Opinion | Richland residents want more from council. Vote ‘Yes’ on districting

Last summer, I collected signatures in my south Richland neighborhood for a ballot initiative to change Richland’s city council from the all at-large council we now have to a combined at-large and district-based city council.

I gathered signatures from a diverse group of folks, from people flying Trump flags to those displaying Harris campaign signs. Others ranged from first-time voters to retired seniors. Scientists, laborers, skilled tradespeople, police officers, medical professionals, stay-at-home moms, teachers, and even the wife of a former city council member all signed the petition in favor of this initiative. Despite opposition claims, this is not a partisan issue.

Ultimately, 250 of my neighbors signed the petition, and I learned a few things while discussing it with them.

Many Richland residents:

• Feel disconnected from their government.

• Feel that going to the city council to resolve an issue in their neighborhood is an exercise in futility.

• Would welcome the opportunity to become more involved in city government.

Very few of the people I spoke with could name even one city council member. That’s not a criticism: most of us just aren’t that involved in local politics. But why? Are we all just that disinterested, or could the problem lie with our city council?

A Richland resident who wants city council to address an issue important to their neighborhood has to take a scattershot approach by contacting all council members, hoping that one of them might be interested enough to respond. And if they’re ignored, who’s held accountable? While our seven at-large members concentrate on multi-million-dollar projects, they’re perceived as having little or no connection with the everyday folks who live here. Richland citizens do want to be involved with the governance of their city, but the structure of our current city council isn’t amenable to citizen input.

When we discussed the proposal for five districts plus two at-large representatives, those 250 signers showed keen interest, asked pertinent questions about the possible change, and agreed that a combined at-large and district-based city council, one that works for the betterment of individual neighborhoods as well as for the betterment of the entire city, is the only one that makes sense.

Each district representative will work with the four other district representatives and two at-large representatives to conduct the overall business of the city while directly representing the interests of the citizens in their district. The district-based structure will promote collaboration between representatives and ensure that the seven members of the city council don’t just fall into lockstep in conducting city business at the expense of the cares and concerns of the citizens they’re supposed to be representing.

With district representation, incumbency will no longer guarantee a near-permanent seat on city council. Candidates for district representative must reside and campaign in a district of roughly 12,000 people. Districts make it possible for an otherwise qualified candidate who lacks the funds or political backing necessary for a citywide campaign targeting 60,000 people, to run for a seat. And if a district representative fails to address the concerns of their constituents, district voters will be better able to replace them.

The proposed districts have not been gerrymandered, as has been falsely claimed. Districts were painstakingly drawn up in accordance with state law, and contain roughly the same number of people. They’ll need to be redrawn after each census, but that’s a normal process for a growing city such as Richland.

An all at-large city council might have made sense in 1958 when Richland had a population of about 24,000 in an area of only 8 square miles. But today, an entirely at-large city council often misses the needs and concerns of 60,000 residents in neighborhoods covering 35 square miles. Richland has gone through tremendous changes in the last 67 years; voting “Yes” on ballot Measure No. 1 will give us an opportunity to catch up to those changes.

Tim Taylor is a volunteer with “Vote Yes” on Measure No. 1