P-Patches

Steps towards establishing Seattle's P-Patch program were taken in the early 1970s, when University of Washington student Darlyn Rundberg asked for and was given permission to use a small portion of the Picardo Family truck farm in Wedgewood for a small community garden. She used the borrowed land to teach children at nearby Wedgewood Elementary School how to grow vegetables, and to encourage donations to the Neighbors in Need food bank program. In 1973, the City of Seattle decided to buy the Picardo property and established a community gardening "P-Patch" program, so named to honor the Picardos for making the land available.

The Department of Human Resources oversaw the program in its beginnings. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, budget cuts limited support for the P-Patch program as some community members and City employees believed that the limited funding for social programs could be better utilized elsewhere. A fee schedule was established in 1970 to supplement funding by charging participants to use the plots. By 1983, funding for the program was limited entirely to plot fees which had restricted participation as they were increased significantly in 1980.

The P-Patch Advisory Council was established in 1979 to serve as an advocate and liaison between the gardeners and the City Council. The Advisory Council worked closely with the City Council and the Department of Human Resources to obtain funding through block grants and reestablish the program's services.

The program was moved to the Department of Neighborhoods in 1990, which still administers it today. By 1993, the P-Patch program was the nation's largest community gardening program. With over 90 locations in neighborhoods throughout Seattle, P-Patch plots come in various shapes, sizes, and ownerships. In addition to providing community garden spaces, the P-Patches give back to the community by supplying fresh, organic produce to Seattle food banks and feeding programs.

For a comprehensive history of Seattle's P-Patch Program, please see the Department of Neighborhood's "P-Patch Community Gardening 50th Anniversary" article.

Testimony

On August 26, 1983, the Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Health Committee held a special meeting to discuss the future of the P-Patch program, which was run by the Department of Human Resources at that time. Points of discussion focused on who should administer the program, what services should be provided for the gardeners and how the program should be funded. Committee Chair Jack Richards opened the meeting by pointing out the many community benefits of the program including providing an opportunity for urban residents to grow vegetables (something they might not otherwise be able to do in a cramped city environment), food banks benefitting from the surplus food grown by gardeners, and support for low income families to grow their own food.

Community members and P-Patch advocates provided public testimony with suggestions for restructuring and improving the program. Opponents' main concerns were that the gardens were an "eye sore" and cost the City too much money in terms of water and maintenance. Some speculated whether gardening was actually taking place at the P-Patch locations and expressed concern over potential hazards created by the gardens. Advocates underscored the points that Richards touched on as well as highlighting the importance of the program to immigrant communities, while also raising concerns regarding restrictions the high costs that the City was charging for program participation. They offered a variety of suggestions for improvements, including lowering the cost and hiring more staff to monitor the plots and support the community gardeners. They also suggested moving oversight of the program to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Joe Garcia, Department of Human Resources (listen to audio)

In 1981, we had a budget of $58,000, of which about $34,000 was general fund. In 1983, we have a $47,000 total budget, of which $11,600 is general fund. What the department has done between 1981 and 1983 is reduced the total cost of the program from $58,000 by about $11,000. But the concomitant reduction in the general fund support over that period of time from $34,000 to $11,600, it's required that the fees be increased in order to keep the basic program operating. Initially, well and up until 1982, the services that were provided were water, rototilling, and fertilizing for all the gardeners in the site. In an effort to reduce the cost of the program, we reduced the services of rototilling and fertilizing. We now provide water only, in staple of the sites. We also do other things in terms of printing the application and making them available in the community. Each year we've reviewed the budgets with the council members and tried to get their input into what the best way to operate the program is. I think [microphone feedback] the other, there is a real tension between whether the program is a recreation program, whether it's a program for low-income people. If you look at the participants, I think there are a larger number of people who would probably not be considered low-income.

In the last two years, the department has done a variety of things to involve more low-income people in the program, one of which is to get a grant from the community services block grant last year to develop two sites for the specific use of low-income Asian refugees at no charge. And we’ve developed two of those sites for about 88 plots in them.

We've also had traditionally a Gardenship Fund to help individuals who couldn't afford the fees to pay for those. We've got approximately 52 Gardenship plots being used right now. There are 35 plots that are being gardened by individuals who have volunteered to donate all of the food from those plots to food banks. I think, as you’ve heard, a high percentage of our average gardener donates some portion of food they grow to food banks.

Many of the gardeners I think garden because they enjoy gardening and have no other place to do it. I think it’s an important program, I think, you know the department is certainly willing to work with the advisory council, with gardeners in general, and with the council in looking at a variety of alternatives to improve the program.

Brita Butler-Wall, Ravenna-Bryant Community Association (listen to audio)

My name is Brita Butler-Wall, 7034 Ravenna Avenue Northeast. I am a board member of the Ravenna-Bryant Community Association. One of my points is that, as usual, our community association received no notice of this hearing. In fact, we have never had any publicity about the P-Patch Program, even though we are near Dahl Field and a lot of people in our area like to P-Patch. I myself have had a P-Patch there for seven years and have seen the program steadily deteriorate. There are fewer services offered now than when we started, specifically tilling and fertilizing. The cost has more than doubled and some of the services seem to me to be highly inappropriate. For example, sending out a newsletter with no real information that isn't already available through newspaper and garden stores and so on and so forth.

I think it's also inappropriate that apparently the program has attempted to add new sites over the years without particularly managing the current sites very well. In fact, our P-Patch this year, because, partly because of the drastic increase in cost, has many plots un-gardened. I think the P-Patch program is absolutely needed. It has a lot of potential for recreation, for mental health, and for food, but I think that it's terribly mismanaged. I think the manager should be accountable to the P-Patchers. Most people that I know cannot understand why we need a full-time director when we see the kind of services that have been provided and we know what the garden year looks like.

Some of my suggestions are that we should have a lower rate structure for fixed income people. We should provide free seeds for people who cannot afford them. We should involve school groups, church groups, youth programs to work in the P-Patches to get food to the food banks. What I've heard so far this morning makes me even angrier, I guess, because I teach English to refugees - not currently, but I have in the past - and I think that their farming and agricultural skills are probably superior to most of those of us who live here in the city. I don't like the idea of neighbors in a community being so worried about the appearance of a P-Patch in their particular neighborhood. I think if you come to our P-Patch, which is up in a very wealthy part of town, you'll find that our gardeners don't go to the P-Patch every day. We have some litter; we have some problems. And I think that the people that are interested in the P-Patches can work those things out for themselves. I don't like the precedent of telling people how to run the P-Patch. I think the gardeners in the P-Patch program, plus a good manager, should make those kinds of guidelines for daily use. I hope that you continue to fund the program, but I hope you really look at what kind of managerial services are really needed and take more advantage of the expertise of the people who are already involved in the program as volunteers. Thank you.

Leonard B. Mandelbaum, Seattle University Business Professor (listen to audio)

This is report I have for you this morning is really the result of a study of a peach patch [sic] program undertaken by a group of graduate students at Seattle University under my leadership last spring. And the reason I wanted the delay is to hear what's new while I was in Juneau since last spring and it helped. The root problem of the P-Patch program, in my view, is not management or budget. These are symptoms of a larger issue: the lack of a clear City policy to guide program development. And I believe the statement by the Parks people right now indicates the real ambivalence and attitudes among the City people toward the P-Patch program. In characterizing the P-Patch program as a private activity, you have the core of the question. The P-Patch program, in my view, is part of a larger urban agricultural program, which is very much public in nature.

When first organized, the City role was that of a facilitator to a group of energetic gardeners. The Council saw to it that land was available and later, services. Now communal gardening is a larger enterprise with seemingly growing significance for food banks, Asian immigrants, the elderly, as well as middle class green thumbs. There are at least three focal points for City policy, and matters will not improve the kind of problems you heard this morning until the Council chooses which of these essential and helps design an organization suited to the goal.

One: urban gardening can be conceived as an activity like soccer, tennis and softball, a joyful
recreation which is assumed most, where the recreationists assume most of the cost of the service. The service would be physical, providing land, insurance, and the City role would be limited. If you see this goal as pivotal, say so and assign the program to the Parks Department, whether they want it or not [laughter from attendees] to run as they run similar programs.

You may decide, secondly, that improving the nutrition of the poor and assistance to new immigrants and the elderly gardeners is essential. If so, provide more budget for communal gardening and keep it in DHR where it belongs.

Third, you may feel that communal gardening should be part of a larger urban agriculture policy. Such a policy would embrace the objectives of serving the poor and the recreationists but would also preserve open space and develop skilled gardeners as a resource. This resource is significant psychically and socially in a technological era when people are cut off from the satisfaction of primary production. It is significant for those who can distinguish between hour-old corn and day-old corn, and it may be critical in the future when the cost of developing and transporting produce becomes uneconomical as more farmland becomes developed or simply erodes. If this is the way you see policy, you need an organization suited for a rather complex and innovative set of objectives.

One possibility, and I say this as one possibility there are others, would be to authorize a commission with representatives of food distributors (such as food banks), agricultural experts (such as Tilth), gardeners (such as the P-Patch Advisory Council), Asian immigrants, the poor, the community leaders, and City agencies with resources and experience. That means Parks and DHR. Such a commission would have the power to recommend policy, including fees, service levels, etc. to the Council. And I would recommend a three-year experiment which this Council could review and evaluate. Any of the three approaches here would probably be justified as policy. There would be a fourth, and that is if you set a program as recreational only, turn it over to the P-Patchers and provide the water, insurance, and the land. I sympathize with Councilmembers reluctant to involve themselves in management detail, but this is not detail I ask you to consider; it is the heart of policy and politics. A decision for either option two or option three (that is, the people-oriented option) or the preserving open space and the complex option would be a decision for a noble experiment in urban agriculture. Even a decision to simply serve recreationists would clear the air. I congratulate the Council and its staff for setting aside time before the budget process so that these policy decisions could be faced in a more relaxed environment and on the merits of the issues involved.

Mike Carney, community volunteer (listen to audio)

My name is Mike Carney. I live at 3212 21st South, on top of Beacon Hill. I have sponsored some of these refugees who are using these plots. There are three plots, one of higher visibility where these people have just spoken about, and two other ones: one on top of the hill and one down in, further south of Holly Park. And we've had some discussion and, mostly my concern to come today is that they not be closed entirely if we're to accommodate these people and move that one. I'm happy to talk about that, but let's not close them all. So I brought other people benefiting from the plots and I've asked other people to come, but many of them are also working. The reasons for it have been listed. They keep, they give these people an opportunity to feed themselves, which is better than going to a food bank, and the land underneath the power lines certainly seems the appropriate place to do it because it's idle land. The gardening advice that is offered, I listen to, but my acquaintance with these people has indicated to me they've been subsistence gardeners all their life and if there is recommendations about the peculiarities of Seattle's climate, I think, we should cooperate in that manner. And another reason they don't go every day is some live some distance from these plots, not too far. Most of them are in Mount Baker or Holly Park. Yeah, mostly I hope they don't close them. I brought some ladies to say that they do appreciate the opportunity to garden. Thank you.

Sources

Public Safety and Health Committee, Public Hearing, August 26, 1983, Event 9721, City Council Audio Recordings, Record Series 4601-03 (listen to audio of entire meeting)

Public Safety and Health Committee agenda, August 17, 1983, City Council Committee Agendas, Record Series 4600-10

Bibliography

Textual Records

P-Patch Program Records, 1975-2009, Record Series 5751-10

P-Patch Surveys, 2001, Record Series 5751-09

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Community Issues, 1991-2003, Record Series 5750-06

P-Patch, 1985-1986, Box 10, Folder 5, Community Services Division Director's Records, Record Series 3625-01

Moving Images

Who Gets the Green?, 1996, Item 3010, Jane Noland Video Collection, Record Series 4663-06

A City Among the Trees: Planting for Our Future, 1997, Item 3254, Urban Forestry Moving Images, Record Series 8108-01

Photos

P-Patch slides, 1990, Department of Neighborhoods Photographs, Record Series 5750-08, Box 1, Folder 1

Aerial of 25th Ave NE and NE 82nd looking north - includes corner of Dahl Playfield, August 1, 1974, Item 204577, Engineering Department Negatives, Record Series 2613-07

Aerial of 25th Ave NE and NE 82nd - includes Dahl Playfield and Wedgewood Pool , August 1, 1974, Item 204576, Engineering Department Negatives, Record Series 2613-07

Joint Training Facility, September 20, 2004, Item 159223, Fleets and Facilities Department Capital Programs Digital Photographs, Record Series 0208-01

Celebration of completion of Parks and Green Space Levy P-Patch Projects at "Unpaving Paradise", August 29, 2013, Item 194213, Mayor's Office Digital Photographs, Record Series 5200-03

Belltown Cottage Park and P-Patch, Downtown Seattle Park, June 13, 2005, Item 150058, Department of Parks and Recreation Digital Photographs, Record Series 5802-15