When evaluating the options for GCC and SIP, the Commission on Public Service should examine each policy using the strategic triangle alongside traditional cost/benefit analysis. The three options - status quo, closing GCC and funding SIP, or forming a coalition between the two and Belltown - all have different public value they aim to create, operational capacity, and public/private support (Moore, 2003) and, thus, result in different pros and cons for the city.
The simplest option with the clearest outcome is maintaining the status quo. This supports GCC’s public value of “serv[ing] the poor and marginalized of the city of Seattle” while still allowing SIP to build on its own. The capacity to serve is clear as GCC and SIP can both continue
…show more content…
The recent 20% increase to 4,500 homeless in 2016 makes it clear that the status quo is not a long-term solution. Additionally, tensions between activists and those looking to gentrify the neighborhood will continue to grow over time unless action is taken.
A more contentious policy with less clear outcomes would be revoking GCC’s permit and supporting SIP, creating public value through boosting the economy. The capacity to do so is clear as more funding to SIP’s job training programs, removing homeless populations from the neighborhood, and allowing new businesses into GCC’s building each support economic growth.
However, there is no guarantee these projected economic boosts would occur. This is because homelessness is a wicked problem, and its increase in Seattle does not mean the status quo is failing (Moore, 2003). For instance, without GCC more homeless will be relegated to the streets. This could in turn hamper SIP’s job training efforts and make the neighborhood less desirable for future investment, counter to the whole goal of the policy! Additionally, this policy only has a small handful of support as it is an example of running government like a business, perhaps increasing efficiency, but at the cost of economic inequality (Box,