Frustration Grows Over Seattle's 'Dual Council' Gridlock
A citizen writes to the Post-Intelligencer complaining that the newly adopted dual-house city government is stalling local street improvements and stifling progress.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
An indignant 'Citizen' writes to the POST-INTELLIGENCER: It was an unfortunate idea from the framers of the new city charter to give the city two houses. The cost is greater and business is retarded to an uncomfortable degree. One example will be sufficient. Mr. John B. Miller wants to grade a street in his addition on his own expense, under the direction of the city engineer. The workmen are anxious to get to work. Mr. Miller has handed in his petition over four weeks ago, but has received no answer yet. If there was only one house and the members would fail to act, everybody would know who was retarding the progress of the city. And even now, where one house can shove the blame to the other house, it is a shame that needed improvements, instead of being encouraged, are retarded.
“It is a shame that needed improvements, instead of being encouraged, are retarded.”
Complaints about bureaucratic red tape and administrative gridlock in city government are as common in Seattle today as they were in 1892, proving that civic infrastructure challenges have a long history.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.