a partnership between the City and its neighborhoods in order to provide the neighborhoods with tools and resources for planning and development which reflect their needs and values“ (2). The Office of Neighborhoods—now the Department of Neighborhoods—was established.
Putting this concept into action involved setting up thirteen districts and assigning funding streams for neighborhood-generated projects. Each district would have a Neighborhood Service Center staffed by a district coordinator and a district council that would reflect its character. The district councils were tasked with reviewing and rating local requests for Neighborhood Street Fund and Neighborhood Matching Fund grants.
Fig. 1. The thirteen district councils, including some small shared areas, are seen in this map from 2004.
Image source: “Neighborhood Districts in the City of Seattle” by City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods, is in the public domain.
Neighborhood Service Centers and District Coordinators were designed to function as “little City Halls.“ Instead of having to trek downtown, residents could visit their Neighborhood Service Centers to pay utility bills, contest a parking ticket, access city services, buy a bus pass, or apply for a passport. Neighborhood Service Centers also provided meeting spaces for community groups. Prior to 2002, Magnolia/Queen Anne’s District Coordinators worked out of city space in Fremont. After City Light moved out of its facility at 157 Roy Street in Uptown, our district gained its own Neighborhood Service Center, providing resources for residents of Uptown, Queen Anne, and Magnolia (3).
District councils were established to reflect their districts, so other than a general structure to include existing community councils and local chambers of commerce, no two district councils were the same or functioned the same way. They were of the neighborhood, by the neighborhood. For example, Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council meetings were informational updates from the City, while Ballard District Council had more of a town-meeting format.
Establishment of the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council
Magnolia and Queen Anne were paired together in 1987 as a neighborhood district, likely due to geography and continuity of representation within the 36th Legislative District. Despite the shared impacts on Magnolia and Queen Anne from 15th Avenue West, Port of Seattle, and general transit, traffic, and development, though, there was no regular and robust conversation between the two neighborhoods prior to the arranged marriage of the district council. And putting Magnolia and Queen Anne together wasn’t greeted without suspicion and doubt. After all, the district council system was developed to facilitate neighborhood planning, and our two neighborhoods had different views of what growth should look like locally. For example, Queen Anne was exploring upzoning Lower Queen Anne to create an urban village (now called Uptown) that would qualify for better transit and other amenities. In the 1980s, Magnolia was even more isolated from the rest of the city than today, and many Magnolians believed that our limited-access peninsula wasn’t a good candidate for an urban village.
I learned in conversations with neighbors that the city-defined structure of district councils also presented obstacles to an instant alliance. For example, Ellen Monrad, a longtime member of Queen Anne Community Council, shared that Magnolia was viewed by Queen Anne as having long-established, strong community groups that might dominate. From some Magnolians’ points of view, Queen Anne’s neighborhood planning on density could tip the balance of our partnership.
From its inception, the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council forced the two neighborhoods to talk to each other. Core organizations from both Magnolia and Queen Anne sent representatives to district council meetings—these included Magnolia Community Club (now Council), Queen Anne Community Council, and each neighborhood’s chamber of commerce and historical societies. Other organizations that sent representatives were 36th District Democrats, 36th District Republicans, Friends of Magnolia Manor Park, Heron Habitat Helpers, Seattle Marine Business Coalition, Interbay Neighborhood Association, Interbay P-Patch, Magnolia Community Center Advisory Council, senior housing, Picture Perfect Queen Anne, Sustainable Magnolia, Friends of Lower Kinnear Park, Magnolia Trail, Queen Anne Greenways, Queen Anne Helpline, Sustainable Queen Anne, Uptown Alliance, and Magnolia Interbay Queen Anne (MIQA) Emergency Preparedness Committee.
As the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council became more established, our meetings became proactive information sessions about city plans, upcoming projects, and progress on ongoing projects affecting both neighborhoods. City department representatives and City Councilmembers often attended our meetings.
What Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council was about
As established in Resolution 27709, Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council was simply and wonderfully an organization of organizations and community groups. It provided a vital, timely information exchange between the City and the neighborhoods. The Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council and other organizations had a meeting place, a District Coordinator, and a mechanism to share and establish common goals for community building.
While I sort of understood from the outset that our district council was a structure for the City to inform neighborhoods, and neighborhoods to respond to the City, it honestly took me several months to figure out what the district council was actually about. At first, I was bewildered by the detail and terminology being tossed around by informed, passionate volunteers. I recall a discussion at my first meeting about transportation during which I understood the words that were spoken, but not their meanings. It was the first time I’d ever heard the terms “curb bulb,“ “traffic calming,“ and the oxymoronic-sounding “pedestrian amenities.“ I can understand how anyone who hasn’t been exposed to “city-speak” might find a meeting like this off-putting. Nevertheless, I persisted.
Every district council meeting was a showcase for citizen volunteers who threw out such terminology with certainty and gusto, like John Coney, whose tenacity led to the Thomas Street overpass to Myrtle Edwards Park. I witnessed similar informed passion about Matching Funds grants from Carol Burton, Magnolia history from Monica Wooton, P-Patches from Susan Casey, off-leash dog parks from Carla Kotila, and the importance of freight mobility and our maritime industry from Lise Kenworthy. I learned how planning and making changes to plans, as well as implementation and delays, all happen in city government. I learned which city department does what, and who does what within those departments. Getting to the right person is essential for getting results; it’s frustrating if you’re complaining to the wrong people.
I learned that a curb bulb is a rounded, extended sidewalk at an intersection that makes crossing the street a shorter and more visible process; traffic calming refers to features like speed bumps or mini traffic circles; and pedestrian amenities are things like better sidewalks and connections, large and small. But it took me months to get beyond the impact of a room full of policy wonks whose expertise was outside the sphere of political organizing.
Soon after I joined district council, the 2001 Nisqually earthquake propelled me to consolidate those skills and become the council’s persistent voice and advocate for Magnolia Bridge repairs and eventual replacement. Magnolia was not alone in this advocacy; we had a structure in place for Queen Anne to advocate alongside us. I learned how to channel my years of community organizing into speaking up, because I had something to say at district council meetings.
Information sharing and building strong communities was a huge part of district council. It was a forum and opportunity for very local issues to be heard, understood, and acted on by government, instead of leadership making decisions without knowing their impact—bottom-up leadership instead of top-down. With that said, the meeting schedules of the many organizations we represented didn’t necessarily align with the district council meetings, so our feedback couldn’t always be coordinated and immediate.
Figs. 2–3. A district council agenda from September 2015 showing what our meetings were like, back when all City Councilmembers were elected at large.
Courtesy of Janis Traven.
The Neighborhood Street Fund
There were two additional and compelling functions of the district council independent of its regularly scheduled meetings. District council was tasked with rating projects for the Neighborhood Street Fund and the Neighborhood Matching Large Project Fund.
Have you regularly walked or driven anywhere in Magnolia and wished a specific location had a stop sign or painted crosswalk? Do people routinely drive too fast on your street? Do you wish there was a way for neighbors to make a difference instead of waiting for SDOT to notice? The small pot of money allocated to the Department of Neighborhoods’ Neighborhood Street Fund was established for exactly that purpose: to fund small, manageable projects that the citywide transportation budget had not otherwise identified and funded. Applications were reviewed by the district councils, and funding recommendations were made to the Department of Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Street Fund has since been folded into Seattle’s Participatory Budgeting (PB) process and is no longer offered as a grant to neighborhoods.
What is the Neighborhood Matching Fund?
The Neighborhood Matching Fund was established in 1988, and I still believe it is one of Seattle’s best and most delicious ideas. The fund’s overarching purpose is to strengthen connections within neighborhoods and with the City. On the surface, the Matching Fund delivers funding for community-led projects for tangible neighborhood improvements, giving neighborhoods a role in identifying what they need and want. What makes it such a glorious success is the way it achieves its goals: fast turnaround and community match. Community match is the program’s secret sauce. The City’s grant dollars are matched by volunteer time, donated materials and professional services, and private monetary gifts. It’s a fantastic way to ensure that projects align with neighborhood priorities and can be initiated and completed within a short time frame.
During my time with Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council, the Neighborhood Matching Fund had two grant programs: Small and Simple for grants up to $25,000 and the Large Project Fund for projects between $25,000 and $100,000. The Large Project Fund applications received two reviews, first by a volunteer review team in the district council in which the project was based, and then by the Citywide Review Team (CRT), which had a representative from each of the thirteen district councils plus several at-large members appointed by the Department of Neighborhoods. Part of the process also involved demonstrating community support and screening through city departmental review.
In 2009, I was honored to represent the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council on the Citywide Review Team. By that point, the Large Project Fund had twenty years of success as a genius way for neighborhoods to match a city grant. I served on the CRT annually for about seven years, and it was honestly one of the coolest, most fulfilling, and also time-consuming volunteer things I’ve ever done.
Fig. 4. The author (at right) with other community members at a 2010 celebration for the City’s Large Project Award grant recipients.
Courtesy of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods.
Without taking the extensive background reading and review time into account, CRT members committed to at least twenty hours of in-person meetings. Time was allocated to orientation, review, and open houses in which applicants would make their case for funding. Following weeks of open houses, the CRT would rate, discuss, and then finally make award recommendations. It was an extraordinary window into the myriad ways Seattle’s neighborhoods beyond my own build community.
During this process I met hundreds of Seattle’s most committed neighborhood organizers and leaders, knowledgeable and supportive staff, and fascinating applicants. I got to learn about neighborhoods and communities throughout the city. I was regularly moved by the unexpected depth and breadth of the ways these grant applications and applicants imagined community. Sometimes the written application undersold the impact the grant would have on its community. The need for the infusion of Matching Fund grants was clear: these projects had been running on what one applicant aptly described as “love fumes.“
If it sounds like I’m singing a love song, I am. Through my lens of community organizing, the Neighborhood Matching Large Project Fund exemplified the best of grassroots effects on government: Hyperlocal groups identified and generated a concept and outcome, and they provided the sweat equity and volunteers to complete the project within a year—all for the betterment of their community connections. To quote Jim Diers, the genius behind the structure of the Department of Neighborhoods and matching fund programs, “Government can’t do these things alone. But you also get more creativity…You’d never get a Fremont Troll out of the Transportation Department…or a salmon slide out of the Parks Department.“
In the 2009–2010 Department of Neighborhoods’ Matching Fund Annual Report, I was quoted as follows:
The Neighborhood Matching Fund Large Projects Fund is pure gold….Where else do you find community-generated, community-supported, community-building, intergenerational, ready-to-go projects that have captured the imagination, cooperation, sweat equity, and individual donations that are already in place for the project, with a plan to complete the entire project in a year’s time? This is amazing. (6)
During the Great Recession, it felt doubly important for me to testify to City Council and encourage continued (and maybe even increased) funding for the program. During that City Council meeting, in August 2010, Councilmember Mike O’Brien commented, “In tough economic times like these, the incredible value the Neighborhood Matching Fund projects provides across our city becomes apparent. Community volunteers invest $1.52 of donations and sweat equity for every $1 of taxpayer support. It’s a win-win for the neighborhood and the city“ (7).
Councilmember Nick Licata agreed. “Not only has the Neighborhood Matching Fund produced incredible projects over the past 22 years,“ he said, “it’s created enduring partnerships through its amazing network of volunteers. I shudder to think what Seattle might be like today without these neighborhood improvements“ (8). At the time of that hearing, it was estimated that since its inception, the allocated $46 million in Matching Fund grants had generated a community match of $69 million, with 82,000 volunteers investing a whopping half-million volunteer hours.
Here’s my testimony from the hearing:
I’m not alone in feeling that our CRT investment of time is the coolest and most rewarding thing we do….Each project captured both our imagination and respect for the inclusive and creative ways envisioned to strengthen neighborhood and build community. I’d happily dedicate twice as much time to CRT, and think that the [Neighborhood Matching Fund] budget should be quadrupled—it’s tremendous bang for the buck for the City. (9)
Some of the wonderfully diverse projects funded by the CRT during the years I served were Jimi Hendrix Park, Yesler Swamp, Pollinator Pathway, Rainier Beach Urban Farm, Beacon Hill Food Forest, Seward Park Torii, Youngstown Arts Center, Magnolia Trail Feasibility Study, and an elevator in Washington Hall, as well as numerous public school-related projects and community center improvements.
Fig. 5. A Japanese-style torii (“gate“ in English) was installed in Seward Park in 1934 but fell down due to decay in the 1980s. The torii pictured is a reconstruction, built in part thanks to a Neighborhood Matching Fund and dedicated in 2022.
Image source: “2021 Seward Park Torii Front“ by Mark Yasuda via Wikimedia Commons is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Magnolia’s Neighborhood Matching Fund projects
Magnolia has benefited from the Neighborhood Matching Fund as well. Just look around our beautiful Village, parks, playgrounds, schools, playfields, and P-Patches.
Magnolia Community Club (now Magnolia Community Council) applied for and received matching funds for historical essays, which became the book MAGNOLIA: Memories & Milestones. Funding also supported Magnolia Gateway, Kiwanis Ravine restoration, Karen’s Playground, Lawton and Blaine Playground improvements, and Magnolia Manor Park. Smaller grants were received for Magnolia Trail, Discovery Park trail markers, P-Patches, design for Smith Cove Park, MIQA disaster response, an Interbay link to Ship Canal Trail, and farmers markets, as well as subsequent editions of Magnolia Historical Society books.
All of these projects brought city funding to community-driven projects. It also brought out invaluable connection with neighbors and new friends who worked alongside you to prep an area for your kid’s school playground, pull detritus out of Kiwanis Ravine to restore the heron habitat, participate in a ham radio training drill for disaster preparation, or harvesting in a P-Patch section set aside for food donation.
Fig. 6. Magnolia Manor Park, pictured here looking west, benefited from a Neighborhood Matching Fund grant for improvements that included a P-Patch and off-leash dog area.
Photo by Julia Thompson. 2026.
The beginning of the end
Looking back, 2009 was a hugely impactful year, though the impact on district councils wasn’t immediately felt. In 2009, the Department of Neighborhoods marked its 20th anniversary of the Neighborhood Matching Fund. That same year, the City Auditor conducted a performance audit of the district council system (10). The audit report included recommendations for defining the role of district councils with respect to the City Council. The audit scored district councils’ “responsibility performance“ as green (performed well) or yellow (sometimes/partially) in all areas. The City, on the other hand, was scored red (poorly or not at all) in record-keeping, and in support provided for website development, newsletters, translation services, outreach, and mailing lists—several of which the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council had asked for repeatedly (11). Five years later, in 2014, our District Coordinator started a weekly email compilation titled “Magnolia Queen Anne News You Can Use.“ None of the other recommendations in the audit were implemented by the city.
The 2009 audit pointed out that many of the organizational representatives who attended their respective district council meetings appeared to be less diverse than the city at large. I won’t argue that Magnolia or Queen Anne is just as diverse as some other parts of Seattle, but I will say that we made affirmative efforts to break the stereotypes applied to our neighborhoods.
Next came cuts, some more noticeable than others: Magnolia’s Community Center was dealt brutal cuts in staff and hours. Mayor Mike McGinn’s first budget slashed 15% from the Department of Neighborhoods, eliminating multiple District Coordinator positions plus the closure of six Neighborhood Service Centers. More than $500,000 was cut from matching fund programs.
In 2013, Seattle voted to establish City Council seats, in part, by geographic district (with the first district elections to take place in 2015). Mayor McGinn lost his reelection bid. Also in 2013, the Neighborhood Matching Fund conducted a survey to consider whether matching funds should be expanded to acknowledge that many forms of community extend beyond one Seattle district—whether grant making should be extended on a non-geographic basis. I was invited to join an advisory committee to propose pros and cons of a process for representatives on the Citywide Review Team to review and make grants for non-geographic grants. I spent many hours meeting with and working with Matching Fund staff and other CRT volunteers to propose options for a parallel review process for non-geographic based grants.
Early in 2014, it was heartening to witness the well-attended 2014 Neighborhood Summit, which was kicked off by new Mayor Ed Murray’s enthusiastic introduction of former City Councilmember Jim Street, who had shepherded the enabling legislation for the Department of Neighborhoods. The topic of the Neighborhood Summit was “How We Organize: Resolution #27709“ (12). This seemed like an endorsement of a department structure that was functioning well. Mayor Murray had named a veteran of the district council system, Kathy Nyland, to be his Director of Neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, having City Council District elections didn’t seem to impact the engagement our Councilmember Sally Bagshaw gave our district council. Bagshaw let us know that she’d won her first race citywide and felt a greater responsibility to the entire city than just Magnolia and Queen Anne. Our hope—quickly dashed—was that she and other Councilmembers would fold the district council into regular meetings in their office. Instead, Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council also got wind of a rumor about a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) and official response that had been drafted to “course correct“ and “re-examine“ district councils, which was city-speak for “eliminate“ (13).
While a consolidation of the original thirteen district councils into the seven new city district boundaries made sense, the idea of eliminating them completely came as a shock. There were so many vibrant structures in place that made district councils integral to the Department of Neighborhoods—communications, matching funds, information sharing, and conversation within and outside districts. The 2009 audit had made clear that the district councils were in fact functioning much better than the DON, and only one recommendation for improvement had been enacted within the latter. Then a leaked copy of the SLI was circulated by another district council. It set out to repeal Resolution 27709, and cited data that characterized district councils as not representative of their communities and neighborhoods. Participants were portrayed as being largely older, wealthier, and more privileged than the average district resident, and the emphasis on in-person meetings was seen as a barrier to engagement and participation. Kathy Nyland cited selected demographics from a voluntary survey of district councilmembers to bolster her reasoning in a memo to City Council (14). She repeated it in a KUOW interview with Kim Malcolm, recounting without data how she personally observed older white Seattleites, who she deemed likely homeowners, at district council meetings (15).
Confusion and outrage were evident at a hastily arranged meeting by activists in West Seattle for district councilmembers. The frustration expressed by a volunteer from Ballard District Council resonated with me when she said, “we are empowered as active community members—when we hear something going on in the community…we are empowered to go out there and get city departments to respond….We have tried to get the city to do outreach, but they were obstructionist at every turn.“ Her district council however, she said, “went out and met community members where they were“ (16). Another activist spoke to the critique about the average age of district council participants as follows: “I am able to do all my District Council work because I’m 50 and I’m not 20….They can’t scapegoat the volunteers“ (17).
The City didn’t seem to listen. Mayor Murray issued an executive order in July 2016 for City Council to come up with a more inclusive way to engage all communities in place of district councils by September. His executive order officially cut ties and funding for the District Council system (18).
My fellow district councilmember Carla Kotila reacted in a Letter to the Editor:
For three years, I have been actively engaged in the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council. This has undoubtedly been one of the most formative times of my entire adult life and I am so sorry that I did not get involved sooner.…This action will set back community building by light years. Hard to believe from a mayor who proclaimed transparency during your campaign. (19)
The following week, the Queen Anne & Magnolia News reported that “the mayor specifically critiqued the demographic makeup of the councils—citing a 2013 snapshot that found attendees to typically be over the age of 40, Caucasian, and homeowners,“ the same figures Nyland referenced, ones that my fellow Magnolia/Queen Anne District Councilmember Charlie Bookman called misleading. The district councilmembers attending meetings were “‘merely representatives from other groups’“ or “‘information carriers,’“ according to Bookman, quoted in the newspaper. “’District councils are organizations of organizations....It’s not a populist body… If you wanted to study the demographics, you should study the demographics of the member organizations, not the specific individuals that said, “I’ll do that” and attend a monthly meeting’“ (20).
Editors at The Seattle Times also thought that Mayor Murray’s plan was an ill-advised and shortsighted reaction to having his housing and affordability program challenged by some districts and encouraged City Council to oppose Mayor Murray’s plan in an editorial (21). The piece echoed my concerns, describing Murray’s actions as follows:
…in dumping the councils, Murray cast it as a social justice issue, noting that most participants were older, white homeowners….Murray cited the 2009 Audit, but not the administrative failings it identified… Instead [he] cherry-picked the audit’s concerns about diversity, then used executive fiat to sever ties with the councils. He plans to replace them with a commission of people he’ll pick to advise him on neighborhoods… Also troubling is that an elected official who professes to want more civic participation would dismiss and impugn volunteers who cared enough to engage. (22)
Looking back at the actions of Mayor Murray and City Council, it felt to me like a breakup that came out of nowhere, complete with all of the feigned sincerity of “It’s over. I want to see other people. But I value the time we spent together and sure hope we can stay good friends.“ Or as Mayor Murray put it, “It was simply time to move on“ (23).
We were assured that we could still continue as a district council, but in reality we were on our own. The City cut funding, meeting spaces, and administrative support that kept us informed. Active district councilmembers felt that the change was precipitated by the City’s desire to have more control over which voices it heard from neighborhoods. For whatever reason, our grassroots feedback pipeline was now severed.
Our organizations made an effort to continue meeting. But instead of our volunteer hours being focused on updates and information from and feedback to the City, our time was spent scrambling to find speakers and free meeting space and maintaining contact lists. Continuity was dependent on already busy people dedicating their time to put together meetings and minutes and plan for a website without any funding. We had been kneecapped. Without the staffing to keep us going, we could not make a valuable impact as a group of organizations.
The executive order that abolished district councils created the Community Involvement Commission in their place (24). It is difficult for me to describe what they do or what their impact has been. Their monthly meetings and minutes usually lack links or the links lead to 404 notices.
What is known is that the Mayor selects half of the Commission members, each City Councilmember selects one from their district, and the Commission as a whole names one or two more. None of the organizations I’ve connected with in Magnolia and Queen Anne have ever had any outreach from our district’s Community Involvement Commission’s representative. The creation of the Community Involvement Commission, in my view, shut the door on two-way grassroots communication with the City. It was the end point of the City’s restructuring of the Department of Neighborhoods.
The future of community organizing in Magnolia
From the moment I moved to Seattle in 1986, I loved participating in a city that was known internationally for its neighborhood volunteerism. I poured long hours and great heart into learning about city programs and how they work so that I could help Magnolia solve problems. I deepened my connection by supporting the creative, varied, and hyperlocal ways neighborhoods envision community when I dedicated hours, weeks, and years of my life volunteering for the Citywide Review Team. I can literally see projects that I helped fund everywhere in the city.
After completing a round with the CRT, I was stupefied to watch the entire program get shut down with no path forward. I’d never been fired or laid off from a job. Until this happened, I wasn’t even aware that volunteers could be fired.
Whatever long-term goal was imagined by the City, severing the relationship with volunteers felt like a self-inflicted wound. It created deep distrust and unfortunately tamped down neighborhood enthusiasm to volunteer for the City. We generally hear less from the City now, and individuals have to sign up proactively for notices or updates about specific projects or department work.
In the ten years since district councils were eliminated, Magnolia still has huge projects looming. Someday, maybe, we’ll get Smith Cove Park, the Sound Transit 3 light rail extension, a Magnolia Trail connection to Elliott Bay Marina, and our Magnolia Bridge replacement. Magnolia will need relentless organizing plus connection with, and support of, Queen Anne and other neighborhoods to get it done.
Fig. 7. Aerial view of Magnolia Bridge seen from the south. Conversations between neighborhood advocates and the City regarding a possible bridge replacement have been going on since at least 2001.
Image source: “Aerial view of Magnolia Bridge, Seattle, 2002“ by Seattle Municipal Archives via Wikimedia Commons is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
So much of the fabric of my life in Magnolia and raising a child here was touched directly or indirectly by district council. Our parks, sports fields, playgrounds, off-leash dog area, P-Patches, Village planning and beautification, wildlife restoration, and emergency preparedness have all benefitted from its existence.
What we had with Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council was worthwhile and mattered. It was not just convenient, it was a vibrant and efficient way to learn about the City's plans for zoning, development, bike lanes, and grant opportunities that affect us, along with our Queen Anne neighbors. So continue to talk to your neighbors!
I still believe that all politics is local. And that all volunteers should be thanked early and often for their work.
Janis Traven had careers ranging from international management of clinical trials of investigational drugs to chef and proprietor of Seattle’s first carry-home cuisine business. Her heritage instilled a deep sense of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world), and thus she’s always been engaged in politics, policy, and community organizing, or at least complaining about it.
She serves on Magnolia Community Council’s Board of Trustees and on Port of Seattle’s Terminal 91 Neighbors Advisory Committee. She previously served on the Magnolia/Queen Anne District Council, Magnolia Bridge Design Advisory Group, Advisory Group for the Interbay-Ballard segment of ST3, and the Citywide Review Team for Neighborhood Matching Funds Large Projects.
Janis and her husband Mark Linsey have lived in Magnolia since 1988. Their son Harrison apparently inherited a deeply recessive musical gene, and somehow (actually it was practice, practice, practice) got into Juilliard at 16 to become an oboist. We’re beyond thrilled that we get to hear him perform around the world and regularly as Principal Oboe of Oregon Symphony and the Bellingham Festival of Music.
In her spare time, Janis is writing Harrison’s Kitchen Part Deux, her second cookbook, which features her original recipes for Jancakes and Mixes for the Lazy Gourmet.
Notes
1. ”Almost Live!” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 22 Feb. 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Live!
2. Seattle City Council. A Resolution establishing a Neighborhood Planning and Assistance Program for the City of Seattle. Office of the City Clerk, https://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Resolutions/Resn_27709.pdf. Resolution 27709, 26 Oct. 1987.
3. Alan Lancaster. ”Hiding a Community Treasure,” Queen Anne & Magnolia News, 3 Mar. 2014, https://queenannenews.com/news/2014/mar/03/hiding-a-community-treasure/
4. ”Seattle’s Participatory Budgeting Process,” Seattle Office for Civil Rights. https://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/public-participation/community-investments/participatory-budgeting
5. Debera Carlton Harrell. ”Neighborhood Matching Fund Thriving After 20 Years,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1 Jan. 2009, https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/neighborhood-matching-fund-thriving-after-20-years-1296455.php
6. Neighborhood Matching Fund Annual Report 2009–2010. Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, p. 10. https://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2011/spunc20110524_4b.pdf
7. ”Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods Provides $1.24 Million for Neighborhood Projects,” Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Front Porch blog, 3 Aug. 2010, https://frontporch.seattle.gov/2010/08/03/seattle-dept-of-neighborhoods-provides-1-24-million-for-neighborhood-projects
8. ”Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods Provides $1.24 Million.”
9. ”Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods Provides $1.24 Million.”
10. Seattle District Council System Needs Renewal. Report highlights. Office of City Auditor. 22 Jun. 2009, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b8msjgh2yunx1qy5qmnbk/2009-City-of-Seattle-audit-of-neighborhood.pdf?rlkey=wtqb8vjzntpymvzbukx5mk4ax&e=1&st=m0fhnsoe&dl=0
11. Seattle District Council System Needs Renewal.
12. ”How We Organize: Resolution #27709.” 5 Apr. 2014. Mayor Murray (2014–2017) Archive videos, Seattle Channel, https://www1.seattlechannel.org/mayor-and-council/mayor/mayor-murray-(2014-2017)-archive-videos?videoid=x20818
13. Kathy Nyland and Tom Van Bronkhorst. Memo to Councilmember Tim Burgess. 3 May 2016. Office of the City Clerk, https://clerk.seattle.gov/~CFs/CF_319764.pdf
14. Kathy Nyland and Tom Van Bronkhorst.
15. ”Why Seattle is Axing the District Council System,” Kathy Nyland interviewed by Kim Malcolm, KUOW, 19 Jul. 2016, https://www.kuow.org/stories/why-seattle-axing-district-council-system/
16. Gwen Davis. ”Seattle District Council Members Angrily Discuss City’s Decision to Alter Councils,” WestsideSeattle, 20 Jul. 2016, https://www.westsideseattle.com/west-seattle-herald/2016/07/20/seattle-district-council-members-angrily-discuss-citys-decision
17. Davis.
18. Erica Pandey. ”Seattle Mayor, Seeking More Diverse Community Input, Cuts Ties with District Councils,” The Seattle Times, 13 Jul. 2016, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/mayor-seeks-more-diverse-community-input-cuts-ties-with-seattles-district-councils/
19. Carla Kotila. ”Letter to the Editor,” Queen Anne & Magnolia News, 20 Jul. 2016, https://queenannenews.com/news/2016/jul/20/letters-to-the-editor-july-20-2016
20. ”Loss of City Support Raises District Council Concern,” Queen Anne & Magnolia News, 27 Jul. 2016, https://queenannenews.com/news/2016/jul/27/loss-of-city-support-raises-district-council-conce/
21. The Seattle Times Editorial Board. ”City Council Should Challenge Mayor Murray on Neighborhood Councils,” The Seattle Times, 20 Jul. 2016, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/city-council-should-challenge-mayor-murray-on-neighborhood-councils/
22. The Seattle Times Editorial Board.
23. Pandey.
24. ”Community Involvement Commission,” City of Seattle, https://www.seattle.gov/community-involvement-commission