Reducing Gig Harbor’s Representation

Shortly after the redistricting plan passed last week, Republicans on the County Council (including the representative of our District 7, Councilmember Flemming) introduced a plan to reduce its number of seats from 7 to 5.

While the timing makes the motive appear to be something other than the cost saving measure it is billed as, it's the impact to the west side of the Narrows Bridge that bothers me.

The proposal takes the form of an amendment to our charter, which works a lot like a Constitution, setting the basic rules for governing Pierce County. While there is a regular process where citizens elect a panel of freeholders who conduct a series of public meetings and introduce a list of amendments about once a decade, the Council is also permitted to submit questions to the voters.

The amendment would eliminate Council Districts 6 and 7 and move Councilmember Flemming to a new District 4 to complete his term. It also throws out the recently adopted district map and orders creation of a new one.

The Council's Republican majority boasts that it would save about $500,000 a year; no small amount given the budget troubles of local government and particularly Pierce County. However, I would argue that some of these savings are illusory given that it would likely require more staff to be able to represent the much larger districts.

In fact it's the size of these new districts that is my primary objection. Already the residents of the west side of the County complain that they don't have a loud enough voice at the County. For the 60,000 or so residents outside the City of Gig Harbor, it is their only access to local government. It wasn't so long ago that there was serious discussion of breaking away from Pierce County to form our own because of the perception that the flow of dollars across the bridge was only eastbound.

Whenever the peninsulas need something we're told to form a taxing district. Whenever they need something on the other side it becomes a countywide problem.

Most recently the County has decided to dig into our pockets to pay for flood issues on the other side of the bridge that we will never have a hand in creating to nor benefit from. Our own representative even seems to support it. Now imagine adding another 45,000 residents to our district on the other side of the bridge. Do you think that will make it more or less likely our voices will be heard?

Because of this I've taken an unusual step and drafted a resolution opposing the charter amendment for this Monday night's Council Meeting. If approved, and perhaps joining with other communities, we might influence the County Council to rethink its action. If not, I hope you will consider voting "no" in November when the Charter Amendment reaches the ballot.

Here's a copy of the resolution.

Follow me on Twitter or visit my blog www.derekmyoung.com.