Written by PEL Lab Leader Deric Gruen
So it is settled. Katie Wilson is Seattle’s next Mayor, and Girmay Zahilay is King County’s next Executive. Voters said yes to candidates who focused the most on hope and the least on fear–those who made the case that we all deserve lives of dignity and self-determination. Mayor Bruce Harrell acknowledged in conceding the race that “we may have different tactics on how to get there, but I believe our core values are the same.” With the election concluded, all eyes turn to those tactics.
If you read the Washington Post, you may think Seattle is headed into a communist revolution. Wilson’s speech to striking Starbucks workers woke up many residents to the reality that our new mayor is not sitting on the sidelines of fights for economic justice. Far from revolutionary, she is following in the footsteps of leaders like President Biden, the first President to walk a picket line. Her campaign proposals on economic development focused on fundamentals like allowing corner stores, reducing city permit fees, and low interest loans for small businesses. Zahilay seems to have avoided the “communist” label by inviting folks like Microsoft President Brad Smith onto his transition team. Yet Zahilay is known for big ideas; he touts $10 million invested in participatory budgeting and $5 million for unincorporated Skyway economic development among his accomplishments.
Local office holders have relatively few powers in shaping our economy compared to the state and federal governments. Not to mention tech companies and other multi-national corporations. Their greatest leverage comes from raising and budgeting public dollars, and developing rules and implementing policy in key areas under their authority like transportation, land use, public health, and public spaces that are key economic determinants. They also have offices and staff explicitly dedicated to the task of economic development, historically focused on business districts but evolving to a broader suite of concerns in recent years. But without the participation of those of us who make the real economy function–going to work everyday, spending our money, organizing in community–there’s little they can do alone to change economic outcomes significantly.
We know from past successes, like passing Seattle’s social housing measure, that people power is the key to achieving wins for working families. By some accounts, the County and City are ideal places to experiment with new economic models. The idea of radical municipalism posits that rather than just being administrative units nestled under the state or nation, local areas are where people take their highest political ambitions. Some of the most ambitious projects are started by cities and counties. Radical municipalism also requires the direct participation of the community in self-governing and making change, not merely electing new leaders.
Wilson, in accepting the election outcome, called for affordable housing and renter protections, public investment in childcare, transit, and public spaces, good jobs and worker protections, and much more land and wealth to be stewarded by communities rather than corporations. It’s no small list. Accordingly, many are anticipating new taxes and public spending. Balancing the tax burden and new public investments are key to addressing the racial wealth gap and beyond. But history tells us we will end right back in the same place if we stop there. Ultimately, we need to take governance and shared ownership of the economy into our own hands. Changes in the rules and how money moves will follow the new models we create and demand.
The starting point to trying something new is believing something new. For decades our economy and our fights for social justice have been separated. We focus on economic growth in aggregate to create jobs and stimulate tax revenue. Then we attempt to fix all the problems created by economic growth in the first place–inequality, pollution, displacement–with public spending. But nearly all growth is concentrated in a few sectors, and the wealth it generates is mostly captured by the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals. There is a growing list of advocates, including governments, that are attempting to shift attention from growth to well-being. This isn’t just a different thing to measure, but an intent to direct economic activity towards outcomes like equity, participation, and connection.
Collaboration between government and communities most impacted by harmful aspects of our economy, particularly communities of color, is critical to well-being and equity. But distrust of government and corporations is high among everyone. If we don’t believe in these major institutions, who can we trust? We start by trusting ourselves. Collaborative governance is a collection of participatory models designed for government and communities to work together to make decisions and meet community needs effectively. In 2024 the legislature invested $2 million in collaborative governance through community assemblies, and the City has also already invested in this strategy as part of its climate planning. Neighborhood-led development, which some claim was virtually invented in Seattle, has morphed over the years into different strategies and lost momentum. We can reinvigorate community-led, equitable development through tools like Community Assemblies. Collaborative governance can be the backbone of our City and County approaches to governing.
We also need better models of wealth creation and circulation. Community Wealth Building is an economic development model to transform local economies by giving communities direct ownership and control of their productive assets, to make sure they work for everyone. In Seattle, we have a vision already developed. Key strategies include: building broad based worker ownership, community-controlled capital and access to affordable capital, community ownership of real estate, progressive procurement, equitable small business ecosystems, and wealth retention and asset building programs. We have strong starting points like the City and County Equitable Development Initiative and plenty of community examples. We have already seen other cities like Chicago stand up significant programs. Seattle should be ready to step up and put Community Wealth Building at the center of its economic development strategy.
We are in a unique moment of hope, but we know that can turn on a dime. It’s not for nothing that corporations spent millions to stop Wilson. This election offers an opening for a much more ambitious vision of economic change than was discussed in the campaign, one that cuts to the heart of predistributing future wealth and power, even while we fight to undo the concentration of wealth and influence that has already been accumulated. The success of these new administrations in achieving our hopes for the economy requires a focus on economic democracy. That focus, a people’s economy, should be a core factor for selecting appointees to key departments and the mayor’s office, implementing the budget, and development policy priorities. Working in tandem, these governments and all of us can take steps to shift the purpose, governance, and ownership of our economy toward well-being, equity, and cooperation.
