low income – Puget Sound Sage

Community Leadership Institute 2018 – 2019 Now Accepting Applications

Our Community Leadership Institute (CLI) is a six-month fellowship program that resources, educates and places emerging leaders from communities of color and low-income communities to infuse a racial equity agenda on strategic municipal boards and commissions at the city and county level.

Watch the CLI video, featuring the 2017-2018 Cohort!

Why Boards & Commissions?

Most leadership programs prepare people for elected office, advocacy, and organizational leadership. However, moving a regional equity agenda also requires an ability for long-term participation in government functions, especially in governmental advisory bodies like boards, commissions, and even task forces.

We have seen time and time again that barriers to entry into positions of decision-making power greatly hinder our capacity to influence long-term planning and policy in the region. In particular, people of color are under-represented on the boards, commissions and advisory bodies that influence major decisions at the local and regional level.

Our Community Leadership Institute is rooted in a values-based curriculum, which is focused on racial and social justice. The fellowship educates emerging leaders in issues such as affordable housing, land use, transit, climate justice and economic development. Graduates learn the nuts and bolts of local government processes, such as municipal budgeting, parliamentary procedures, and lawmaking, as well as advocacy, storytelling and communication skills. Sage also helps defray the cost of fellows’ time and travel.

Apply today! Applications are due August 3rd, 2018.

For more information, please RSVP to eric@pugetsoundsage.org to attend the informational session on July 30th from 6pm – 8pm @ Japanese Cultural Center; food will be provided and childcare upon request.

If you’re interested in applying, learn more about the CLI program on our website!

Any Carbon Policy Must Meet the Equity Test

Revenue Investment is a Key Component to Socially Just Climate Policy

Puget Sound Sage advocates for a strong carbon pricing policy that re-invests revenue from a carbon-pricing mechanism (whether it be a cap and trade or a carbon tax) into targeted communities that need it the most. A cap and trade or a carbon tax offer both upsides and downsides for the environment and equity, which you can learn more about here. In Sage’s opinion, the merits of each policy comes down to how well it is implemented and whether or not there is a targeted approach to supporting people of color and people with lower incomes.

A targeted investment approach would create massive opportunity to:

Identify which communities are the most in need
Target those investments to communities who are impacted first and worst by climate change and environmental degradation

We looked towards California’s policy SB 535 – which first commissioned a study to understand environmental hotspots in California. Based on the findings it then had community and policy experts work together to reinvest 25% of the revenue into smart investments that simultaneously address poverty and environmental challenges. This policy has resulted in the largest investment in environmental justice communities in the country. California has already moved millions of dollars to create green jobs, build affordable housing, build up transit centers and invest in clean trucks (which is vital for the health of communities living along heavily polluted truck routes).

How do we evaluate any carbon pricing policy? We start with equity and look towards investing in communities with the most need – but we should be clear about what equity means. This chart can be helpful to explain the difference.

Does Carbon WA’s proposal meet the equity measure?

Carbon WA’s proposal is to tax carbon and use the revenues to 1) reduce the sales tax by 1%, 2) give tax breaks to specific industries, and 3) put the rest towards funding a working families tax rebate. On the surface, this seems like good policy. But let’s examine their approach through a social justice lens.

Ultimately, the core concept to Carbon WA’s carbon tax proposal is “revenue neutrality,” where we greatly increase tax on one thing (carbon) but reduce taxes on other things (general sales). The problem with this is what the revenue neutral approach is about giving everyone the same via a tax reduction. Even at a 1% lower sales tax, this policy solution does not address the severe regressivity of our state’s tax policy – people with lower income pay more in taxes in Washington than any state in the country.

To their credit, Carbon WA included a portion of the revenue to the Working Families Tax Rebate a good policy similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit that gives working families larger refunds at tax return time. However, this solution does not take into account the fact that some communities live in closer proximity to environmental degradation and thus bear worse consequences. In addition, it leaves out large swaths of people with low incomes: specifically, people who lack documents to work in this country, single people, and people on fixed incomes.

For the future of our planet and for the people already experiencing the consequences of climate change, any policy must reduce carbon pollution. A successful and socially just policy will include revenue investments that create good jobs, prepare our region for climate change and incorporate the needs and input of communities of color and communities with lower incomes. We believe Carbon WA’s revenue neutral approach falls short of this measure.

A Vision for Community-Supported Equitable Development in Southeast Seattle

It is not a coincidence that Southeast Seattle has the greatest incidence of people with low incomes and possesses the highest poverty rate in the city. In Southeast Seattle, affordable housing and quality jobs are increasingly hard to find for low-income people and families, who are disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and refugees as a result of the history of segregation. However, the face of Southeast Seattle, and the country, is changing. As of 2012, a majority of the nation’s infants were people of color, which now puts the white population of the country in the minority.

score — South Communities Organized for Racial and Regional Equity and Puget Sound Sage organizing for equitable development in SE Seattle

Currently, Seattle is the fastest growing city in the country – average rents have increased even more dramatically in the past year and the trend does not show signs of slowing. Demographic changes in Southeast Seattle and South King County indicate that people of color have been displaced from their communities as the cost of living in Seattle has become unsustainable for them. As a result, low-income communities and communities of color are relocating to resource-poor suburbs while a largely white and wealthier population remains in Seattle. This segregative effect in major metropolitan areas are deepening racial disparities in this city – disparities we have long sought to change.

However, smart planning, policy and investments in the community can mitigate or even reverse this trend. The opposite of gentrification-fueled displacement is “prospering in place” – where low-income people and families can afford to stay where they are, access the region’s economic opportunities and deepen cultural roots in their existing communities.

Low-income communities and communities of color in Seattle have known this far too long and all too well. This past fall, approximately fifty people participated in a convening and survey through the city-sponsored, community-led equitable-development-focused Community Cornerstones program. Six multi-cultural coalitions, two foundations, four business associations and eight city staff from five departments were convened to share equitable development plans and accomplishments, deepen collaborative relationships and explore opportunities to coordinate ongoing efforts.

Through synthesis of the surveys and convening notes from community coalition participants, several overarching themes emerged that Sage was able to connect to project and policy next steps, in a report informed by community.

Themes:

Growth must be place-based and culturally relevant.
Cultural anchors and community-supported economic development must be prioritized.
Government entities need to understand community vision in order to facilitate positive growth and increase capacity to align programs and funding that make those visions happen.
Community leaders need to be part of decision-making processes.
Multi-racial, multi-cultural equitable development coalitions have emerged and are currently working directly with the city as a resource. These community organizations must be adequately resourced to take ownership of their vision and actively participate in shaping development.
Community organizations expressed a desire for regional cohesion, and that organizations be adequately networked, working across cultures and sectors to become more effective, powerful and farsighted. Only then will meaningful change stem displacement and grow significant economic opportunity in the Rainier Valley.

Click here for the full report.

A Green and Brown City: Why We Need Equitable Growth and Climate Justice

On Monday, I made the case that climate change is one of the biggest threats to social, economic and racial equity. But, how, specifically could climate change impact Seattle? And what does this mean for low-income people and people of color?

As a coastal city, Seattle will be directly affected by climate change. We can expect more extreme heat in the summer, more rain in the winter and the possibility of severe storms. But even more startling, by 2100, just 85 years from now, scientists predict sea levels will rise in Elliott Bay by 6 to 50 inches. If nothing is done to mitigate climate change, land area with substantial value will be lost. This includes parts of downtown Seattle, parts of West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown and the Port of Seattle. Georgetown and South Park are two neighborhoods where the population is disproportionately people of color and lower-income families. In addition, local, good-paying maritime jobs and our food sources are at risk as port facilities, seafood beds and fishing fleets are threatened.

Despite these impacts, scientists say our region will fare much better than many other regions across the country. In fact, climatologists predict that our region will be one of the ideal places to move to avoid the extreme weather and unbearable heat we can expect across the country. Clifford Mass predicts that the Pacific Northwest will become a “potential climate refuge”. If this is true, our region must not only prepare for the impacts of climate change, but also for population growth over the next 80 to 100 years.

But even before we see an influx of new residents as a result of climate change – Seattle is already grappling with a dramatic growth of higher-income earning households moving to the city, resulting in a shortage of apartments and skyrocketing rents. On the supply side, developers are largely building new housing for the upper end of the rental market, leaving a massive gap at the middle and bottom. As a result, Seattle is already seeing displacement of communities of color – especially immigrant and African American communities – to the suburbs.

This displacement is occurring just as Seattle has emerged as one of the nation’s most sustainable cities. Seattle is a leader on curbing carbon emissions and preparing for the worst of climate change affects. We’ve launched large-scale energy efficiency building retrofits, implemented sustainable building practices, invested in light rail and streetcars, expanded bikeways, planned for transit oriented development, piloted urban farming and food forests and crafted an ambitious Climate Action Plan.

Which leads us to wonder, are we investing public resources into a climate-resilient city just in time for communities of color to be forced out? This future is possible, but not inevitable. If policy makers, environmentalists and equity advocates plan together to adapt our city for both growth and climate change, we can build a green and brown city, where all families can live and prosper.

Four Ways to Incorporate Justice into the Environmental Movement

By Nicole Vallestero Keenan, Puget Sound Sage and Ellicott Dandy, One America

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to social, economic and racial equity. Our jobs, our health, and the communities where we live are threatened by climate change, and we can expect more severe heat waves, flooding, extreme weather events, food scarcity, and the increased spread of disease to have the most direct impact on low-income communities and people of color. Although it is often overlooked, addressing environmental inequality is an essential component to moving strong policies that make our environment healthier for everyone. Why? In part it’s about doing what’s right, but it’s also necessary.

Research, by environmental justice organization Green for All, shows that people of color are more likely to care deeply about the environment. As in the rest of the nation, the number of people of color living in Washington State is growing. Census data shows that population growth rates among black, Latino, and API communities outpaces the growth of white communities, and the trend is predicted to continue. As the environmental movement considers strong policies for healthier people and a healthier planet, it must craft policies that serve the interests of the people most impacted, and the people whose voting base is growing.

Even though there is a growing population of people of color in Washington, who are likely to support environmental sustainability, a recent report from Green 2.0, finds that organizations at the forefront of the environmental movement are ill-equipped to engage and empower people of color in their movement. Green 2.0 finds environmental government agencies, foundations, and NGOs are often guilty of unconscious bias, apathy in addressing diversity, and of inadvertently maintaining a “green ceiling” such that the percentage of people of color employees has not grown in decades.

In this context, many of Washington’s environmental organizations are searching for ways reverse the trend found by Green 2.0 and better engage with communities of color. One key element to better engage with communities of color is to incorporate social justice into their work.

Here are four ways mainstream environmental organizations can better incorporate justice into the environmental movement:

Re-think communications: As long-time environmental activist Gail Swanson says: “You can’t enlist all humanity if you only speak to half of the population.” Communications experts in environmental organizations know they have to change the way they talk about the environment to be more relevant to people’s every-day lives, and many have taken important steps to talk about health, safety and jobs. However, communications is just one step to increasing engagement with communities of color, and will often come naturally if an organization applies a social justice lens to their work.

Train staff to apply a critical racial lens: Trainings that teach staff to understand and address racial inequities are important, but it’s even more crucial for staff to learn how to and practice applying this awareness to their work.

How does this policy affect communities of color or low income communities? What barriers inhibit communities of color from fully engaging in this program? Has my organization sought out and included people of color in crafting this program or policy?

The process of asking and seeking answers to these questions can open pathways to deep collaborations with people of color and community based organizations.

Actively seek out the expertise of community-based organizations: No need to reinvent the wheel! Fortunately for environmental organizations, there are people who have been doing incredible environmental justice work in communities of color for years. The mainstream environmental community can and should seek them out and work to support their programs and policy agendas. They should incorporate their input in policy design with the understanding that the policy’s success depends on local expertise of the problem and its possible solutions. Many environmental groups have already begun doing this work, and we encourage strong and socially just partnerships.

Promote and hire people of color into management positions: The Green 2.0 report finds that the few people of color employed by the environmental organizations and agencies studied tend not to hold leadership positions, with the exception of the “diversity manager” role. Even genuine attempts to include people of color in the environmental movement, may be misguided nonetheless. Ensuring people of color have institutional power in environmental organizations is critical for diversifying the environmental movement. This means recruiting people of color to the board and to management-level positions, which means they must expand beyond established networks. When people in charge of hiring are from the communities their organization hopes to engage, more people from these communities are more likely to join the team.

New Affordable Housing Policy Options are Good for the Environment

Across the country, Seattle is well known for its commitment to environmental sustainability. And with the recent passage of a $15 minimum wage, the City of Seattle is poised to become not only a leader in protecting our environment, but also a leader in addressing income inequality. These dual priorities are best intertwined in Mayor Ed Murray’s commitment to prevent displacement of low-income communities and people of color, ensuring that everyone who works in Seattle can also afford to live in Seattle. By building sustainable and dense communities, everyone will have the opportunity to have good jobs and an affordable place to live.

High-density cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than other areas of the country, largely because people who live in cities do not need cars to travel to and from work. When low-income people and people of color – who are more likely to be transit reliant – are priced out of cities and become suburban auto users, the environmental gain of building dense neighborhoods is undermined. In fact, higher income households moving to new development near transit are more likely to own a car than lower-income people who are displaced.

Exacerbated by recent bus cuts in the suburbs, displacement could become a driver of increased greenhouse-gas emissions and increased traffic. In light of this, solving the crisis of affordable housing in Seattle may be one of the most effective strategies for reducing our carbon footprint.

To address the need for affordable housing, the Mayor and the City Council is revamping the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a 20-year plan for most of Seattle’s big-picture decisions on how to grow while preserving and improving our neighborhoods. Councilmember O’Brien’s Sustainability Committee is looking to harness this growth to build or preserve affordable housing.

Next month, the City Council will wrap up a year of study and advisory committee meetings on how market-rate developers can contribute to affordable housing. Specifically, the City Council is examining its controversial incentive zoning program, generally criticized by housing proponents as weak and currently being challenged by developers in court.

The current incentive zoning program allows developers to build higher and bigger buildings in exchange for contributing a small number of affordable units or marginal fee to an affordable housing fund. This current policy is considerably weaker than similar policies in other major cities such. The City’s consultants estimate that since 2001, the program has created only 714 affordable units, prompting the City Council to review new options for the program to increase the amount of affordable housing.

As we have mentioned in our previous post, the City’s consultants have recommended two options to strengthen developer contribution to affordable housing. First, the City can increase required units or fees under the existing program, though the consultants caution this will create only a marginal gain due to legal constraints and limited geographic scope. Second, the City could opt for a new strategy that requires developers in most areas of the city to pay a fee for new construction of market-rate real estate.

These two strategies take advantage of the very thing that is causing displacement – rising property values. Commercial property owners across the city are enjoying record land values, due in part to relaxed zoning limits and massive public investment in infrastructure, such as the light rail, a new street grid north of downtown, transformation of the waterfront and new investments in parks. With these benefits, property owners and developers are granted enough economic value that allows them to build densely, contribute a fair share to affordable housing and make a profit.

We need all tools available to ensure affordable housing. Seattle residents have certainly been doing their part – paying for affordability for many years through the Housing Levy. The proposed policies affecting developers won’t single-handedly solve our crisis, but they represent an important piece of a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. With a strategy that does not deter growth, we can achieve both sustainability and equity in a city in which all families can thrive.