Immigrant Organizations in Pursuit of Inclusive Planning

Immigrant Organizations and Political Action

Immigration has been a significant issue for urban planners throughout U.S. history (Vitiello 2009). Social reformers and planners in the early twentieth century were focused on helping cities cope with the impacts of massive immigration, including congestion and poverty. Settlement house workers in Chicago, New York, and Boston did important work to provide housing, education, and social services to immigrants (Davis 1967; Shpak-Lisak 1989). Some activists, such as Benjamin Marsh, openly argued that immigrants were victims of inadequate urban policies and practices (Marsh 1910). Immigrant organizations have long been part of this tradition, both providing direct services and engaging in public advocacy (Cordero-Guzmán 2005, 901-7). In general, immigrant organizations have worked to support the economic survival and cultural identity of immigrant populations (Hung 2007, 719).

In the twenty-first century, many immigrant organizations have adopted even broader political missions (Marwell 2004; Chung 2005; Cordero-Guzmán 2005, 905-7; Hung 2007, 716-22; Cordero-Guzmán et al. 2008; de Graauw 2008, 326-46), pushing for more equitable representation, mitigation of economic inequality, and empowerment of traditionally marginalized groups (Cohen and Rogers 1995; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995, 163-268; Douglass and Friedmann 1998; Berry 2005, 571). As part of that evolution, nonprofit immigrant organizations have become increasingly focused on politics and participatory planning (Bloemraad 2005; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad 2008; Chin 2009, 442-46; Zapata 2009; Hum 2010). These groups are well positioned to help bridge cultural and linguistic barriers, facilitate cross-cultural deliberation, and foster the development of mutual respect among ethnic groups (Zapata 2009, 203-7; Hum 2010, 467-70).

Immigrant organizations not only work within the formal political system to increase immigrant participation, they also work as outside agitators to shape policy agendas (Theodore and Martin 2007, 278-83; de Graauw 2008, 329-46; Sandercock and Attili 2009, 164-81; Hum 2010, 471-74) and monitor legislation (Cordero-Guzmán 2005, 905-7; de Graauw 2008, 339-40). They sometimes challenge government policies or administrators directly (Sandercock 1998, 129-60), such as during the mass rallies in 2006 organized by the New York Immigrant Coalition and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights against proposed federal anti-immigrant legislation (Cordero-Guzmán et al. 2008). Finally, immigrant organizations can act as civic innovators, creating venues for immigrant residents to voice their concerns and develop counter proposals (Hum 2010, 467-70).

In essence, these organizations act as advocacy planners (Davidoff 1965) or equity planners (Krumholz and Clavel 1994), working to redistribute power and resources toward poor and marginalized residents by influencing planning decisions. As such, some of the dilemmas associated with advocacy planning apply to immigrant groups as well. Critics have long questioned planning advocates’ ability to accurately identify a constituency or to prove that they accurately understand and represent the needs and desires of that constituency (Peattie 1968; Piven 1970). There has been concern that advocates claim to speak for a population (or set of populations) without any clear system of accountability. To the extent that nonprofits and other private entities have been taking over certain functions of government since the 1970s because of privatization and devolution (Smith and Lipsky 1993), there has been a risk that advocacy groups would create nontransparent fiefdoms based on self-reported claims to amorphous entitlements (Swyngedouw 2005, 2000-2001; Wolf-Powers 2010, 14-15). The American experience with machine politics at the turn of the twentieth century should provide a strong caution against assuming progressive or altruistic intentions on the part of organizational leaders (Clifford 1975). Yet, in this paper, I regard questions surrounding accountability to be one of the key barriers to an inclusive planning process in North Highline.

North Highline and Trusted Advocates ²

The North Highline Unincorporated Area (North Highline), population 32,364, ³ is located just south of the city of Seattle, Washington. The term unincorporated means that the area is directly governed by and receives services from a county (a regional jurisdiction, in this case King County) instead of a city. While North Highline provides an administrative name to the unincorporated area, residents identify more with area neighborhoods, the most prominent being White Center and Boulevard Park.

As will be explained further in the analysis, the southern portion of North Highline was annexed to Burien in August 2009. Figure 1 shows the White Center and Boulevard Park neighborhood boundaries (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), before and after annexation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

North Highline before and after 2009 annexation

North Highline is in the midst of a demographic transformation. As shown in Table 1, the nonwhite population in North Highline experienced substantial growth, increasing from 21 to 43 percent between 1990 and 2000. Evidence suggests that this population has steadily increased since 2000. According to the 2010 Census, nonwhite residents comprised 53 percent of the population in the area remaining in North Highline after the 2009 annexation, as shown in Figure 1. The greatest increase was among Hispanics, which comprised 23 percent of North Highline’s population after annexation. There is also a notable presence of foreign-born residents from Vietnam, Mexico, and Cambodia, and smaller groups of residents from Central America, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Iran (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographic Change and Comparison between North Highline, Seattle, and Burien

	North Highline a		Seattle			Burien
Demographic	1990	2000	1990	2000	2010	1990	2000	2010
Population	30,700	32,364	516,259	563,374	608,660	25,089	31,881	33,313
Race (%)
White	79	57	75	70	70	91	76	64
Black or African American	4	7	10	8	8	2	5	6
American Indian and Alaska Native	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	2
Asian	12	18	12	13	14	4	7	10
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	1	2	<1	1	<1	<1	1	2
Some other race	2	8	1	2	2	1	6	12
Hispanic	5	13	4	7	7	4	11	21
Percentage foreign born	11	25	13	17	18	7	15	22
Household language: English (%)	78	70	80	79	79	86	81	73
Median household income ($)	28,629	44,584	29,353	45,736	58,990	32,261	41,577	51,846

Sources: 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census, http://census.gov/ (accessed July 6, 2011).

a

Because of the annexation of the southern portion of North Highline to Burien in August 2009, the geographic boundary of North Highline changed, and 2010 demographics for a comparable geographic area cannot be reported.

A high percentage of North Highline residents are economically disadvantaged, and poverty rates are particularly high among racial and ethnic minorities. While 9 percent of white residents lived below the federal poverty level in 2000, 39 percent of American Indians, 31 percent of African Americans, 20 percent of Asians, and 14 percent of Hispanics met that criterion (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000). In addition, the homeownership rate for white residents was estimated at 69 percent, compared to 40 percent for nonwhites.

A variety of local and regional nonprofit organizations serve disadvantaged populations in North Highline. In this paper, I focus on Trusted Advocates because of its important work on the issue of annexation. Trusted Advocates first formed in 1999 with funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connection Initiative. The goal of the overall initiative was to “improv[e] outcomes for children by strengthening families and transforming communities” (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2011), and the strategy was to identify, foster, and develop local leadership (cf. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Youth and Families International Initiative for Children 2003). The Casey Foundation, headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, initially targeted ten communities across the United States to receive funding.

According to the initiative’s local director, the White Center neighborhood of North Highline was selected as one of the ten pioneer sites because of the presence of strong, though not necessarily organized, local leadership within existing neighborhood organizations. ⁴ These leaders were mostly residents of the area who were committed to serving disadvantaged groups and who had considerable experience with grassroots organizing through their participation in the civil rights movement, Chicano movement, and various religious and ethnic movements. Many of these local leaders worked at the Refugee Federation Service Center in North Highline, where they drew on their connections to the Somali, Eritrean, Cambodian, and Bosnian communities to assist recent immigrants and refugees with issues relating to citizenship, employment and job training, youth violence, and domestic violence. Some key leaders were also members of Pasefika, a community outreach organization associated with the White Center Assembly Church that has a largely Samoan congregation. Pasefika works to help Pacific Islanders adjust to their new lives in the United States by focusing on youth issues such as low academic achievement and violence. Other local leaders worked with Seattle’s Southwest Youth and Family Services agency to organize programs and services for underserved populations. In 2006, this agency opened the area’s first support center for Latino families.

When the initiative began in 2001, the Casey Foundation paid these individuals to conduct a multilingual neighborhood needs assessment called “White Center Is My Second Homeland.” The activists who came together around the Making Connections Initiative named their local organization “Trusted Advocates.” Based on its initial needs assessment, Trusted Advocates identified four areas to target over the next decade:

Members created work groups to address each of these four target areas, and attended biweekly meetings to plan, coordinate, and strategize. A Steering Committee, consisting of approximately four group leaders, communicated with the Foundation about the group’s work and strategies. Many of the group’s members received partial salary from the Foundation to support their Trusted Advocate work. These terms were different for every individual and depended on their primary employer’s willingness to allow their employee to spend part of their work time on the group’s endeavors. Some members worked on a volunteer basis. In general, group membership was flexible; members did not have terms, and sometimes took breaks from membership (with the birth of a child, for example), but were able to rejoin the group in a capacity that suited them later on. Many of the group’s members stayed with the group for the entire ten-year duration of the Initiative.

The group was constantly aware of the need to recruit new members. Recruitment was done by word of mouth. Potential group members filled out an application package, attended an orientation, and a few of the group’s regular meetings. After this introductory phase, existing members would vote on whether to accept membership of new recruits. Since 2001, Trusted Advocates has maintained a membership of approximately 30 people, primarily recent or first-generation immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Eritrea, as well as American nationals from Samoa. An African American and a member of a local American Indian tribe have also participated.

As the members of Trusted Advocates began to work on the issues identified in the four target areas, they came to appreciate more fully the challenges for immigrants regarding academic achievement, youth violence, and employment. Even before the annexation matter arose, Trusted Advocates’ efforts around key issues helped build trust and understanding among the members and immigrants. To facilitate neighborhood civic participation, Trusted Advocates worked to connect families with existing resources and create partnerships with neighborhood institutions in order to foster broader change. For example, many group members were active in the local school district, preparing families for school and working with schools to provide more immigrant-friendly education. Group members served as interpreters, organized meetings and focus groups, and provided cultural competency trainings to neighborhood institutions and organizations (Annie E. Casey Foundation and Center for the Study of Social Policy 2007, 18).

Debate over Annexation

In 1990, the Washington State Legislature approved the Growth Management Act to promote environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable growth. In part, the Act designated urban growth areas where local services could be more efficiently provided by cities, rather than counties. In Washington, counties have more limited powers of taxation than cities. Because most of the urban unincorporated areas in King County, like North Highline, were residential and unable to produce enough sales or property tax revenues to cover service costs, covering these costs became an increasing challenge for the county. Specifically, King County subsidized services in North Highline at an annual cost of approximately $7 million (Nesbitt Planning and Management Inc. 2006). While ten major urban unincorporated areas in King County were given the mandate to incorporate, North Highline was somewhat unique in that two jurisdictions competed to annex it. Burien and Seattle both saw positive potential in terms of revenue growth, services, and future development from the annexation of North Highline.

In 2004, the King County Council launched the Annexation Initiative (Motion No. 12018), which proposed a 2012 deadline for the incorporation of all urban unincorporated areas. King County also began working with representatives in Seattle, Burien, and North Highline to increase public awareness and acceptance of the principle of annexation. As part of the Annexation Initiative, the county hired planning consultants to conduct a study during 2005 and 2006, called the Governance Study, to help North Highline residents understand their various options. The Governance Study analyzed the feasibility of incorporation and compared the costs and benefits of annexation to Seattle versus Burien. The study examined taxpayer impact, capital improvements, fiscal balance reports, and public services.

The unincorporated area’s primary representative body during the annexation debate was the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council (NHUAC, or council). The county established unincorporated area councils in 1994 to communicate with the county, develop priorities for service delivery, and facilitate community input on planning issues (King County 2004). To be elected to the NHUAC, or to vote in the election, a person must be over the age of eighteen and either live, own property, or operate a business within the boundary of the unincorporated area (in this case, North Highline). The NHUAC consists of two members from each of four North Highline districts as well as five at-large members, for a total of thirteen members. Annual voter turnout is consistently low; elected members typically receive fewer than sixty votes, sometimes fewer than ten votes. This clearly raises questions about the body’s representativeness.

Although the NHUAC had no decision-making authority, the county viewed it as the legitimate body to lead the local discussion and debate over annexation. The ultimate decision about which city to join would be made by a vote of North Highline residents. Table 2 provides a timeline for major events, decisions, and votes relating to annexation that will be described in the analysis below.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Timeline of Events

Date	Event
1990	Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act
2004	King County Council launched the Annexation Initiative
May 2005	Four people of color elected to NHUAC
2005 to 2006	Planning consultants carry out North Highline Governance Study
May 2005 and November 2005	Governance Study surveys
August 2005	Governance Study focus groups
November 2005	NHUAC votes to endorse annexation to Burien
December 2005	Trusted Advocates’ annexation summit
August 2009	North Highline voters approve annexation of portions of unincorporated area to Burien

The decision about whether to annex to Seattle or Burien was laden with economic, cultural, and racial considerations, and various North Highline constituencies had competing interests. For example, there would be different tax implications for residential property and business owners as a result of annexation to Seattle or Burien (see Table 3). While property taxes would be lower in Seattle’s jurisdiction, business/operation taxes would be lower in Burien. Most businesses in North Highline are small, so the prospect of an additional $500 annual fee was a concern. Seattle emphasized that grants and services to small businesses and commercial districts could potentially offset the tax increase.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Average Tax Burden Comparisons for North Highline Annexation Options ($, 2006)

Tax	King County	Seattle	Burien
Residential Property Tax	2,483	2,354	2,434
Utility Tax	52	282	195
Business & Occupation Tax a	0	537	125

a

These numbers reflect the cost to retail businesses with gross receipts of $250,000 or less and fewer than 40 employees. King County cannot levy business & occupation taxes.

Another issue was access to various public services. At first, King County officials and planning consultants claimed there would be no difference in levels of service (LOS), regardless of whether North Highline was annexed to Burien or Seattle. Planning consultants prepared a document to address frequently asked questions by North Highline residents that stated:

Contrary to general perception, most services would not change upon incorporation or annexation. . . . Responsibility for police services would shift from County to City. . . . School, port, public utility, cemetery, and hospital districts are completely unchanged by incorporation or annexation. . . . Similarly, no change in water or sewer district boundaries occurs on incorporation or annexation. . . . The health and human services that King County provides regionally would also remain the same. (Nesbitt Planning and Management Inc. 2005, 2-3)

However, there was growing doubt in the community about this claim. In an attempt to respond more directly to the growing fears and rumors, county planners provided more detailed information about LOS in Seattle and Burien at an NHUAC meeting in October 2005. While the data were difficult to interpret because they were not provided in comparable units of measure, the information seemed to indicate that, compared to Burien, Seattle offered more neighborhood services; more direct funds for human services, public health services (directed at homeless, youth, drug abuse, and HIV prevention), and community gardening; and more matching funds for such services.

The city of Seattle claimed that incorporation into its boundaries would bring additional benefits to the residents of North Highline:

To counter those claims, Burien portrayed itself as the “no change” option, offering residents the comfort of knowing their LOS and neighborhood character would remain the same. Burien advertised the following:

While Burien appealed to residents of North Highline who feared urbanization, Seattle appealed to North Highline’s immigrant families and economically disadvantaged residents who would benefit from augmented social services.

As the discussions wore on, it became clear that annexation had more to do with race and demographic change than property taxes or levels of service. ⁵ North Highline used to be populated primarily by residents of European ancestry, but is slowly being populated by recent immigrants and nonwhite residents. At NHUAC meetings and focus group discussions, which were disproportionately attended by white retirement-age homeowners, it became clear that these residents viewed Burien as a safe middle-class area and viewed Seattle (particularly the southern neighborhoods bordering North Highline) as a haven for service-needy low-income minorities and crime. For these residents, annexation to Burien was an acceptable alternative and annexation to Seattle was a threat.

At an NHUAC meeting on October 20, 2005, one council member expressed the view that North Highline’s growing minority populations would be better suited to residency in Seattle than Burien. “[North Highline] has a high population of minority groups and low-income people who are attracted to minority services offered by Seattle. I hate to say it this way, but their lifestyle is different than the Caucasian lifestyle” (field notes). Some Burien residents apparently shared this view, worrying that annexation of North Highline would bring minorities, poverty, and crime to their town. The debate over annexation gave residents an opportunity to vent fears about demographic change that had been brewing for years. In a letter to the editor of the Highline Times dated September 20, 2006, one Burien resident wrote:

To many in Burien, North Highline is on “the wrong side of the tracks”—it’s “rat city” or worse. To many, annexation represents encroachment of the poor on a happy middle-class hamlet. To others, it represents the coming of the “Mexicans” or the “blacks.” The undercurrent of almost every conversation I’ve had with annexation opponents has been of some supposed undesirable element coming in and affecting our lives.

Trusted Advocates—Action and Reaction

At first, Trusted Advocates did not take a public position on whether annexation to Seattle or Burien would be more beneficial for its constituents. Instead, the group focused its energies on making sure the planning process itself was as inclusive as possible. However, the group quickly grew concerned that the county-led Governance Study and public outreach efforts were not being sufficiently inclusive of immigrant communities. For example, the county and planning consultants held multiple public meetings, conducted a two-part door-to-door survey of neighborhood residents, and hosted four focus group sessions, none of which included sufficient representation of immigrants, according to Trusted Advocates. The group criticized planners for undersampling nonwhite residents and renters in the door-to-door surveys. The planners’ first neighborhood survey reached 1,562 residents, 80 percent of whom were homeowners (compared to 54 percent in the overall population) and 29 percent of whom were nonwhite (compared to 52 percent in the overall population). Trusted Advocates also decried the fact that of the forty-one residents participating in the four focus groups, only five were nonwhite. Referring to the focus groups, one Trusted Advocates supporter and NHUAC member complained at a public meeting on August 16, 2005, “There were no minorities or poor people, only older white homeowners” (field notes).

In an effort to respond to these criticisms, King County officials asked Trusted Advocates to help increase participation of immigrants and minorities in the second phase of outreach. At the next public meeting, in September 2005, the county provided child care and members of Trusted Advocates served as translators. Even though the county and NHUAC were supposedly in favor of greater inclusivity, Trusted Advocates’ requests to place translators at the front of the meeting hall, allow time for translation, and permit additional time for questions by non-English-speakers were denied. The small group of eight non-English-speaking participants and five translators were physically separated from the rest of the attendees in the back of the large auditorium. Speakers did not pause to allow time for translation, they used technical jargon that was difficult to translate, and residents were not allowed to ask questions of planners and NHUAC members, except during the general comment period. As one member of Trusted Advocates stated, “Oh man, they roped us off at the UAC meetings.” Another volunteer who served as the Spanish interpreter that evening said the experience was awkward and uncomfortable for her and the Spanish-speaking residents. The county and NHUAC continued to do some minimal outreach—holding meetings on weekends, providing translated materials, and inviting Trusted Advocates (and other organizations) to spread the word about upcoming events—but Trusted Advocates members were the only people of color who attended subsequent official annexation events.

Based on interviews with Trusted Advocates members and field observations, several identifiable factors contributed to the lack of immigrant participation. One Trusted Advocates member, a Samoan immigrant named Tiresa, ⁶ said that public officials approached information gathering in a way that alienated many immigrants.

[The county and NHUAC] don’t want to talk about stuff, they just want to get input and yes or no type answers. “I’m not interested in hearing about people’s life stories. . . .” It’s frustrating when you’re sitting with somebody from the county and they’re like, “So what should we do?” and [my response is], “You should just . . . come to the Trusted Advocates meeting and hang out.” It’s hard for us to build relationships with those individuals. (interview, November 1, 2006)

Tiresa also expressed frustration at the difficulty associated with getting the services needed to increase participation by non-English-speaking residents. “Most agencies aren’t willing to pay for [translation and interpretation] and it’s not built in to contracts . . . so there’s a struggle.”

Another major obstacle was the generally fraught relationship between immigrants and local law enforcement. Because some immigrants (refugees in particular) have had contentious and violent relationships with government officials in their homelands, they are less likely to trust government officials in America (Clinton-Davis and Fassil 1992, 511-12; Chan 2004). Regardless of immigrants’ actual legal status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the area and experiences of racial profiling had heightened immigrants’ fear and animosity toward police and local authorities. Many immigrants perceive law enforcement officials as posing a threat of deportation or racial profiling (Michelson 2003). Ignorant of these issues, county planning consultants held two of the four focus group meetings at a local police station, and the NHUAC routinely held its meetings at a local firehouse. Even at public events in more neutral spaces such as school auditoriums, there was often a large contingent of uniformed local officials (including police officers and fire fighters), which created an inhospitable atmosphere for some immigrant and nonwhite residents.

The racial makeup of the NHUAC did little to reassure Trusted Advocates and other neighborhood activists that the council would be accountable to nonwhite residents in the community. “The NHUAC has been dominantly all white for years. Years and years!” said one Filipino American who was later elected to the council. Prior to 2005, she said, “The representation of the community by the community was not there.” Jose, a Mexican-American Trusted Advocate member, agreed, saying, “The advisory group that’s here is pretty racist. . . . They represent themselves; they don’t represent any of my community.”

Contributing to the difficulties was widespread confusion about the concept and implications of annexation. A neighborhood survey conducted as part of the Governance Study revealed that only 4.7 percent of all 1,562 respondents (not just immigrants) knew that they lived in an unincorporated area. Compounding the confusion, most homes within North Highline already had Seattle postal addresses. According to members of Trusted Advocates, it was particularly difficult to explain the terms unincorporated and annexation to residents with limited English.

The attitudes of county officials and planners also presented barriers to effective inclusion of immigrant and nonwhite residents. Based on public statements, it is clear that officials were not fully committed to spending resources on engaging “hard to reach” residents because of doubts that disadvantaged populations would vote and awareness that noncitizens could not vote. For example, during a debate over the neighborhood surveys conducted as part of the Governance Study, planning consultants claimed that renters and nonwhite residents had not been more represented in the sample because apartment buildings were inaccessible. Trusted Advocates and some NHUAC members suggested that surveyors should have exerted extra effort to gain access to apartment buildings. In response, the planners and other NHUAC members said it was not necessary to go to such lengths. One NHUAC member said in a public meeting on July 21, 2005, “Should we really over-sample the apartments if we know those people aren’t going to vote anyway?”

Trusted Advocates had a difficult time pressuring officials to change their approach once the group’s own credibility came under fire. Officials publicly questioned whether Trusted Advocates could legitimately claim to represent North Highline’s immigrant and minority populations. One county official expressed her skepticism in an interview on November 7, 2006:

My understanding is the Trusted Advocates . . . can get nominated and supported from within the community, but they also say that they are representative of a larger constituency. . . . So we have a lot of people who say they represent the community and it’s difficult to know how and why . . . would you listen to that group versus someone else.

Others made more direct attacks. In an interview on December 2, 2007, an NHUAC member said:

They claim to represent minorities. But they’re not representing all of them, I can tell you that. There’s a lot of people out there that don’t know what that organization is. They’re not really getting represented. I’ve talked with them.

On multiple occasions, NHUAC members publicly insinuated that Trusted Advocates’ loyalties were not with North Highline residents at all but with its funder, the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation. At a public meeting on December 1, 2005, NHUAC President Judy Duff said:

I warn you that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing . . . with deep pockets. They report back to their headquarters back East. This nonprofit is touting representation of the immigrant community. They have no similarity to democracy and are merely appointed by people back East.

Despite this obvious lack of trust between Trusted Advocates and government officials, the group still tried to work within the system to influence the planning process by electing nonwhite representatives to the all-white NHUAC. Working with a coalition of neighborhood organizations, Trusted Advocates launched a successful campaign to provide education, training, encouragement, and support to minority candidates. In May 2005, this campaign resulted in the election of three nonwhite NHUAC members (a Filipino American, Mexican American, and Samoan American), one of which was also a member of Trusted Advocates. It became clear after only a few months, however, that the election of these individuals would not be sufficient to get the NHUAC to adopt Trusted Advocates’ recommendations for creating a more inclusive planning process. According to Jose, “We got a couple of [nonwhite] people voted in to the council, but they’re so few, they’re just ignored.” A majority of the council was white and favored annexation to the city of Burien.

The NHUAC gave its official endorsement for annexation to Burien in November 2005, with eleven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention. Given the outcome of this vote and the frustrating deliberations that preceded it, Trusted Advocates members discontinued their participation. By May 2007, membership of the NHUAC had returned to its original, predominantly white composition. County officials and council members viewed the resignation of the nonwhite members as a tacit admission by Trusted Advocates that it was not a viable representative of North Highline’s immigrant communities. In an interview on November 1, 2006, a white member of the NHUAC described the Mexican-American representative to the council as having engaged in false billing. “You know, I remember so many times [the Mexican-American council member] saying, ‘I’m gonna pack the place with Hispanics.’ And that didn’t ever evolve. A group of Hispanics of any size never came.”

Trusted Advocates’ credibility with officials was undercut by the lack of minority presence at public meetings. In a revealing interview, one county official reflected on why she thought Trusted Advocates had not been able to increase minority attendance at public meetings. “They are very successful when they do their own outreach efforts. They get people to come to meetings. They didn’t do that for any of our meetings because I think they felt like it wasn’t their event” (interview, November 7, 2006). Her assessment has a great deal of merit. Trusted Advocates had to decide when and where to spend their social and political capital. In several meetings, I heard group members question whether they should press immigrant residents to participate in events without guarantees that participation would be welcoming and beneficial to these residents. In other words, Trusted Advocates was unwilling to trade on the trust it had built among immigrants by asking them to participate in a suspect process.

Once Trusted Advocates realized that working with the NHUAC was not going to produce real change, the organization began working outside the official process to give voice to immigrant residents. In December 2005, the group devoted its annual “summit” meeting to the topic of annexation. Held at a local elementary school, the summit attracted approximately three hundred residents, roughly two hundred of whom were immigrants. In order to get such a large draw, Trusted Advocates used multiple strategies. The group advertised via word of mouth, on Spanish radio stations, and in ethnic newspapers. The group emphasized annexation’s implications for job creation and youth-oriented programs. Trusted Advocates held the event at a neutral venue, and group members drove around the neighborhoods offering rides on the day of the summit. Trusted Advocates also offered each family a $25 gift certificate to a local Target store for attending. ⁷

The purpose of the summit was to allow residents to meet in language groups to learn about annexation and discuss their needs and concerns. Trusted Advocates members documented the questions and priorities discussed within each language group and then asked the public officials present at the summit, including the King County executive and mayors of Burien and Seattle, for direct responses. In addition to taxes and public safety, social services provision, job training and opportunities, and affordable housing were also prominently discussed. The latter concerns had not been raised in meetings hosted by the county, the cities, or the NHUAC.

At the summit, Trusted Advocates also conducted an electronic poll. All summit participants gathered in the auditorium and received a transmitter. A series of multiple-choice questions (translated accordingly) was then projected on a large screen. Participants selected answers, and the results were immediately posted (see Table 4) for the entire audience to see. The e-poll confirmed that topics raised in the break-out discussions were of primary concern. While some attendees still felt under-informed, attendees voted in favor of annexation to Seattle by a margin of two to one.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Annexation Summit E-Polling Questions and Responses (Percent)

Now that you have heard about “annexation,” what is the most important factor for you and your family?	Percent
Social services	27
Safety/policy	23
Better jobs	20
Affordable housing	16
Schools	7
Youth programs	6
Early learning programs	1
If you were to vote today on annexation, what would be your vote?
Seattle	50
Burien	26
Neither	9
Don’t know	16

No NHUAC members attended the summit. Based on conversations among NHUAC members during meetings, they felt that the summit was a biased event aimed at convincing residents that Seattle was a better option, and they dismissed the results as described by the local press (“Many residents prefer Seattle,” Highline Times, December 13, 2005).

Trusted Advocates used the information gathered during this summit to help guide their ongoing efforts. The group made the decision to focus on the need for job training and placement programs, public health care clinics, child care assistance, programs for youth, drug and alcohol counseling, and housing assistance. And the group agreed to advocate openly for annexation to Seattle. Trusted Advocates began actively campaigning with Seattle officials, department heads, and city council members. They used the media to raise questions about the underlying reasons for NHUAC’s support of Burien’s bid. And they sought alliances with Burien residents who opposed annexation of North Highline.

Despite the efforts of Trusted Advocates and their partners, annexation to Burien of the southern portion of the unincorporated area (not including White Center) was approved in August 2009 by 55.5 percent of the vote (2,521 out of 6,384 registered voters). The annexed area had a population of 14,000 residents and included the smaller neighborhoods of Salmon Creek, Arbor Lake, Hill Top, and portions of Boulevard Park (see Figure 1). As of July 2011, the remaining sections of North Highline are still unincorporated, and Seattle’s city council is considering whether to pursue annexation.

Discussion

Immigrant organizations across the United States are pushing for greater inclusion of immigrants and immigrants’ interests in local planning decisions (Theodore and Martin 2007; Hum 2010). These groups have been called the “heavy lifters” of immigrant participation at the local level (de Graauw 2008, 324). They are uniquely positioned to bridge the barriers between immigrants, native-born residents, and the state; they hold cultural knowledge and fluency, valuable social capital among marginalized populations, and recognize the social equity implications of public decisions.

Planning decisions are often a flash point for fears about racial and economic changes (Sandercock 2003; Harwood 2005). As Sandercock (2003) states, “An unavoidable question [in planning decisions] is whose fears get legitimized and translated into policy responses, and whose fears get silenced or marginalized” (p. 108). In the case of North Highline, the formal annexation process became a vehicle for the population of likely voters, namely older white property owners, to express their fears about growing urbanization and racial diversity. Trusted Advocates sought to break down some of the obstacles to immigrant participation in the annexation debate, including racism, lack of voting rights, and lack of home-owner status (Berry, Portney, and Thomson 1993, 21-45; Yiftachel 1998; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 1999, 427-60). Despite Trusted Advocates’ efforts, the group was largely unable to effect change in this official process.

Multiple factors detracted from the group’s efficacy. First, the process was designed as an information-gathering exercise, and officials and planners were unwilling to invest sufficient resources to ensure broad participation. Second, underlying tensions between immigrants and law enforcement, given the recent escalation of ICE raids in the area, deterred immigrants from participating in government-sponsored meetings. Third, Trusted Advocates and policy makers had difficulty explaining the concept of annexation and its implications to residents. Finally, the attitudes of public officials and planners toward Trusted Advocates prevented effective partnership. Trusted Advocates was regarded as a biased, self-serving group with questionable accountability to its claimed constituency. As a result, the group had no leverage to alter the structure of the outreach effort.

The attitudes of public officials toward Trusted Advocates reflect broader public sentiments toward nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits face a basic “legitimacy challenge” in that they are often viewed as special interests looking to increase public spending (Salamon 2002, 19). On top of that, planners, who are predominantly white and middle class, may view immigrant organizations through an unexamined but distinctly racist lens (Sue et al. 2007). Distrust of immigrant organizations on the part of planners may also stem from concerns that devolving decision-making authority to local interest groups will undermine their own authority and/or ability to promote a general public good.

Planners and officials should be mindful of regulatory and ethical guidelines regarding inclusionary practices. The urban redevelopment initiatives of the 1950s and 1960s should remind planners of the risks of not involving socioeconomically disadvantaged or otherwise marginalized residents in decisions that will directly affect their lives. Given that unincorporated area councils, like other neighborhood councils, are often in danger of becoming vectors for exclusionary views, local authorities should consider reforming these bodies to mandate racial or ethnic representation or creating other sanctioned venues for gathering community input on important public decisions.

While planners (academic and professional) require training to become more aware of their biases, it is also essential for immigrant organizations to accept responsibility for demonstrating real accountability to their constituents. Given that local immigrant organizations are largely run by unelected staff, they must create mechanisms to ensure they are answerable to their constituents and establish metrics to objectively confirm their ability to fairly represent the interests of marginalized parties. For example, distributing surveys or questionnaires at widely attended gatherings can help reveal constituent interests. Indeed, the Trusted Advocates’ use of summits and e-polling helped substantiate its claim of articulating the interests of the immigrant community. Based on discussions and feedback received during the annexation summit, Trusted Advocates began advocating for annexation to Seattle and countering fears about poverty and violence with practical discussions about the types of public support that families require.

Ultimately, the fact that Trusted Advocates was unable to successfully influence the annexation vote shows that to be effective, immigrant organizations must make sophisticated calculations about when to mobilize their constituents to participate or protest or elections. While the annexation summit enabled community concerns and preferences to be articulated, a broader get-out-the-vote campaign might have been more effective in altering the annexation vote. Better coordination with other groups holding similar views in North Highline, Seattle, and Burien, might also have helped the group’s cause.

Immigrant organizations such as Trusted Advocates are civic innovators and should be viewed as important collaborators in developing spaces for cross-cultural communication and social learning. Their recommendations must be taken seriously in order to increase inclusion in planning processes and other public decisions. In the end, mutual efforts on the part of planners and immigrant organizations to develop trusting relationships may facilitate the breaking down of constructed boundaries between resident groups, and the development of negotiated visions for neighborhoods’ futures.