Keywords

1 Background

The City of Seattle is the largest city in the Pacific Northwest and the 18th most populous city in the United States (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019a). With a population of 730,400, Seattle is nestled within King County, serves as the county seat, and is the civic, cultural and economic center for the Puget Sound Region, as well as for Washington State. The Puget Sound Region is made up of 4 counties, 82 municipalities, and over 4 million people (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2016a).

With a mild climate, access to nature, and diverse natural resources, Seattle is considered a highly desirable place to live. Of the 50 largest cities in the nation, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Seattle had the fastest one-year population growth in 2016 (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019a). As Seattle grows in population, the city government is also expecting a growth in the number of jobs: “115,000 additional jobs between the beginning of 2016 and the end of 2035” (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019a).

As a whole, Seattle is a very educated city. The American Community Survey 2016 estimates indicate that 63% of Seattle residents 25 years and older have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 42% in the region, and 31% in the U.S. And, over 27% of the Seattle population has a graduate or professional degree (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019b).

Many large corporations and other organizations are based in or around Seattle. These include, Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, University of Washington, Nordstrom, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and others (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2016b; Enterprise Seattle 2019).

2 Socioeconomic Disparities

Despite the high educational attainment, access to good jobs, and overall wealth of Seattleites, issues of socioeconomic disparities persist. Significant disparities by race and ethnicity continue for health, education, income, unemployment, homeownership, vehicle availability and other indicators of well-being in Seattle. The largest disparities affect Black, Hispanic/Latino, Cambodian, Hmong, Thai, or Vietnamese residents, compared to white residents (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019c). Although 63.7% of the Seattle population is white, a growingage of the population is black, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino. Between 1990 and 2010, persons of color in Seattle increased from 26% to 34% of the population (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2016b).

Approximately 14% of the Seattle population lives in poverty. The poverty rate for people of color, however, is 2.5 times greater than for white people, 24% versus 9%, respectively (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2016a). Incomes for Black or African American households are less than half of white (non-Hispanic) household incomes. Homeownership rates for Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native households, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino households are half that of white (non-Hispanic) households. And, almost half of households that rent their home are considered “cost-burdened”, meaning they pay over 30% of their income on housing costs (Gore et al. 2016).

Beyond these disparities, people of color are less likely to live within close proximity to a public health facility, farmers’ market, grocery store, or park than other Seattle residents. Compounding this problem, people of color are less likely to be able to find affordable and culturally appropriate fresh foods, even when a market is located nearby. For residents living in areas with poor access to public health facilities, “more adults have unmet medical needs and life expectancy for residents is lower” (Gore et al. 2016).

3 Race, Social Justice, Health and Equity

Given these challenges, there is a long history of race and social justice in Seattle. In an attempt to begin to tackle the complex and multifaceted nature of social equity, the Seattle government launched the Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative (SRSJI) in 2004. This initiative aimed to end institutionalized racism and race-based disparities in city government by providing training to all city government employees, establishing annual work plans, and providing change teams in every city department (Nelson and Brooks 2015).

Between 2004 and 2009, the city used a Racial Equity Tool (RET) to inform budget decisions, and in 2009 the city adopted a resolution that affirmed its use in budget decisions, but also expanded its use to inform program and policy decisions. And in 2015, then Mayor Ed Murray issued an Executive Order to expand the use of the RET and require measurable outcomes and greater accountability (Seattle Office of the City Clerk 2009; Nelson and Brooks 2015). The Seattle city government was the first municipality in the United States to directly address institutional racism within city government (Nelson and Brooks 2015). The SRSJI has resulted in an increased awareness of social equity and justice issues in most city departments (Horst et al. 2017, this volume, Chap. 6). The Racial Equity Tool is a simple set of questions, as illustrated in Table 18.1.

Table 18.1 Racial equity toolkit: an opportunity to operationalize equity
Full size table

In addition to the RET, the Seattle-King County Public Health department developed and implemented a Healthy Living Assessment Tool to encourage the inclusion of health elements in planning processes. The tool aims to identify both health assets and health gaps by enhancing community engagement practices. The tool highlights several health disparities between neighborhoods, such as life expectancy, chronic disease, food access, and park access, and encourages prioritizing the delivery of “infrastructure improvements, community initiatives, or city incentives” to improve health equity (Lerman 2011).

4 Long-Standing Relationship with Local Food

Public interest in local food and the regional food system is not new for Seattleites. The city is located in a highly productive agricultural region. The Puget Sound Region is home to a wide range of agricultural products such as vegetables, fruit, poultry, eggs, cow milk, beef, pork and fish. Over $357 million dollars’ worth of agricultural products were sold for the 4-county region in 2012. In King County alone, there are over 14,200 acres of preserved farmland and over 20,000 acres of land in food production (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012a, b, c, d, King County Washington/Snohomish County Washington/Kitsap County Washington/Pierce County Washington, 2012 Census of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture).

Beyond regional agriculture, backyard and community gardening have been central components to the Seattle urban fabric for decades. Many grassroots, non-profit and community-based organizations, such as Seattle Tilth, have been advocating for sustainable food systems since the early 1970s. These organizations tackled issues of food security and community gardening long before the city government began to take an interest in the Seattle food system (Growing Food Connections 2015a).

The Seattle city government’s interest in its food system originates from its initial support of the community gardening movement. The concept of community food production dates back to the early 1970s, with the establishment of the Seattle’s first community garden, Picardo Farm, which later became known as P-Patch. Originally a forum for gardeners, the Friends of P-Patch (now known as the P-Patch Trust) evolved into a membership organization for the expanding community garden movement (Cipalla 2018).

Between the early 1970s and the early 1990s, the number of P-Patch community gardens expanded across the city. And then in the 1990s, the P-Patch Trust partnered with the City of Seattle to increase the development of new gardens and manage existing gardens. Subsequent government policies led to the protection and expansion of P-Patch gardens. City Council Resolution 20,194 “called for city support of community gardens including co-location on other city owned property.” This ensured the protection of community gardens as property values rapidly increased (Cipalla 2018; Hucka et al. 2019).

The Seattle Comprehensive Plan also provided further protections for the P-Patch Program by including a goal of establishing one community garden per 2000 households in Urban Villages, and provided justification for addressing community gardening in the city’s various neighborhood planning processes. Additionally, the Seattle Housing Authority recognized the importance of community gardening by including gardens in the construction of new public housing (Hucka et al. 2019).

5 Towards a Systems View of Food

Initially, the City of Seattle government approached urban food production in a piecemeal fashion. From the 1970s to the early 2000s, the city government remained largely uninvolved in food related issues. Beyond supporting the P-Patch Program, early efforts to address food focused on health and nutrition through the work of the Seattle-King County department of health (Hodgson 2018).

In the early 2000s, with pressure from community organizations and academics at the University of Washington, the city government began to pay attention to the linkages between community gardening, nutrition, health, food production, food security, and other issues of the food system. Key community and non-governmental organizations organized to establish the Acting Food Policy Council. The purpose of the AFPC was to encourage greater collaboration among food related organizations, but also to expand upon existing food systems related work. The city government took notice. Former city councilmember, Richard Conlin, and staff person, Phyllis Shulman, worked closely with the AFPC to push the city government to engage in food policy work. And, “in 2007, Conlin championed the development of a resolution to strengthen community and regional food systems and integrate food system planning and policy in city government activities” (Growing Food Connections 2015b; Hodgson 2018).

This resolution, called the Local Food Action Initiative (LFAI), was officially adopted by City Council in 2008. One of the first such municipal resolutions in the country, the LFAI established a core framework for city departments to work on food policy. The resolution not only helped to institutionalize food as an important city topic, but was responsible for establishing Seattle’s Interdepartmental Food System Team, creating a Food Policy Advisor position, and develo** an overarching Food System Policy Plan (Growing Food Connections 2015a, b). This resolution paved the way for subsequent food related programs, policies and plans, and helped to make important connections between previously disconnected issues, such as food production, food security, health, and social justice. The interdepartmental food system team, overseen by the food policy advisor position, is responsible for coordinating the food related work of all city departments (Hodgson 2018).

The Race and Social Justice Initiative, the work of key champions, and the adoption of the Local Food Action Initiative paved the way for a number of planning, policy, program and funding decisions that directly or indirectly support urban food production and its connections to larger societal issues.

6 Expansion of the P-Patch Community Garden Program

Initially the P-Patch community garden program primarily benefited white residents. It wasn’t until 2008 with the passage of the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, which included $2 million for community gardens, that the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods focused on increasing access to community gardens in underserved communities. The P-Patch program successfully leveraged the levy funds to raise additional funds and supported the development of new gardens and expanded many existing gardens in low-income and racially diverse neighborhoods (Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2014a).

The P-Patch Program developed a framework that assessed neighborhood-level demographic and geographic factors to identify 21 priority areas in low-income and racially diverse neighborhoods. This led to the development of projects in 15 of the 21 priority areas. Program staff led multilingual and multicultural teams to encourage the engagement of underrepresented communities, such as refugees and immigrants, in the development of these projects (Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2014a). As of 2010, 23% of all P-Patch gardeners were people of color; 71% were low-income; 48% lived in multifamily dwellings; and 77% had no gardening space where they live (Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2014b).

7 Promoting Food Production: Urban Agriculture Zoning Regulations

In August 2010, the City of Seattle adopted an urban agriculture update (Ordinance 123,378), which revised the city’s land use code to expand opportunities for urban agriculture. The code changes increased opportunities for Seattleites to grow and sell food in all zoning districts and recognizes five different urban agriculture uses: Animal Husbandry, Aquaculture, Community Gardens, Horticulture and Urban Farms. Specifically, the updates:

  • Allow “urban farms” and “community gardens” in all zones, with some limitations in industrial zones

  • Allow residents to sell food grown on their property

  • Formally recognize farmer’s markets and allow them in more areas of the city

  • Allow dedicated food production on rooftop greenhouses with a 15-foot exemption to height limits in a variety of higher density zones

  • Increase the number of chickens allowed per lot from three to eight, with additional chickens allowed for large lots associated with community gardens and urban farms, while prohibiting new roosters and setting boundaries for new chicken coops (Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections 2022).

According to city staff, these land use code changes were made to reduce barriers to urban agriculture within city limits, support commercial food production operations on private land, and increase the amount of land (privately held) in food production within the city (Growing Food Connections 2017).

Although this policy was instrumental into legalizing and encouraging urban food production in the city, some argue that the policy largely benefits homeowners, who are primarily white, and does not address the need to provide greater access to growing space for marginalized populations (Horst et al. 2017, this volume, Chap. 6). While the urban agriculture regulations expand opportunities for commercial agriculture within city limits, the products grown or raised by commercial entities do not necessarily improve food access for low-income residents and communities of color. One exception is the Rainier Beach Urban Farm.

8 Subsidizing Local Food: The Fresh Bucks Program and the Farm to Table Partnership Program

Since 2012, the city has established 2 new programs to improve access to healthy foods for low-income residents, while simultaneously supporting regional food production. The Seattle Office of Sustainability and the Environment initiated the Fresh Bucks Program in 2012 to increase the buying power of SNAP (food stamp) recipients at farmers’ markets. SNAP recipients receive $1 in “fresh bucks” for every $1 spent at participating farmers markets across the city. While the program was started with private funding, its success in improving food access for thousands of SNAP recipients encouraged the city government first to support the program with funding from the city’s general fund and subsequently the City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax fund. The city continues to support the program with staff time for project management. In 2018, the program was expanded to additional farmers markets, but also farm stands, neighborhood grocers and all Seattle Safeway grocery stores. Between 2012 and 2018, the program served over 29,500 residents and spent $1.9 million on fruits and vegetables (Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment 2019).

The city of Seattle is supporting regional food production in other ways, such as through food procurement. A pilot program started in 2010, aimed to increase access to healthy, local foods for recipients of senior meals and subsidized childcare programs. The initiative, the Farm to Table Partnership Project, provides technical support and assistance to over 300 child care and senior meal sites that use city funding to purchase and prepare food in some of Seattle’s most underserved communities for the purpose of linking these sites with healthy, fresh foods from local farms. The project helps to identify and develop sustainable purchasing models for procuring fresh local produce, and provides meal program providers with education and training for program implementation (Whitton and Hodgson 2015; Northwest Agriculture Business Center 2019).

The city government has been instrumental in supporting the Fresh Bucks program and the Farm to Table Partnership Project, as well as other programs initiated and operated by non-profit organizations, such as Seattle Tilth’s Good Food Bag program (Hodgson 2018). While these efforts to address food injustices are commendable, they are dependent on limited funds. Additionally, these programs do not explicitly “support producers of color or from low-income backgrounds” (Horst 2017).

Furthermore, the price differential between what consumers can pay and what producers need to make a living continues to be a major obstacle. Bridging the gap between what businesses need to remain economically viable and what customers can afford is an area that the city government has not figured out. Staff are mindful of this inherent tension, but it is a challenging issue to solve (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

9 Establishing a Blueprint for Action: Seattle Food Action Plan

In October 2012, the Seattle City Council officially adopted the Seattle Food Action Plan. The purpose of the plan was three-fold: (1) to integrate the food policy approaches laid out in the LFAI in a more systematic and methodical way, (2) generate public interested around ensuring better nutrition, getting more people involved and interested in growing food, and providing more attention to farmland preservation, and (3) establish better coordination and integration of Seattle’s food systems work within and outside of city government (Growing Food Connections 2015a).

The development of the plan enabled the city to respond to the public’s ongoing request for the city government to take a larger role in the food system. Before the plan, the city government took a piecemeal approach to tackling food issues. The plan provided a way to connect the various disparate food related work of the city and its connections to the work of non-governmental entities (Hodgson 2018).

Equity is an overarching issue identified in the plan, in part due to the SRSJI but also because of the efforts of the interdepartmental food team. Other overarching issues addressed in the plan include: accessibility and affordability of food, the health and well-being of all people, diversity, collaboration, inclusivity, as well as racial and social justice, economic viability and environmental sustainability. The plan highlights four overarching goals to achieve a healthy food system in Seattle. The plan also outlines several “approaches” necessary to achieve these goals. One in particular spells out the need to consider equity issues: “Focus on racial and social equity and support the communities most at-risk for food insecurity and diet-related disease.” Furthermore, the plan highlights the linkage between growing economic inequality and food affordability. The plan explicitly identifies food inequities, namely hunger, affordability, and access and how these inequities disproportionately affect low-income residents, children, seniors, and communities of color (Lerman 2012).

While equity is a major theme of the plan, city staff feel that more could have been done to actively engage low-income residents and people of color in the planning process. Several organizations that specifically work with low-income residents and people of color were engaged in various listening sessions. And, the health department conducted specific outreach to low-income communities to help identify policies and proposals that would be effective for these population groups (Growing Food Connections 2015a). However, city staff did not utilize internal resources, such as specialized public outreach and engagement liaisons that are employed by the city to engage specific cultural communities (Growing Food Connections 2017). According to key city staff, more could have been done to encourage better citywide engagement, such as additional listening sessions, scattered across the city; however this would have required more resources (Growing Food Connections 2017).

This plan creates a framework for expanding the city government’s support of urban food production. While the city government is already doing much to support urban food production, the plan provides “policy backing” for work that is happening. The plan also established a framework for develo** food access policies and programs that support local farmers, such as the Fresh Bucks Program (Growing Food Connections 2017). And the plan helped to expand programs, like the Seattle Farms Program, to make city-owned land available for commercial urban agriculture. As a result, the city government has increased the number and acreage of city-owned land that can be leased to community-based organizations for food production. And the city has increased the number of community-centered learning gardens (Growing Food Connections 2015b). One example of such a farm is the Rainier Beach Urban Farm.

10 Rainier Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands Project

The Rainier Beach neighborhood is located in Southeast Seattle and is home to an ethnically diverse population of approximately 5000 residents, including many newly arrived immigrants. The majority of the neighborhood’s residents are people of color: about 31% of the population is Black, 31% Asian, 13% Hispanic, and 14% mixed race. Poverty rates are higher and education levels are lower in Rainier Beach than in other areas of Seattle (Rainier Beach Action Coalition 2019), and “the median Rainier Beach household makes $49,000 per year…compared to $80,000” (Beekman 2019).

Over the past 10 years, with the help of key neighborhood non-profit organizations, such as Rainier Beach Action Coalition and Seattle Tilth, community residents have come together to advocate for a healthier, more connected neighborhood that supports “strong communities and organizations, healthy people and families, and great places” (City of Seattle 2012). From the development of the Rainier Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands Project to the update of the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan, the residents have taken important steps to improve their neighborhood and establish food as a key pillar of their community. However, with the change in mayoral administrations, the pressures of development, and the need for more affordable housing across the city, recent policy changes may have serious, detrimental impacts to the neighborhood. This section provides a brief look into the opportunities and challenges the neighborhood has experienced.

As a result of the RSJI, new inclusive strategies were used to begin the process of updating the various 38 neighborhood plans across the city, including the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan. In 2011, neighborhood planners worked closely with the Rainier Beach community to identify ways to broaden civic engagement. The community highlighted the goal of including “people with a wide range of backgrounds” and to “fully involve those who have been historically underrepresented in planning” (City of Seattle 2012). Special bicultural and bilingual planning outreach liaisons engaged traditionally underrepresented Oromo, African-American, Ethiopian, Hispanic/Latino, Laotian, Somali, Filipino residents, as well as renters, older adults and youth in the community. Planners utilized “hands-on workshops and smaller-scale interactive meetings” to actively engage these communities, and reported back through a “transparent process” (City of Seattle 2012). In addition, the Healthy Living Assessment tool was applied to the Rainier Beach planning process to help identify assets to preserve health and opportunities to be healthier (City of Seattle 2012).

Neighborhood residents identified food production as a key component of their future community. The neighborhood plan update focuses on 3 priorities – strong communities and organizations, healthy people and families, and great places – and highlights the development of the Rainier Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands Preservation Project as a key strategy to “make Rainier Beach a neighborhood with resources necessary to live a healthful life” (City of Seattle 2012). This community initiated and community led urban food production project aimed to establish an urban farm on Seattle Parks’ property, former home of the Atlantic City Nursery. The impetus for this project originated from the desire to establish a local source for fresh produce, community gardening, economic development, and training opportunities for neighborhood residents and youth (City of Seattle 2012).

According to key stakeholders, there is a growing interest and desire to not only support a robust food economy and food system within the city that serves all people, but also to identify the actions the city can take to support such a food economy and system (Growing Food Connections 2015c).At the time of the neighborhood planning process, efforts had already been underway to relocate the Atlantic City Nursery and establish the Rainier Beach Urban Farm. When the city asked the neighborhood what they wanted to see on the property, the neighborhood requested an urban farm. At the time, the city had never hosted an urban farm on city property. Seattle Tilth had to advocate for the urban farm to elected officials and staff. And once approved, Seattle Tilth worked with the Parks Board, the Parks superintendent and Parks staff to support the development of the urban farm and identify and document the public benefit, since the parks land is considered a public resource (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

The Seattle Food Action Plan created a framework for expanding city government support of urban food production, but also provided “policy backing” for work that was already happening, including the Rainier Beach Urban Farm. The neighborhood group that worked on the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan update identified the food system and food economy work as one of the cornerstones of the plan – this is in part due to the existence of the Rainier Beach Urban Farm (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

The neighborhood plan update stated that the urban farm project would “serve as an innovative effort to build community pride and preservation of the area wetlands and the environment” (City of Seattle 2012). Seattle Parks partnered with Seattle Tilth and Friends of Rainier Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands (formerly called the Friends of Atlantic Nursery) to operate and manage the program. A Parks and Green Space Levy Opportunities Grant of $500,000 was used to kick-start the project (City of Seattle 2012).

The Rainier Urban Farm and Wetlands Project is the largest urban farm in the City of Seattle. The farm provides educational activities, showcases environmentally friendly food growing practices, supplies fresh food to the community, and aims to restore the natural wetlands located on the farm. Beyond growing space, the farm is home to classroom space, a teaching kitchen, and green houses (Tilth Alliance 2019).

Seattle Tilth continues to provide fiscal sponsorship to the Friends of Rainier Beach Urban Farm and Wetlands and this group provides a direct linkage to the community. The two entities have a memorandum of understanding and jointly contract with the city to oversee the farm. Both were involved in the development of the neighborhood plan (Growing Food Connections 2015c). Seattle Tilth established a warehouse a couple blocks from the Rainier Beach Urban Farm that serves as an aggregation and distribution point for food and operates as Seattle Tilth’s food hub (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

As a result of this work, Seattle Tilth has been working in partnership with many other organizations and the office of planning and community development to think about how future development in Rainier Beach could be oriented towards the food economy. However, plans for the development of a food innovation district (FID), which aimed to serve as an anchor for a new transit-oriented development at the Rainier Beach light rail station, have been halted. The vision for the FID was to provide an “economic generator…with a full range of employment and business development opportunities…[that clustered] manufacturing, technology, and food sectors around the light rail station” (Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development n.d.).

11 Barriers to Integrating Food in the Culture of City Government

Despite the success of the city government in the integration of food issues in to city work, key stakeholders believe there is still a long way to go. For example, the Urban Land Institute came to Seattle in spring 2015 and conducted a study in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. At the kickoff dinner for the study, the Mayor talked about the pillars of planning and development – transportation, education, jobs, etc. But there was no mention of food. According to key stakeholders, city staff still have not fully embraced the food system as being an important part of the economy. One key stakeholder said, “I think there’s an evolution that happens over time” (Growing Food Connections 2015c). In summary, the key stakeholder commented that this evolution really depends on individuals before it becomes embedded in the culture of the city or in the culture of a city department. If staff (new or existing) do not receive training or are not encouraged to think about the food economy as a vital part of city planning or a city’s future, then this cultural change will not happen. The food system needs to become one of the cornerstones of city government, where it is always embedded in the work and therefore is always thought about and considered, and is not dependent on individuals. There haven been successes, but there is still a degree of education and buy-in that has to happen over time (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

The establishment of the interdepartmental food team and the food policy advisor position help address this hurdle. Also, being able to bring city government – both elected officials and staff – to the Rainier Beach Urban Farm to show them firsthand how such a site can “support the food system across the board and engage people from children to the elderly, will make a difference” (Growing Food Connections 2015c).

Today, Rainier Beach is one of the more affordable neighborhoods in Seattle, with home and rental prices less than in other areas of the city. Property values are also lower, on average, than the rest of the city. Despite the neighborhood plan update and the desire by area non-profits to develop a food innovation district that would attract food related jobs, provide necessary infrastructure, and develop a more food-focused economy for the neighborhood, a recent city government upzoning policy that initially was put in place to increase affordable housing across the city is having some unintended consequences for the Rainier Beach neighborhood. For-profit developers have outbid non-profit developers for land around the Rainier Beach light rail station, and are creating ambitious, high-density development plans for the neighborhood. Organizations, such as the Rainier Beach Action Coalition, fear that the ideas for a food innovation district will not come to fruition. Additionally, there is much fear among community organizations and residents that new development will cause the displacement of many people in the neighborhood. While the upzoning policy is intended to increase affordable housing, it may displace more affordable homes than it will create (Beekman 2019).

In the case of Rainier Beach, the potential future displacement of low-income residents and people of color may not be directly related to the urban food production activities happening within the neighborhood, but the promise of new development may displace plans for the food innovation district.

12 Conclusion

Despite the city government’s efforts to centralize equity in its food systems work, addressing the root of the problem – namely poverty and low wages – and connecting food inequities to these higher-level challenges, is not always happening (Horst et al. 2017, this volume, Chap. 6). Food production and access are “quite discontinuous.” While there are some connections being made between production and access (such as through food recovery programs”, the “strategic approaches [to addressing food production and food access] are quite different” (Growing Food Connections 2015a).

Additionally, the demand for and access to land for gardening and farming is much greater than the supply. For example, the waiting list for community gardens exceeds 2000 people for 90 community gardens (Cipalla 2018). And wait times vary from 3 months to 4 years (Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2014b). The location of community gardens also varies from public, city-owned land to privately held land, which creates vulnerabilities for land tenure. Furthermore, while 23% of community gardeners are people of color, this is less than the 2012–2016 American Community Survey that estimates 34.3% of the population are persons of color (Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development 2019c). The reason for this disparity in the proportion of the Seattle population that access and use community gardens is unclear. In the face of gentrification, the city could do more to ensure greater access to land for persons of color (Horst 2017). In addition, the city government is not addressing the linkage between historical traumas (such as colonization, segregation, and displacement) and food justice in its food systems work (Horst 2017).

And finally, as is the case in the Rainier Beach neighborhood, there is a growing tension around the best use of land. Increasing property values in the Rainier Beach are proving to be cost prohibitive for non-profit developers to realize their goals in creating a food innovation district. Good intentions and hopes to improve access to affordable housing may have informed the city’s upzoning policy, however many speculate that this policy will displace many low-income residents and people of color over the next several years as higher density buildings replace existing housing. It is unclear whether or not the city government is considering both the short- and long-term consequences – both good and bad – of the upzoning policy to the Rainier Beach neighborhood.