City Council, Mayor Wilson

Mayor Wilson Rolls Out Small-C Conservative Budget that Addresses City’s Structural Deficit

The proposal makes real cuts to close a $175 million gap—and reflects the conflict between campaign ambitions and a budget deficit that has gone unaddressed for years.

By Erica C. Barnett

Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposed 2027 budget (announced earlier this week, while I was out of town) would accomplish something that her predecessor, Bruce Harrell, never really attempted: It would close the city’s $175 million structural budget deficit, created largely by the use of one-time funds to pay for ongoing new programs in every budget since 2020. And it would do so in a transparent, sustainable way—by actually cutting departmental budgets, eliminating 128 mostly positions (all but 15 of them vacant), and by foregoing many of the budget tricks that Harrell used to create on-paper balanced budgets that in fact were deeply unsustainable.

What Wilson’s budget does not do, with a couple of notable exceptions (increased shelter funding, new public restrooms, and cuts to civilian police position), is strngly reflect many of the values that got the mayor elected, including a commitment to police alternatives, taxing big corporations, and funding not just hundreds but thousands of new shelter beds.

In particular, it includes no new progressive revenues and heavily relies on the existing JumpStart tax to supplant programs that were previously paid for through the general fund—including $65 million in existing homelessness funding that will now come out of JumpStart. It eliminates funding for long-vacant positions, ongoing new programs for which Harrell and the council used one-time funding, and some of Harrell’s pet-priority projects, like graffiti removal and AI.

The plan has earned Wilson praise from the business community, and from some in Seattle’s conservative and right-wing press. It is small-c conservative in a way that Harrell’s spendthrift, please-everybody budgets never were. It’s possible that many of Wilson’s most hard-core supporters will rally around this budget even though it further institutionalizes the repurposing of JumpStart and other policies that progressives roundly criticized Harrell for, simply because they’re coming from Wilson.

In some ways, it may have taken Wilson—a heterodox housing and transit activist who the mainstream press loves to refer to as an “avowed socialist”—to propose this budget. The council, which overloaded last year’s budget with spending restrictions designed to lock Wilson in to their priorities, will almost certainly have a field day with it, piling on new spending while insisting (as budget chair Dan Strauss did on Thursday) that their budgets have always been sustainable. But if the council decides to knock Wilson’s budget, which is balanced through 2030, out of balance, it will be on them, not her.

I’m going to focus on some of the highlights of the budget, which the city council took up today at an initial high-level today. I’m also focusing on changes to the budget that haven’t been previously announced. Previously announced changes include funding for universal free meals at schools; funding to enforce the city’s ban on residential junk fees and on algorithmic grocery pricing; funding to accelerate shelter construction; funding for a new city prosecutor to pursue extreme risk protection orders and the return of $127 million in city funding for homelessness programs from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, which I’ve covered elsewhere.

Lots and lots more to come; these are just a few things that jumped out at me as I took a first look at the 735-page budget book.

JumpStart is Basically Just a Slush Fund Now

JumpStart—a tax, paid by businesses, on the compensation of highly paid workers at large companies—was originally supposed to provide additive funding for affordable housing, green jobs, and equitable development, all areas that were related to the spike in Seattle’s cost of living due to the recent influx of high-paid tech workers. Instead, since it passed, every mayor has used a growing portion of the JumpStart fund to pay for basic city needs—which of course means less money for the emerging needs JumpStart was created to address. Wilson’s budget is no different.

Wilson’s budget takes $173 million out of JumpStart to supplant general-fund spending unrelated to the four JumpStart priorities, plus another $65 million to pay for homelessness programs that were previously paid for out of the general fund.* The budget counts the existing homelessness programs as “JumpStart” priorities, which is technically true, but because they’re existing general-fund programs I’m going to add them to the $173 million, to get a total of $238 million that Wilson is proposing to takes out of the JumpStart bucket.

Overall, Wilson’s budget repurposes a whopping 59 percent of this year’s $402 million in JumpStart revenues for general-fund purposes. However, because the budget also grabs $43 million out of a fund balance JumpStart has left over from previous years, plus $8 million in earnings from JumpStart fund investments, that total could also be calculated at around 52 percent—still substantially more than the 38 percent Wilson’s budget claims by counting the shifted homelessness programs as essentially new JumpStart spending. (Wilson’s budget uses another large JumpStart balance transfer in 2028, but the fund starts to grow again the following year).

“No More Public Safety” (will be the KOMO headline when they figure this out)

Police spending is projected to grow this year, but not because the mayor is proposing to substantially increase hiring. As we’ve reported, SPD has been put on notice that it needs to slow hiring even as applications pour in from people attracted by huge starting salaries, and Wilson’s budget eliminates temporary hiring bonuses adopted after hiring dropped in 2020; it also cuts millions in funding Harrell added for ridiculous macho recruiting ads.

The biggest cost increase in the SPD budget is a $56 million in wage and benefit increases from the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract Harrell and the city council agreed to last year; that contract, as we’ve reported, boosts the salaries of newly hired cops well above six figures.

The rest of the increase, about $12.6 million, will pay for 66 net new officers who were “hired in 2026 but only partially funded” in Harrell’s 2026 budget, plus funding for two SPD mental health professionals that Harrell’s budget only funded for nine months of this year (speaking of unsustainable budget tricks). The budget essentially caps the number of police officers at 1,250, a figure that will unquestionably surface as an issue during the budget process, when the city council has a whack at the budgey,.

SPD’s budget also goes down in one area where Harrell allowed it to balloon unaccountably: The police chief’s office, which former chief Shon Barnes expanded dramatically by establishing a cadre of new positions, each more elaborately titled than the last, will lose three positions. Barnes’ Chief Communications Officer (FKA communications director) Barbara DeLollis and his Executive Director of Crime and Community Harm Reduction Lee Hunt left earlier this year. Alex Ricketts, Barnes’ chief of staff, is still a member of SPD’s command staff, while Andre Sayles, one of Barnes’ two deputy chiefs (most chiefs have just one deputy) is now interim police chief.

Overall, the budget provides funding for 1,866 positions each year through 2030—24 fewer, thanks to cuts to mostly vacant civilian positions, than last year. These positions include parking enforcement officer jobs that have been unfilled for years; PEO jobs are perennially hard to fill because they pay relatively poorly and are high-stress, which is one reason why cutting the empty positions does not actually mean cutting back on parking enforcement.

What it does mean is that SPD will lose some of the funding it uses for other purposes, in an annual sleight-of-hand that is not visible in budget documents. Although the department gets funding for overtime, they routinely use more than they ask for at the beginning of each year; to make up this predictable shortfall, the department uses SPD’s funded but vacant positions to pay for their overspending. (Further routinizing this lack of spending restraint, SPD routinely asks the council to add more money to the department’s budget later in the year as part of a less-visible “supplemental” budget process.) The budget’s $6.5 million or so in civilian savings, in other words, is also $6.5 million SPD can no longer use as a slush fund to pay for overtime; if these reductions become part of the budget.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Just about every other department takes cuts to vacant positions in Wilson’s budget, but SPD’s are the most likely to raise objections from the council. Councilmember Bob Kettle was already fulminating against them at the council’s initial budget briefing on Thursday.

Council members also signaled Thursday that they have big questions about Wilson’s decision to reduce funding for the Community Assisted Response and Engagement (CARE) team to defer funding for 14 new crisis responders, the previously planned expansion for this year. (The budget doesn’t propose eliminating any of these positions).

CARE is also taking over a bunch of gun violence prevention initiatives from the Human Services Department as part of the gun-violence plan Wilson announced last week.

CARE department Chief Amy Barden said in the past that the 34-member team has had challenges filling its time because of excessive restrictions in the SPOG contract (CARE team members were told not to respond to a crisis in a grocery store parking lot, for instance, because of a contract provision saying they could only respond to crises that occur on publicly owned land), but has said in recent months that SPD has shown more willingness to allow the team to respond to the type of calls for which it was explicitly created. Wilson’s budget also eliminates funding for nine vacant 911 call taker positions, another potential point of conflict with the council.

The proposed budget also cuts overtime at the Fire Department by $7 million, requiring “the department to manage staffing within available resources.” Expect council fireworks over this one as well.

A few little things that could become big things

Stuff to look out for as the budget conversations go on this fall:

• The Seattle Department of Transportation’s budget is seriously out of whack, thanks largely to revenue shortfalls in SDOT’s Transportation Fund and Transportation Benefit District fund that I’m sure will get explained in more detail when the council discusses the department’s budget.

Transportation fund revenues have been declining every year. In Wilson’s budget, declining revenues in these two funds translate into cuts to both new capital projects and basic maintenance, as well as a shift in funding for “high priority” projects, like sidewalks and curb ramps, to the city’s automatic traffic camera program, which is expected to bring in more revenues once it expands to include automated speeding cameras (in addition to cameras that red-light and other traffic violations). The budget also increases taxes for parking in commercial

• Wilson’s budget proposes eliminating an awful lot of council (and mayoral) adds from previous years, which will undoubtedly rub some councilmembers the wrong way. For instance, the budget for the Parks Department cuts seven new positions the council added last year; I’ve asked the budget office which positions these are, but the possibilities include two anti-graffiti staff and three new park rangers. The budget would also cut some vacant positions on the Unified Care Team, which removes homeless encampments; Harrell and the council have repeatedly expanded the team and the council placed a restriction on the budget last year that makes it nearly impossible to cut the size of the 116-member team.

Wilson’s Parks budget also eliminates $500,000 in “discretionary graffiti funding”; Harrell, by his own admission, was absolutely obsessed with ridding Seattle of graffiti, and the word “graffiti” appears 71 times in his 2026 budget, compared to six times in Wilson’s.

The budget would also cut $500,000 Harrell added to last year’s budget for an AI system that was supposed to “streamline the permitting application process and improve customer services using Artificial Intelligence and data integration.”

• There’s also a new $500,000 for the (still troubled, from the complaints I continue to hear) Workday payroll system—this time, to pay for “surge” tech support to deal with changes to labor union contracts in real time. You would think that things like pay increases and classification changes could be handled by the city’s very large citywide and departmental HR staffs, but this is Workday we’re talking about.

* *The $65 million that’s paying for existing homelessness programs, in turn, comes from a capital fund within the city’s Office of Housing, which has been unable to spend some of the housing levy revenues that were supposed to pay for affordable housing, for many of the same reasons market-rate developers have been unable to build. Taking away dedicated funds for housing construction for any purpose, including homeless shelters, is complex and potentially controversial, but the budget does say the city will replenish the OH funds through JumpStart spending in future years. If that happens, no harm no foul. If it doesn’t, it could mean less housing in the future.

City Council, Development, housing, Mayor Wilson, Transportation

Greater Seattle: Councilmember Foster Breaks the MHA Logjam
Construction workers packed city council chambers last Friday, September 18, to support city councilmember Dionne Foster’s tax holiday on  housing development.

By Josh Feit

Councilmember Dionne Foster > Mayor Katie Wilson

You couldn’t have a clearer juxtaposition. Mayor Wilson tried to cut a deal between housing developers and the affordable-housing left to accelerate housing production. And Councilmember Dionne Foster tried to cut a deal between housing developers and the affordable-housing left to accelerate housing production. Wilson put it off.

Foster moved it forward.

The city currently has an affordable housing program known as Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) which makes developers either add affordable housing to their projects or pay into an affordable housing fund whenever they build new projects. Ironically, the MHA program seems to have slowed housing production. Since MHA kicked in back in 2019, housing applications are down 94 percent and permits issued are down 66 percent. This means less housing supply, which increases rents for everybody—while also bringing in less money for affordable housing. To get production going again, developers wanted to cut MHA fees by 80 percent for two years on projects that are already in the pipeline but have stalled due to the fees. Their argument: A smaller fee on some production will generate more money for affordable housing than a hefty fee on minimal production.

Wilson’s efforts ended with a plan to convene a task force (with a goal of cutting a deal on the fees in early 2027). Enter Foster. She brought the parties together and surfaced math that showed two things: MHA revenues had dwindled to a minuscule portion of the Office of Housing’s affordable housing budget (6 percent down from 39 percent a few years ago) and millions in revenue were being left the table from unrealized development. Developers estimate that lowering the MHA fee would trigger about $24 million in affordable housing funds by greenlighting projects they already have cued up, but can’t move forward thanks to the fee. This is millions more than the anemic $11.7 million MHA has brought in so far this year at the full fee, and down from $67 million in 2020, before developers started forgoing projects.

That would also bring in an estimated $225 million in new construction sales tax and create up to 6,700 new units. Oh, and it would create new construction jobs, which is why labor packed a meeting of Foster’s housing committee on Friday to support her legislation to lower the fee by 80 percent for two years.

Despite the obvious boon for affordable housing, you still can’t convince the left that developers should get tax breaks. And so Foster’s deal—which, of course, still has to pass—includes keeping the full MHA fee in place on any new projects in vulnerable neighborhoods such as Beacon Hill, the Central District, and the Chinatown-International District where development is often considered synonymous with displacement.

It’s worth noting, though, that almost all the projects developers are trying to get moving again under the 80 percent discount are on vacant lots or lots that aren’t currently residential.

Wilson applauded Foster on her proposal. From the sidelines.

Inclusionary Zoning > No Inclusionary Zoning

So says Foster herself, who has added a resolution to her MHA-holiday ordinance clarifying that despite the temporary reduction in the MHA rate, she believes developer fees need to be a “core part” of the affordable housing equation in the future. Using developer fees to fund affordable housing is known as “inclusionary zoning,” a policy that conditions issuing permits for market-rate projects on the production of affordable housing.

Foster’s resolution calls for adding inclusionary zoning requirements in neighborhood residential zones—formerly single-family zones—that are currently exempt from MHA fees. Her resolution directs staff to “develop legislation implementing an inclusionary requirement for new market rate residential development in Neighborhood Residential zones … [and] estimate how an inclusionary requirement for new market rate residential development could … contribute to meeting the need for housing affordable to lower income households.”

This startled some urbanists who cheered her MHA holiday ordinance, but then wondered why she’d do a 180 by adding the fees where they currently don’t exist. Given the slumping post-MHA housing production numbers, urbanists ask why Seattle would tax something its wants to encourage—housing.

Foster, who wants to be “transparent that [her] vision” supports inclusionary zoning, says she doesn’t believe MHA is solely responsible for the falloff in housing production; she cites Trump’s tariffs, for one. However, she also says she wants to make sure the fees don’t stall development and wants staff to “recalibrate” MHA fees “to find the right balance.” (As Erica reported last week, Foster differentiates her resolution from a council proposal last year that would have simply applied the MHA fee structure as is.)

“Right now we are doing a short-term fee reduction to help get development back on track in the midst of lots of negative macroeconomic factors we weren’t facing a decade ago,” Foster said when asked about the seeming contradiction in her approach. “And as we look towards the future, I believe inclusionary zoning should continue to be a part of how we build a city that works for everyone. We just have to get the dials right. The resolution focuses on determining the right path to include neighborhood residential in that recalibration.”

City Council, Development, Mayor Wilson

Housing Fee Reduction Sought By Developers Is Back On, Thanks to Deal Brokered by Councilmember Foster

 By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmember Dionne Foster has introduced a bill that will give developers a break on mandatory housing affordability fees for two years, with the goal of spurring projects forward at a time when housing development is stalled.

Under the deal, which is similar to one that fell apart earlier this year, developers who already have projects in the city’s development pipeline will get an 80 percent break on MHA fees for the next two years, a reduction that could get some of the 30 or so  projects that are currently stalled moving forward. Developers of these projects would have two years to get to the foundation inspection stage, a requirement designed to make sure they actually build the projects quickly.

In a concession to affordable advocates who argued that the MHA “holiday” would inappropriately reduce funding for affordable housing, the legislation exempts non-vested projcets in the Central District, the ChinatownInternational District, and much of Southeast Seattle from the proposal, ensuring that no developer can propose a new project in those areas while the lower fees are in place. Two of the 30 stalled projects are in this area, but both are on vacant land.

The legislation would also allow developers to propose new, or non-vested, projects—in addition to projects that are currently proposed but not moving forward—in 2027 only if they meet two conditions: At least 25 percent of their new units must be two bedrooms or larger, and their project has to reach the foundation inspection stage within three years after they get their building permits. Those projects will get a 60 percent cut to MHA fees, except for “legacy homeowners, who would get an 80 percent reduction as  in MHA fees to develop on their own property.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

“This feels really important because we have a lot of projects that are stalled and permits that are trending down, and this is an opportunity to take action,” Foster said. “I’m really excited about two-bedroom requirement. … I think that’s an example of something that helps address a gap in the market, knowing that we definitely need more family-size units to meet the needs of Seattle renters and Seattle families, and I hope that will have an impact.

Mayor Katie Wilson’s office was not involved in the deal, and in fact had been working on a parallel track, headed up by Councilmember Eddie Lin. When an earlier effort to reach a similar agreement fell apart after affordable housing developers withdrew their support, Wilson announced she would  convene a task force of stakeholders including advocates, labor, and market-rate and nonprofit to broker an MHA compromise, among other policies to spur new affordable housing construction.

Developers, who have been seeking a temporary break from the fees, for months, have argued that Wilson’s drawn-out timeline would have effectively killed the projects that are currently in the pipeline.

MHA fees, which fund affordable housing, have been on the decline as development has slowed, dropping from $74 million in 2021 to $47 million last year. (Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story erroneously said MHA brought in $22 million last year; we regret the error.)

Foster said the work Wilson’s office did on their parallel MHA strategy was “critical. … I see this proposal as taking on a time-sensitive. immediate, short-term approach and I think there’s lots of additional changes that we need to make to support housing and affordable housing production. There’s certainly no shortage of issues for us to all work on, so I think the mayor’s task force will be a really important part of that.

In a statement to PubliCola, Wilson said her task force will “work on multiple fronts to accelerate the production of housing and prevent displacement, including short and long-term updates to MHA. I respect Councilmember Foster’s decision to move forward now with a proposal for a temporary MHA holiday, similar to the one we were developing together this spring. While the Council deliberates, my focus is on the work of the Housing Production Task Force and lining up our next set of key actions and policies.”

Foster’s proposal also includes a resolution that says the council “intends to consider and act on legislation”  that would apply MHA requirements to neighborhood residential areas—former single-family zones, where small apartment buildings are now allowed. Currently, these areas are exempt from MHA. Foster says her proposal is different than former councilmember Cathy Moore’s plan to impose existing MHA requirements on all neighborhood residential areas because it is less prescriptive; the resolution includes a number of possible carveouts, for example, it says the council may consider charging lower fees for denser development.

MHA, which went into effect citywide in 2019, allowed developers to build slightly taller buildings in exchange for variable affordabl-housing fees. The program, part of the Housing and Livability Agenda adopted during the Ed Murray administration, is  based on the premise that new market-rate apartments can cause displacement of existing residents, so developers should have to pay for new affordable housing to offset their impact. The fees are higher in areas the city determined have less access to opportunity and higher displacement risk, making it more expensive to build new housing in, say, the Central District than Laurelhurst.

 

Housekeeping

On Vacation – Back Late Next Week

I will be out of town until next Thursday, so look for my stories on the mayor’s gun violence reduction strategy, Dan Strauss’ proposal to ban unregistered RVs from Seattle, and the mayor’s budget announcement after I get back on Thursday, September 24. Plus a couple more posts between now and then.

Business, Economy, Urbanism

Greater Seattle: Third Places

By Josh Feit

5,250 > 778

Here’s a rejoinder to those who complain that Seattle’s taxes on big business are going to send major companies fleeing to Bellevue: Seattle has nearly 40 percent more cafes, retail shops, bars, arts and cultural spaces, community centers and food spots per capita than Bellevue.

Known as “third places,” these kinds of public living rooms are considered essential for attracting uniquely mobile high-tech workers away from competing cities.

Last week, the Seattle Department of Economic Development published a new, comprehensive report  about the need for Seattle to foolproof its economy by fostering a more varied set of businesses that participate on the national and international scale. The report, which was written by local economic consultants, cites Seattle’s impressive map of third places as a must-have. “Seattle offers a remarkably rich environment for these connections due to its high concentration of third places mixed into its built environment,” the report states as part of its thesis that third places are an asset for drawing the creative class that’s necessary to resuscitate our flagging startup culture.

The report’s comparison point for what we don’t want to be? Bellevue.

“The difference between Seattle and a less third place-rich region like Bellevue is stark. Seattle has substantially more third places than Bellevue (5,250 vs. 778). Part of this, of course, is a matter of population. But Seattle also has more third places per square mile (63 vs. 23) and per capita than Bellevue (71 vs. 52 per 10,000 residents).”

“Stark” is not hyperbole. When you look at the specifics of Seattle’s 40 percent per-capita advantage over our neighbor across Lake Washington, you can see why young workers would be miserable in Bellevue. While Seattle has more third spaces overall—libraries, community centers, cafes, and gyms, for example—the advantage is stunning when you look at spots that you traditionally associate with “going out.” More than three times as many bars. One-hundred sixty percent more cultural arts venues. Sixty-five percent more shops. Forty-nine percent more dining options.

And, upending stereotypes, Seattle also has more places of worship—by a reverent 42 percent.

Bellevue does beat Seattle in an important category, though. And it’d be good for policy makers at city hall to take note of this. When it comes to parks, Bellevue beats Seattle by 14 percent—7.1 to 6.1 per every 10,000 people.

10 pm > 6 pm

The report doesn’t say how late Seattle’s third spaces stay open on average. That’s important. While people want to move to a city where there’s places to hang out, they likely don’t want to move to a city where there’s a stopwatch ticking on how long they can.  And anecdotally, I can tell you: Shops close too early. This is true in Bellevue as well, but Seattle’s lackluster evening economy is a noteworthy problem in its own right.

From coffee shops to corner stores, from retail to social services, Seattle needs a more energetic nighttime ecosystem. I wrote about this problem decades ago, and I wrote about it again a few years ago, because it’s a defining and persistent shortcoming here. Seattle is too soporific. Newsflash to the rest of country: Seattle is not woke!

A sleepy city undermines equity. The nighttime isn’t just about socializing. If it was easier to take care of business after 5 pm by having greater access to the practical stuff that’s traditionally closed or diminished at night—government services, retail, drug stores, administrative offices, buses, rental visits—people, particularly working-class people, would face fewer barriers to the economic opportunities here.

38 percent > 30 percent

Another thing missing from the report: The evidence to support the consultant’s contention that the creative class workers we need actually gravitate toward third places. I’m not saying I disagree with the report’s thesis. I want it to be true. And it’s certainly logical to assume that creative, young techies like to be out and about.

But is it?

According to a dispiriting essay titled “America is Becoming a Nation of Homebodies,” which urbanist Diana Lind wrote last year, “Americans now spend an average of 99 more minutes at home each day than they did in 2003, while this generation of 15- to 24-year-olds spends 124 more minutes at home than their counterparts two decades ago. Meanwhile, just 30 percent of Americans spent time socializing and communicating in person on an average day, down from 38 percent in 2014, according to [an] American Time Use Survey.”  And another recent report found that Americans are also speaking less—and that the issue is especially pronounced among people younger than 25.

Numbers detailing Seattle’s penchant for being out and about—and how those numbers are trending—would be helpful to have if urbanists want to backup the OED consultant’s third-place advocacy for “face-to-face communication” and “connections.”

The World Cup social scene may have been an aberration. But compared to the crowds I’m seeing at art walks, game days, Saturday night on Capitol Hill, lines at popups, music and cultural events, and crowded coffee shops these days, it wasn’t a huge aberration. Seattle seems like it’s hopping. It’d be nice to know if that’s true.

Josh@PubliCola.com

City Council, Crime, Economy, Mayor Wilson

This Week on PubliCola: Building a Less “Fragile” Seattle Economy, Addressing Gun Violence, and Is It Selfish to Live Alone?

By Erica C. Barnett

Tuesday, September 8

Greater Seattle: Late Press Conferences, On-Time Buses, Selfish Housing

In this week’s column, Josh tackled the media-generated narrative that blamed Mayor Katie Wilson, rather than SPD, for a delayed SPD press release; praised the new Denny Way bus lane for turning the L8 into the Gr8; and wondered whether he should take on several new roommates, in response to a Seattle Times column that blamed people who live alone (rather than Seattle’s endless refusal to densify) for the housing crisis.

Investigation Report: Trip to Strip Club on Civil Rights Office Trip Was Sexual Harassment

An investigation into some of the employee allegations against Seattle Office for Civil Rights director Derrick Wheeler-Smith found that going to a strip club with an employee on a city-sponsored trip constituted sexual harassment, but that misogynistic and transphobic texts did not. Employees accused Wheeler-Smith of discrimination and harassment earlier this year, and he has been on paid leave since March.

Wednesday, September 9

Saka’s Messy Transportation Bill Gets Messier

City Councilmember Rob Saka’s mostly nonsubstantive transportation safety legislation—rolled out hastily one day before the mayor announced executive orders on the same subject—became more bloated over council recess, but would still have very little real-world impact.

Controversial Group We Heart Seattle Makes City’s Official Volunteer Day Roster

We Heart Seattle, a group whose leader films vulnerable homeless people to promote a punitive, staunchly conservative agenda, got city approval to include one of its encampment “cleanups” in this year’s citywide day of volunteerism. The group is under state investigation for allegedly failing to properly train volunteers to pick up and dispose of needles and other potentially dangerous items.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Thursday, September 10

Consultants, New Staffers Fill Out Mayor’s Communications Team

Mayor Katie Wilson, whose communications staff has seen high turnover through most of her term so far, has hired a permanent communications director and press secretary—along with a number of consultants, including one who’s getting$10,000 to write this year’s budget speech.

Maritza Rivera Overstates Gun Violence, Pushes Mayor to Pre-Commit to Handpicked “Focused Deterrence” Contractor

City Councilmember Maritza Rivera is insisting that Mayor Wilson commit in advance to hire a specific contractor, at a cost of $418,000, to implement a “focused deterrence” approach to gun violence. This approach has been successful in places where most shootings involve a small group of people, which may or may not be the case in Seattle—a city where fatal shootings are much rarer than in other cities.

Friday, September 11

Report Recommends Diversifying Seattle Economy; Wilson’s Plan Would Initiate that Process, But Slowly

A report from Brookings-affiliated researchers concluded that the city is far too reliant on a tiny handful of massive tech companies, and has failed to nurture startups and mid-size companies that could sustain the economy here even if the big tech firms shrink or move to Bellevue. The report, which includes counterintuitive data on Seattle’s economy and tax base, was the basis for a Wilson executive order that directs the city to figure out ways to implement its recommendations.

Also this week: I was on City Cast Seattle with guest host Brett Hamil and Seattle Times reporter Claire Bryan on Friday. Claire got us up to speed on what’s happening with Seattle Public Schools’ budget (and I went off about AI in schools). Then, Brett and I discussed my reporting on the real reason for the communications breakdown after the Bite of Seattle shooting in July. I’ll be a regular guest on City Cast in the future, so tune in!

This week’s episode of Seattle Nice features returning guest Daniel Malone, from the Downtown Emergency Service Center. He got us up to speed on how DESC’s Opioid Recovery and Care Access (ORCA) center is doing one year in (so far, they’ve had more than 10,000 post-overdose encounters), the 95-bed STAR shelter downtown that replaced the Navigation Center in Little Saigon, and the status of the Trump Administration’s efforts to defund the kind of permanent supportive housing DESC provides.

Note to readers: I will be out of town for most of the next two weeks, so look for my stories on the mayor’s new gun violence reduction strategy, further discussion of Dan Strauss’ proposal to ban unregistered RVs from Seattle, and the mayor’s budget announcement after I get back on Thursday, September 24!

Meantime, my birthday is coming up next week, and I would appreciate nothing more than a contribution to PubliCola, the independent news source you’re reading. Lots of options, from one-time or ongoing Paypal contributions to a P.O. box where you can send a check, can be found right here.