For those of you who hate reading and just want to get to the point, click here. 
As weâve written here many times, weâd like you to consider thinking differently about airport issues. Weâd like you to consider that the real challenges are not ânoiseâ or âpollutionâ or âFAA lawâ or âthe environmentâ. What this all comes down to is a simple civil rights issue. We are an unprotected class.
Like most unprotected classes, our minority rights get stomped on by a much larger majority. We take it in the neck because a larger group feels that their needs matter a whole bunch more. (Remember that old Star Trek thing about âthe needs of the manyâŠ.â? I do not recommend life on the planet Vulcan.)
But viewed from this perspective, the goal should be to obtain our civil rights. It moves the discussion away from endless debates over âhowâ to get to less noise and pollution and towards a case of simple fairness.
This is not an abstraction
And from that perspective, the strategy and tactics look completely different. Our primary task is not to find ways around or through the law. Our task is to move the discussion towards fairness. Believe it or not, that is a much easier job than all the technocratic jazz about FAA law, scientific studies and âcost/benefit analysesââand that is why all successful activists campaigns focus on civil rights rather than specific legislation or legal arguments. Because if you focused on what appears to be possible (legal, legislative) youâd call it a day. If Dr. King or Thurgood Marshall had looked at any legal textbook back in the 1950âs they wouldâve simply given up.
The steps should be: Lay down your definition of fairness. Then work to build consensus on that goal. Then leverage that to get decision makers on board. And finally, let the decision makers do the heavy lifting for you.
We have done a very poor job in both establishing a goal and building that consensus. We have not convinced the public to get behind us because we havenât even told them what we consider to be fair. And we have not moved the needle even at the lowest levels of government. In fact, I would suggest that we have not even convinced ourselves that change is possible! And that is the main reason we never get anywhere. All we do is talk to one another inside a very small echo chamber, with the occasional polite bit of encouragement from decision makers.
A recent example of Symbolism in action
During this COVID-19 emergency, every city was immediately presented with demands to âstop landlord late feesâ or âstop landlord evictionsâ. And many cities passed resolutions to do both those things. Now, any city attorney will tell you that these resolutions arenât worth the paper theyâre printed on. They literally have no force of law because rental law is not the purview of municipalities.
So: why do these resolutions cause such heated arguments on both sides? You can understand people on the tenants-rights side being all jazzed, but even if youâre not in favor of such a policy, why be so vehemently against such resolutions if you know they cannot be enforced? The heated rhetoric is not because landlords are concerned about âthe principles!â or mean-spirited people who enjoy throwing tenants out in the cold.
The real answer is simple: Symbolism matters. If a city makes it their âofficial positionâ on something like rental late fees or immigration it sends a message to stakeholders. And if enough cities do it? It starts moving that Overton Window and before you know it: you have serious talk about changing State Law. Which is the entire point. Tenants Rights activists know exactly what theyâre doing. They know that symbols matter. And people on the other side also know this and they arenât gonna let it take root in their town like some bad weed. Because weeds spread.
Itâs Universal
Thatâs exactly how all civil rights works. You get a foothold somewhereâa weed that looks like nothing, typically something symbolicâand then you work to spread it. Sometimes this happens in a faux-organic way (FYI: Rosa Parks confrontation on that bus was no accident) and sometimes with a seemingly âpointlessâ city council resolution. Civil rights almost never works without those symbolic gestures because itâs those gestures that get people talking.
This strategy has been used for decades and decades to further all manner of civil rights from red-lining to AIDS to LGBTQ to immigration to minimum wages. Symbolism matters because symbolic gestures work.
The uncomfortable question
We live in a democracy. And that means that decision makers only do what they are pushed to do by various interests. That sounds snippy, but that is how politics is supposed to work. You have to be serious in your advocacy to get a decision makerâs attention. Otherwise? Decision makers would be wasting all their time on causes no one cares about. If you canât generate some pressure? Youâre not worth paying attention to. The reason we never seem to get anywhere with airport issues is because the real decision makers feel none of that pressure to do anything beyond what they are currently doing. All their real incentives are towards what the 2 million residents of King County want: growth. The 100,000 or so people who are bothered by the airport: are you kidding me? Thatâs almost a rounding error.
This is the uncomfortable question I always ask activists: Why should any Port Commissioner or Senator or Congressman or State Rep. or even the local dog catcher feel any pressure to do more when not even a City Council is willing to speak up?
Twenty five years
Activists tend to get frustrated because the law is a stone wall and the economic interests all go in the wrong direction. Which is why I always suggest small winsâto move that Overton Window. But Iâm also mindful that the clock is tickingâand this is another parameter that does not get discussed: Twenty five years .
Twenty five years is the nexus between âbuilding a second airportâ and âelectric plane technologyâ. Both of these are canards that also work hard to keep us stuck where we are.
Second airport canard
The second airport will never provide relief for people around Sea-Tac Airport and weâve discussed it here ad nauseum. I have no idea why activists continue to mention it as if it were something meaningful for us. If anything we should be rolling our eyes whenever any elected mentions it because itâs simply an excuse to get us to stop complaining and be âpatientâ.
In two sentences, the reason a second airport sucks is the same reason we will never build another major highwayâyou canât build your way out of traffic. By the time a second airport comes on line, more planes would magically appear to fill up that capacity, providing zero relief for us. Really.
Technology canard
Iâve spoken to Governor Jay Inslee now three times. Twice in an open forum and once in a five minute âaudienceâ. Each time, Iâve asked him the same question: Why wonât you vote for any legislation curbing greenhouse gases that includes marine and aviation fuels? And each time his answer is the same: âI will never vote for that. However I will do all I can to promote electric airplanes.â Remember: this is, hands down, the most environmentally friendly candidate for president weâve ever had.
So we have two big âsolutionsâ out there which are basically, âhang on for twenty five years!â And Iâm not willing to wait twenty five years because a) I have no confidence that either of those solutions are real and b) I have a good idea that my community canât wait that long for relief. In my view, those faux-solutions are just ways to keep us from taking useful action that might be disruptive to the status quo.
How long?
And why should we be patient? Can you imagine AIDS activists being told, âHang on, weâll have a vaccine in twenty five years.â No. People are suffering now. Your long-term solutions are just excuses for not taking our rights seriously now. And that should be our attitude as well.
Like those activists, I am not willing to wait twenty five years. But of course, relief isnât coming in six months, either. My guess is that âsuccessâ will take at least five years. What kills me about a lot of activists I talk to is that when I say five or ten years? Their enthusiasm evaporates. So youâre saying that you wonât work seriously on a goal this difficult if thereâs no immediate gratification?
I literally have no response to that because all important civil rights campaigns all are mapped out in years (as are airport project, by the way.) The people who manage airports think strategically in very long time-frames. And if youâre not willing to do so as well to push back? Frankly, youâre not for real and no decision maker should take you seriously.
Itâs all Civil Rights
Like activists in all successful civil rights movement, we should be working to move the discussion now. And, as with all successful civil rights movements, the first layer of government we should address should be municipal. Because again, if we canât get our own local leaders engaged (the people who breathe the exact same air and listen to the exact same roaring engines), who can we get on board?
Why should any decision maker care, if the people who represent you donât show that they truly care? Symbolism matters. Again and again: if you donât believe me, just look at every previously successful civil rights movement. They all work the same way: incremental wins, hearts and minds.
Our problem is that weâre constantly studying âstudiesâ⊠and âlawâ⊠and all the things that only end up making so frustrated. Instead, we should be building support by insisting that a cleaner, quieter airspace is a civil right.
I ran for office because I realized that moving the Overton Window was more important initially than any legal or legislative action. And by studying other civil rights movements, I also realized that you donât need thousands of people to obtain real change. You just need to have a consistent, easy to understand message and relentlessly work to move the ball forward a few yards at a time.
I think the single biggest problem activists face is convincing ourselves that this is a âcivil rightsâ issue. Somehow that sort of language sounds high-falutinâ and too abstract to be useful. Many of us seem much more comfortable talking about legal or technical issuesâwhich I believe are traps. I maintain that convincing people that we deserve a quieter, cleaner airspace is a lot easier messaging than either âultra-ultra-fine particulatesâ or âDNL65â.
My job is to get decision makers to feel a pressure to consider our civil rights. And Iâm doing that by trying to get my peers on board because, obviously, the more leaders are engaged, the more pressure we can exert.
The Action Item
In a recent post I asked you to do something for the causeâeven if you have no faith in the notion whatsoever. And I can ask this because itâs very simple and very easy to do and it certainly canât hurt. In fact, I can ask this because if youâre an activist youâve almost certainly logged many ânoise complaintsâ, knowing full well that those were also fairly pointless. Give this the same chance. 
I am asking you and residents of all other airport communities to write your City Council (in my case citycouncil@desmoineswa.gov) and make the following request:
Please make it the official legislative goal of the City Of Des Moines to work at every level of government towards permanently limiting the number of daily operations at Sea-Tac Airport to 900.
Your job right now is not to worry about âhowâ to do that. So stop bitching about that. Remember: in the beginning, even Dr. King had no idea how to get âer done, either. Your job is simply to tell your City Council, âthis matters to meâ. Because currently? They donât think it matters all that much. But trust me, if a City Council gets enough letters on any subject, they do something. And in this case, *we donât even care that they donât have the power to do anything ârealâ. Because at this point, all we care about is creating a symbolic gesture.
Ask any successful civil rights campaigner: Symbols matter.
If you think that one city council asking for a limit on flights is not very meaningful, consider this: The total populations of the six airport communities originally invited to join StART in 2018 is almost 270,000. Add in the population of Beacon Hill and youâre well over 300k. Fifteen percent of King County. And that many people matters.