Mayor Wilson, Police, Privacy

Long-Awaited Report Recommends Limits on Real Time Crime Center, Including Warrants for Investigators to Search Surveillance Footage

 

By Erica C. Barnett

The NYU Policing Project released its long-awaited privacy and civil-liberties audit of the Seattle Police Department’s Real Time Crime Center on Monday, one day before Mayor Katie Wilson plans to announce whether she will expand the city’s use of the surveillance cameras that feed into the center. The RTCC incorporates hundreds of city-operated and private surveillance cameras into a system that allows officers to surveil much of the city in real time, pulling in data from other sources to direct police in the field or investigate crimes after the fact.

The report did not make recommendations about whether the city should expand the center. Instead, the auditors made 19 recommendations to help address “shortcomings” in the program, including the potential for footage to wind up in the hands of federal agents and the lack of formal written policies governing things like data retention and when police can use the RTCC. These recommendations ranged from changes that would be fairly easy to implement—like ending SPD’s policy of retaining some camera footage indefinitely—to bigger lifts, like requiring a warrant any time police want to review someone’s movements retrospectively, which the auditors said constitutes a type of search.

“We think that there is a solid foundation for governance of the RTCC in Seattle… but that there are also significant gaps in policy that the city and SPD can fill,”  NYU Policing Project chief of staff Katie Kinsey said on Monday. “If the RTCC is going to continue to operate, it should do so subject to implementing these additional policy recommendations.”

Earlier this year, Mayor Katie Wilson “paused” the installation of new cameras on Capitol Hill and in the Central District; the city did install and turn cameras on near the stadiums just south of downtown, but only during the World Cup. Critics on both sides have assailed the mayor for her approach to cameras. Law-and-order officials like Councilmember Bob Kettle have harrumphed that she’s putting public safety at risk, while privacy advocates like Community Not Cameras have said police surveillance puts Seattle residents and visitors at risk.

Seattle’s RTCC, which began operations in 2025, provides police with real-time and after-the-fact access to footage from a network of  more than 500 individual cameras, many of them housed in single-location “units” with three to five cameras each, operated by SPD, the Seattle Department of Transportation, and private business owners who’ve volunteered to make their footage accessible to SPD. About 900 more private cameras, at 159 locations, are owned by people who’ve volunteered to make their footage accessible on request.

SPD officers at the RTCC access all these camera feeds using an Axon system called Fusus, which allows officers to call up camera footage and pull in other information to respond to ongoing incidents, overlaying that footage with law-enforcement databases, object-detection software, and other tools to give the police department a far more comprehensive picture of what’s happening in view of the cameras than old-fashioned CCTV cameras alone.

“When you’re connecting a bunch of cameras, when you’re having analysts that are able to look into them, when you’re running AI over them, we’re talking about really a different kind of technology,” Kinsey said.

SPD is barred from using facial recognition. But it does use a system called “object identification” that is supposed to be able to identify a list of object types, including vehicles, purses, and clothing colors. In practice, this system often fails to identify objects and people properly. In one high-profile case last year, police swarmed a 16-year-old student and handcuffed him after his school’s camera surveillance system mistook the bag of Doritos he was holding for a gun. (Speaking to the auditors about problems with the object identification system, Seattle police described a more innocuous example, in which a test search for a person wearing gray pants and a gray shirt turned up footage of a pigeon).

Most of the RTCC’s work involves supporting officers responding to 911 calls,  the report found, but officers working at the RTCC also use the system to investigate crimes by tracking people’s movements, going back through footage to surveil suspects “retrospectively.” The report recommends requiring police to obtain a warrant any time they want to use camera footage to investigate a crime after the fact, allowing “warrantless tracking” of individuals only when officers are responding to a situation in real time, to “prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, or the escape of the suspect.”

The Policing Project is aware that this will be the most controversial recommendation, and took pains to point out that it would only apply to investigations that take place after a crime is over and the scene is cleared.

“We are not recommending a warrant in what are called exigent circumstances—when there is a public safety hazard, there’s a shooter, there’s someone who  represents a threat to public safety. Nor are we saying that SPD is powerless to check the cameras at the crime scene to see who may have been there,” said Max Isaacs, the Policing Project’s director of  technology law and policy.

Of all the recommendations, he said, the warrant requirement was “a hard pill for [SPD] to swallow. But “it is not the case that [a warrant requirement] would impede investigations. If the investigation is warranted, then they can always go to a judge and get signoff.”

The report also notes that many of SPD’s existing policies, like a commitment from Axon that it will disable new surveillance features by default, are “informal” and not a part of SPD’s policy manual or law, meaning that they can be changed at any time.

In one unwritten policy, SPD says it retains surveillance footage no longer than five days unless it’s needed for an investigation—but because there’s no formal policy, the department could increase that period to as long as 30 days without  any policy change. This casual approach is at odds with the seriousness of “‘indiscriminate’ surveillance,” the report found, and recommended that SPD adopt five-day retention as a formal policy. “We think [the lack of a written retention policy] is a mistake, and it should be made a matter of binding policy,” Isaacs said.

The auditors also recommended getting rid of footage used as evidence once it’s no longer needed. The current policy of keeping that footage indefinitely makes it more likely that bad actors, such as ICE or outside law enforcement, can file a public records request or issue a subpoena for SPD footage. “We think that creates unnecessary risk, and SPD should change it,” Isaacs said.

Other policies are vague to the point of meaninglessness—like an official policy that says the RTCC can be used to assist with “serious and violent” crimes. In practice, the report found, “SPD currently interprets” this phrase to include “misdemeanors of all kinds.” When there are no clear guardrails around how a police department can use surveillance, Kinsey said, “there is this tendency to have mission creep. So a tool that starts to be deployed or procured for one reason ends up being used for lots of other reasons because you have it on hand.” 

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

Support PubliCola

 

The report recommends setting clear standards for when police can access the RTCC, and says that in any future “review of the RTCC’s authorization, the City Council should consider whether to further limit the circumstances in which the RTCC [can] be activated.”

Police surveillance is a relatively new project in Seattle, unlike other cities where Flock-branded cameras have become a ubiquitous, often controversial feature of everyday life. (SPD’s cameras are from a different company, Axon, which also manufactures Tasers.) Proponents argue that the RTCC and its cameras deter crime and help solve crimes; in Seattle, they’ve been sold as solutions to sex trafficking, gun violence, drug sales, and more. But, as the NYU report notes, the evidence that they actually do any of these things is “thin.”

“SPD has published some data on RTCC impact, including that officers and detectives are three times more likely to arrest a suspect when they receive support from RTCC analysts.,” the report notes. “SPD statistics also reflect that in 2025, the RTCC assisted in 17 homicide cases, with its support helping to close 10 of these cases.”

“In SPD’s data analysis, however, it defines RTCC ‘support’ as a case in which an RTCC analyst takes any action (such as checking a camera), regardless of whether that action yielded any useful information or meaningfully impacted the investigation.” In other words, SPD is mixing up correlation and causation—they could just as easily claim that driving an SUV instead of a patrol car improved investigation outcomes, or that better in-car computers make it more likely that an officer will solve a crimde.

Wilson will make an announcement Tuesday morning about her plans for the RTCC. (On Monday, the mayor’s office declined to respond to written questions). For months, she’s been telegraphing that the report’s release is a final step before she announces plans to keep the RTCC and preserve or expand its surveillance footprint in Seattle. What’s unclear is which recommendations from the report she will try to put in place and whether she’ll make the RTCC’s ongoing existence and future expansion conditional on meeting them.

Speaking to PubliCola late Monday afternoon, Kinsey said she was “relatively optimistic about the adoption implementation of a lot of these recommendations, and for a few reasons. One is that we were asked to do this audit by the mayor’s office.  I think it always makes a really big difference when you’re doing something because leadership is actually asking you to do it, and not because some less empowered entity is asking you to do it.”

The other reason is that the Policing Project worked with stakeholders inside and outside the city for eight monts to come up with these recommendations. “Having a certain amount of buy-in, a certain amount of understanding through the process that these things are actually doable, helps me feel a little optimistic,” she said.

This is a developing story. We’ll have an update tomorrow after Wilson’s press conference, which will also feature interim police chief Andre Sayles.

City Council, Elections, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

KCRHA CEO’s Departure Leaves Right-Hand Man in Charge, City Budget Leader Warns Council About Profligate Spending, No Concession Yet in Lopsided Council Race
KCRHA CEO Kelly Kinnison reads her resignation letter on Friday.

1. King County Regional Homelessness Authority CEO Kelly Kinnison likely forestalled her own firing by resigning abruptly on Friday, November 6. In a brief, 153-word resignation letter, Kinnsion wrote that given the KCRHA governing board’s recent decision to “right size” the agency and move the administration of the region’s homelessness contracts back to Seattle and King County, “I believe it is in the best interest of the agency for me to make room for those changes.”

The KCRHA began to unravel earlier this year, when a forensic audit found that sloppy accounting and fiscal practices had resulted in the apparent disappearance of $13 million, which was not fully accounted for until late September. Last month, a followup report found that because of miscalculations that lasted for the duration of the agency, the KCRHA had overspent its budget by almost $17 million, which the city and King County (the KCRHA’s two primary funders) will now have to pay.

Kinnison’s announcement took place at the beginning of a KCHRA governing board meeting that was  scheduled to include a closed executive session, called under a subsection of the Open Public Meetings Act that allows closed meetings to review the performance of a public employee, a typical step before a governing body fires an executive. During the meeting itself, that item was apparently removed from the agenda and the board held a brief executive session to discuss litigation, but not the performance evaluation, which would have become unnecessary once Kinnison resigned on her own.

It’s unclear what litigation the board was discussing. Former KCRHA employee Xochitl Maykovitch filed a lawsuit against the agency in June, alleging that Kinnison had illegally withheld records related to an investigation into staff complaints against Kinnison. That investigation, by an outside lawyer, found that Kinnison retaliated against Maykovitch and the KCRHA’s general counsel, Edmund Witter.

In July, PubliCola reported that it appeared Kinnison did attempt to conceal her correspondence from public disclosure law, cutting off the public disclosure officer’s access to her emails and asking an IT staffer to label all her communications “deliberative” to categorically exempt them from records requests.

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

Support PubliCola

 

The KCRHA’s governing board, made up of elected officials, had seemed stubbornly dedicated to keeping both Kinnison and her recently promoted chief operating officer, William Towey, on board. For more than a year, the board more or less ignored staff complaints about Kinnison (including allegations of racial bias) and demands that the board fire executive staff, including Towey and Kinnison, before getting rid of critical workers.

Board members were tepid about Kinnison’s tenure on Friday; only Mayor Katie Wilson and King County Executive Girmay Zahilay spoke. “We appreciate your work and also acknowledge the tremendously challenging job that you had with the federal landscape, with the structures in this entity, that are very challenging to navigate and the complexity of the homelessness crisis in general,” Zahilay said.

Ironically, it will be Towey, who Kinnison hired over widespread objections, who will now take over as effective leader of the agency until the board can appoint an acting CEO. Since last year, Towey has served as Kinnison’s right-hand man, speaking on the agency’s behalf at meetings from which she has been absent or at which she sat next to him in silence.

Kinnison has not signed a separation agreement, according to a KCRHA spokesperson, suggesting that she will not receive severance.

2. Seattle Budget Director Aly Pennucci, a former longtime City Council staffer, didn’t mince words in her assessment of the council’s plan to pile tens of millions in new spending—including ongoing projects that the council plans to pay for with “one-time” funds—on to Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposed budget. Had the budget “accurately reflected” many of thse “one-time” items “as ongoing investment,” Pennucci wrote in a letter to the council on Friday, the budget deficit in 2029 would be $41 million. Which—go math!—is what we reported as the council’s unsustainable long-term commitment last week.

“I heard clearly from many of you over the last two months that you consider ending one-time funding as a ‘budget cut,’” Penucci wrote. “So, I want to be clear with you, City employees, and community partners, that items labeled as “one-time” in the budget for 2027, 2028, or both, will be removed from the 2028 and/or 2029 baseline budget. That is your direction to CBO when you adopt spending as one-time.”

“In addition, given the continued economic uncertainty, and the use of fund balances and reserves, we will need to proceed very carefully with authorizing some of this new spending in 2027 so councilmembers should expect that some of the proposals may be frozen, at least until we see the April revenue forecast.” (Emphasis in original).

Pennucci also expressed concern about council budget committee chair Dan Strauss’ decision to dip into financial reserves meant to shore up the JumpStart tax in case of an unexpected revenue shortfall, bringing it below the level required by law. The JumpStart payroll expense tax falls most heavily on a small number of huge companies with highly compensated workers, so it’s inherently volatile, which is why the council previously established a reserve amounting to no less than 10 percent of projected tax revenues.

Finally, Pennucci cautioned against all the “earmarks” in the budget—spending that the budget says will go to an organization “such as” a specific, named group—warning that the council may want funds to go to their preferred organization, but the city is still required to follow state and federal contracting law. This is a perennial losing battle—the mayor and council often specify which groups they want to receive city funding in the budget, using weasel words to avoid explicit earmarks. This year, however, Wilson’s budget included almost no earmarks; the exceptions included adds for Throne and Portland Loo-style public restrooms.

The council’s budget amendments would add at least 21 new earmarks to the budget, including seven for neighborhood associations and business groups in West Seattle, Magnolia, the University District, and SoDo as well as the Seattle Sports Commission, Red Barn Ranch, Lakeside Milam treatment center, and many others.

“If a contracting process results in an award to Council’s desired recipient, the ‘such as’ language can call into question the validity of the process,” Pennucci wrote. “If the contract is awarded to an entity other than Council’s preference, the language results in a disgruntled organization that expected to receive the contract

3. District 5 City Council candidate Julie Kang has still not conceded to her winning opponent, Nilu Jenks, who was leading Kang 59 to 41 on Friday. Concessions, while not legally required, are customary once it’s clear who has won an election. On Friday, Kang posted on Facebook and Instagram that she was still waiting for King County Elections “to finalize the results.” By next year’s election (when Jenks will have to run again for a full four-year term) Kang wrote, she hopes “we will see a safer Aurora, better access to essential services in Lake City, and measurable progress on the commitments made to #seattle residents.”

In an interview with PubliCola in October, Kang said that whether she won or lost, she would run for the North Seattle seat again next year.

 

City Council, Mayor Wilson, Uncategorized

Council Budget Proposal Uses One-Time Funding, Dips Into Reserves to Pile On New Spending and Reverse Mayor’s Cuts
City Council budget chair Dan Strauss

Budget chair Strauss balked at requiring the council to pass a budget that’s balanced long-term. “I’m concerned with how much power we’re giving the executive.”

By Erica C. Barnett

City Council budget committee chair Dan Strauss released his “chair’s package” of amendments to Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposed budget on Tuesday. The proposal, which represents a starting point for the next few weeks of council budget deliberations, includes more than $40 million in proposed spending that relies on one-time funds for either one or both years of the two-year 2027-2028 budget to continue existing spending or fund new programs that will almost certainly be ongoing. If the spending the plan proposes funding just in 2027 is continued in 2028, that number balloons to around $60 million.

Each of these added priorities, from $5 million for programs that help survivors of gender-based violence (sponsored by Alexis Mercedes Rinck) to $14 million for firefighter overtime (sponsored by Maritza Rivera), will require the council to find new money to sustain it in either 2027 or 2028; otherwise, ongoing programs will lose their support from the city.

This number excludes all capital projects (things that will be built, as opposed to new city employees or services for people) as well as projects that are, or appear to be, time-limited, such as a contract with the National Network for Safe Communities to come up with a “focused deterrence” crime prevention plan (sponsored by Maritza Rivera).

Unsustainable spending, including the practice of funding ongoing needs with purportedly “one-time” funds, is one of the primary reasons the city has experienced growing budget deficits over the past several years. Last year, then-mayor Bruce Harrell and the council adopted a budget that fell immediately into a $150 million deficit in 2027, ballooning to more than $375 million by 2029. That budget, too, included tens of millions of dollars in one-time funding, but Strauss’ package would rely even more heavily on one-time funds for ongoing programs than the final 2026 budget did.

Notably, Strauss’  balancing proposal does not include some big-ticket items proposed by other council members, like $3 million proposed by Bob Kettle to remove graffiti from private property, or $11.4 million, also from Kettle, to hire additional police officers beyond the 66 new hires in Wilson’s budget. That doesn’t mean all those proposals are dead—the council is still at the beginning of the amendment process—but it does reflect that much of the council’s bellyaching over what Kettle calls the “unfund budget” (and Strauss calls “Mayor Wilson’s austerity budget”) has been more show than substance.

The programs and staff that will be paid for using one-time funds include additions from every council member. In addition to the gender-based violence programs and firefighter overtime mentioned above, here are a few of the dozens of additions for which money will run out either next year or in 2028:

  • $470,000 over two years to “establish limited permissions, time, and space for artists to freely create graffiti/mural artworks on a structure” in the Delridge neighborhood (Rob Saka)
  • $6.4 million over two years to “provide ongoing and dedicated support to the organizations that aim to preserve and revitalize Seattle’s Central District and Southeast Seattle Community” (Joy Hollingsworth)
  • $1.5 million over two years to expand services at Seattle’s 14 senior centers (Saka)
  • $500,000 for one year to continue and expand access to abstinence-based addiction treatment at Lakeside Milam, a private treatment center in Kirkland (Rivera)
  • $200,000 for one year to fund programs that improve maternal health outcomes for women of color at Byrd Barr Place (Hollingsworth)
  • $1 million for one year to expand the Back to Business program, which provides funds for businesses damaged by vandalism (Rivera)
  • $200,000 for one year to “uplift semi-professional sports” (Saka)
  • $600,000 over two years to continue a program, first funded this year, that helps refugee women artisans achieve economic stability (Debora Juarez)
  • $7 million for one year to support the council’s district transportation funds, which pay for small projects every year (Saka)

And while this isn’t one-time spending, it would preclude the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) from using these funds for any other purpose: Strauss included an amendment that would require SDOT to spend $2.5 million from the just-reapproved Seattle Transit Measure to increase service on Route 17 to Ballard and reviving the 15 bus route to Ballard, which was replaced by the RapidRide D. The 17 serves Strauss’ neighborhood but currently has limited hours.

Many of the council’s new spending proposals are arguably essential, particularly those that fund health care and human services as a new federal law cutting off benefits for millions nationwide takes effect. Others, like the very recently adopted council district funds, could be cut without much impact. But all will lack ongoing funding if they make it into the final budget, which creates problems for the mayor and future councils, who will have to decide what to cut, what to continue funding, and how to pay for all of it starting next year.

For this year, at least, Strauss is proposing to move funds around, dig deeper into the JumpStart fund (a business tax originally earmarked for housing and other progressive priorities) and use up some reserves to fund the new spending. Strauss’ proposal would transfer an additional $31 million in JumpStart revenue into the general fund over two years—money that’s partly offset by higher-than-expected revenue projections—with a built-in assumption of another $11 million transfer in 2029. The city would also grab around $13 million from JumpStart’s revenue stabilization fund in 2028, lowering it to $20 million, the minimum requirement.

 

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

Support PubliCola

Strauss’ plan would also reduce contributions to the firefighters’ pension fund by $22 million over two years and use that money to backfill the general fund; that’s on top of the $10 million transfer that’s already in the mayor’s budget.

The budget also assumes a new 0.01 percent sales tax for family shelter; that money will offset the King County tax that had Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat hot and bothered, so the total hit for Seattle residents will still be only around $4 a year.

In addition to all the added spending, Strauss’ proposal also adds back funding for nine parking enforcement positions that the Seattle Police Department has never filled, plus $1 million as an “incentive” for SPD to actually try to hire for those positions instead of just using the money to pay for overtime and other police priorities. The PEOs would cost around $2 million over two years, but the budget treats them as a no-cost addition by assuming that each officer will bring in more revenue, in the form of fines, than it costs to hire them.

Standing outside council chambers after a press conference on Tuesday, Strauss took issue with my characterization of the council’s budget practices, including the use of one-time funds and transfers from funds intended for other purposes, as “tricks” and asked me for an example. I mentioned the district funds, which the council gave themselves last year. Strauss said those funds are “a really great example of what one-time funding should be used for,” because the small projects it pays for are one-time capital expenses. The flaw in that argument is that the district funds themselves are designed to just go to each council member year after year—they’re an ongoing expense, even if the projects they fund are not. 

Strauss also inadvertently made the case for why these funds—which allow the council to direct spending by SDOT, an executive department—may not go to the best purpose but the one that has the most organized neighborhood support. Typically, the most organized neighborhood residents are older homeowners, while most Seattle residents are renters. Strauss gave an example of a project just north of Green Lake, a primarily single-family area, where residents got a petition together and asked for a speed hump. There are a number of reasons the city doesn’t usually budget based on citizen petitions, including the fact that letting the most organized residents with the most free time dictate spending priorities often leads to inequitable spending.

I asked Strauss whether, in the interest of fiscal discipline, he would be supporting a proposal from Dionne Foster that would require the council to balance the city budget over six years, as the mayor is now required to do with her initial budget proposal. He said he was “happy to keep talking about it,” but that the way the budget process is set up, the council doesn’t really get enough time to come up with a balanced long-term plan.

“I think the thing that concerns me about that proposal is that the mayor has five months of actual budget work, ahead of the five weeks the [budget] chair has to balance it,” Strauss said. “And with having a strong mayor system, the mayor has the ability to implement or not implement anything that we pass in the budget or by law. And so, further tying the hands of council is a dangerous proposition. … I’m just concerned with how much power we’re giving the executive.”

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

Councilmember Saka Says He’ll Provide Crucial Vote for Mayor Wilson’s Veto of Legislation to Ban RVs From Seattle

Sponsor Dan Strauss said the mayor’s veto shows she’s “disingenuous” and can’t be trusted.

By Erica C. Barnett

Mayor Katie Wilson vetoed legislation on Monday that would ban RVs from parking on Seattle streets over time, citing the “complexity and cost” of a proposed one-time count of people living in RVs, concerns about the legality of the proposal, costs, and the potential that impounding residential RVs would increase unsheltered homelessness.

The legislation, sponsored by Dan Strauss, would establish a permitting system for a limited number of RV residents—those counted in a one-time-only census—with the goal of eventually banning RVs from Seattle streets. Residents would have to participate in mandatory services and accept offers of shelter, and any RVs without a permit could be immediately impounded and removed. It passed on a 6-3 vote.

On Tuesday, Wilson announced an accompanying executive order that directs the Human Services Department to do “intensive outreach” to people living in their vehicl s, create a citywide list of RV residents, and connect those individuals to a new RV safe lot and shelter that will open next month.  That lot, known as the Glassyard Commons, will hold up to 72 RVs and has 20 “tiny house” shelters. A second safe lot, opening in 2027, will accommodate around 90 more. The order also establishes a work group to recommend “programmatic, policy and legal changes” to the city’s approach to RVs within 60 days.

Late Tuesday morning, Wilson was joined at a press conference at City Hall by surprise supporter Rob Saka, one of six councilmembers who voted for the legislation. Saka, as PubliCola first reported Tuesday morning, had changed his mind on the legislation, and would no longer provide the necessary sixth vote to overturn Wilson’s veto. Put another way: Unless Saka changes his mind again before the council votes on Wilson’s veto, the veto will stand.

“I voted in favor of the council’s recent RV legislation because I believe the status quo is totally unacceptable,” Saka said. “I stand by that vote and the urgent need for action that motivated it. But I’ve also learned through my experience in public service that we achieve the best results when the executive branches and the legislative branches are aligned around a shared strategic approach.”

“I’m willing to give the mayor a fair shot to propose a credible alternative to that proposal.”

Shortly after Wilson issued her veto late Monday afternoon,  Strauss issued a statement on Monday decrying Wilson’s “lack of leadership” and criticizing her for “breaking her promise” not to veto the bill. Contacted Monday night, Strauss said he met with Wilson’s team on October 14, before the final vote on the bill, and “they stated the mayor was not going to veto the legislation. Today when she called me, she expressed regret for saying she wouldn’t veto the legislation and then doing so.”

On Monday night, Wilson confirmed the meeting, but said that since then, “I have spent more time with city departments understanding the challenges of implementation, and my own deeper consideration of the potential impacts of the legislation led me to believe that giving the council an opportunity to consider an alternative path was the right thing to do for the city. As I have been considering all options, my staff have also been transparent with Councilmember Strauss about that shift.”

Speaking at the press conference on Tuesday, Wilson said concerns about the logistical complexity and basic legality of Strauss’ proposal were also on her mind when she decided to veto the plan.

“I considered what it would take to stand up a costly and complex new city bureaucracy in a constrained budget environment. I considered the likelihood that this would, in practice, end up pulling capacity and personnel from other urgent public safety priorities. I learned more about the legal, operational, and safety challenges to dealing with problematic RVs and the ways that this legislation does not address those challenges.”

Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss

Shortly after the mayor’s press conference ended, Strauss decried the mayor’s decision, calling Wilson “disingenuous” and saying “I can’t trust her word anymore” because “there have been a number of times that she’s broken the promises that she’s made to me.” He called Wilson’s executive order “a copy and paste from my legislation.”

Strauss also accused Wilson of “sitting on” the $5 million set aside in the 2026 budget for shelter outreach last year. “She has been sitting on these funds all year, and since July and August, when I’ve been in direct conversations with the mayor’s team about deploying these funds, they have not deployed the funds for contracted outreach to help people living in their vehicles,” Strauss said.

Asked about this allegation, a spokesperson for Wilson said the mayor “has been holding funding for RV outreach until the policy deliberation at the Council was completed. Upon signing her Executive Order, the Mayor has asked HSD to immediately work to get this funding out the door to support vehicle resident outreach.” The budget set aside money for safe lots, shelter, assistance for RV residents as they move into shelter or housing, and RV storage associated with safe lots; had HSD used the money for RV outreach before the safe lot opened, they would not have had any shelter to offer RV residents.

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

Support PubliCola

 

Strauss, who previously said the mayor was “uncomfortable addressing homelessness” because it would require her to set “boundaries,” credited himself with getting Wilson to take action no RVs . 

“If it took 11 months of my work for the mayor to pay attention to one of the most critical issues in our community today, then that’s a success for me, and that’s a success for the legislative branch,” Strauss said. “Right now, we need leadership, not wishy-washy work groups.”

Strauss said a previous count of RVs in Seattle found a total of 145 RVs in the city, which he said was probably an undercount. Between the two RV safe lots, Strauss said, there might be enough room to take every RV in Seattle off the streets.  “If you have two shelter safe lots that account for all of the RVs that people are living on the city streets, then we have a place for them to go,” Strauss said. “And because I am concerned that it’s an undercount, that’s why I propose the permit process to say, if you are living on the streets today, we are going to care for you today.”

But that number is almost certainly far lower than the true number of people living in RVs in Seattle. The most recent detailed Point In Time Count of people experiencing homelessness in King County, from 2024, found that about 27 percent of the unsheltered people in King County were living in their vehicles. Applying that number to the 4,858 unsheltered people the count estimated were living in Seattle that year suggests that there were more than 1,20o people living in their vehicles in 2024.

Extrapolating from the high-level Point in Time Count the King County Regional Homelessness Authority released earlier this year suggests there are around 1,500 people living in vehicles in Seattle. That’s in line with a recent study from the University of Washington, which also concluded that about 500 of those individuals are living in RVs and other large vehicles, such as “fifth wheels,” throughout the year—not 150.

ACLU-Washington Executive Director Michelle Storms, who stood beside Wilson during her press conference, declined to say afterward whether the ACLU would have sued the city if Strauss’ RV ban had gone into effect. “Because there is this veto and this possibility of a path forward that is both mindful of the human and compassionate need, as well as addressing public safety and concerns, we’re excited to see how that unfolds, and we’re grateful that the mayor has made out this particular piece of legislation,” Storms said. 

In September, the ACLU’s Smart Justice Policy Program Director Jazmyn Clark warned that Strauss’ legislation raised “significant constitutional concerns,” pointing to court cases establishing that that state’s Homestead Act provides protections for vehicles used as homes. A separate state Supreme Court case involving a person who lived in his vehicle found that the city’s towing and impound fees violated the constitutional protection against excessive fines.

The ACLU also raised legal questions about a separate Strauss bill Wilson did not veto, which vastly broadened the definition of “junk vehicles” to make it easier for the city to tow and discard unsightly or inoperative cars parked on public streets.

Under the Seattle City Charter, the City Council has until December 2 to take a vote on the veto, but Strauss said he hoped to hold a vote as soon as possible. “My proposal is to get this done with now,” he said.

City Council, Elections, legislature, neighborhoods

Greater Seattle: Bad Budget Amendment, Risky Election Strategy

By Josh Feit

Democracy > Neighborhood Community Councils

The people you’d expect to throw a fit—older, white, property owners—threw a fit when the city stopped funding the 13 neighborhood district councils back in 2016. According to the city’s own research, the neighborhood councils, which were born during the comp plan overhaul that locked single-family zoning into place in the mid-1990s for the next two-and-a-half decades, were predominately made up of homeowners. Shocker.

The City also found, yup, the councils were older and whiter than the rest of Seattle’s population. A NextCity article published at the time when the city finally broke ties with them was appropriately titled “How Seattle Is Dismantling a NIMBY Power Structure.”

This aggrieved constituency has a new champion today: City Council President Joy Hollingsworth. During a budget hearing last week where city council members began proposing amendments to Mayor Wilson’s $2.5 billion budget, Hollingsworth proposed a $100,000-a-year amendment that would fund a similar system again. Hollingsworth represents Capitol Hill, which is a supermajority renter district, by the way.

The money would evidently go to support the Seattle Neighborhood Alliance, the umbrella group for the dozens of neighborhood councils (which very much still exist on their own) including the Fremont Neighborhood Council, Greenwood Neighborhood Council, Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, Rainier Beach Community Council, and others. Hollingsworth didn’t say the city thinks the makeup of the councils has changed since their heyday. But to be honest, even if some neighborhood councils are more representative than they were a decade ago, that still wouldn’t make this a good idea. Giving the city’s imprimatur to the councils would bolster a type of neo-ward politics and affirm a cozy relationship between city hall and self-appointed local leaders and gatekeepers.

When faced with a “neighborhood” uproar after the city pulled the plug on the councils a decade ago, the Department of Neighborhoods director at the time, Kathy Nyland, responded with a message that’s worth reiterating today: “We have heard from residents active in the system that ‘District Councils work for us.’ … However, they don’t work for everyone.”

Democrats Beating Republicans > Democrats Beating Democrats

In what’s supposed to be a Blue Wave Tuesday, the Democrats in Washington state seem like they might be missing an opportunity to increase their majorities in Olympia. Competing Democratic IE groups are pouring money into Democratic intramurals in Southeast Seattle’s safe 37th Legislative District and the blue 32nd Legislative District north of Seattle, for example. The fundraising could be drawing money away from campaigns for potential Democratic pickups, like in the 35th district, which includes parts of Mason, Kitsap, and Thurston Counties. And in much-needed defense in Bellingham’s 42nd LD.

In the 37th District race between incumbent Democratic State Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos and progressive challenger Kelabe Tewolde, rival independent expenditure groups have spent about $260,000 on Tewolde’s behalf and just over $110,000 for Tomiko Santos

Similarly, in the 32nd District race between incumbent State Sen. Jesse Salomon and progressive challenger Democratic State Rep. Cindy Ryu, rival Democratic groups have spent about $516,000 on Salomon’s behalf and around $100,000 for Ryu, 

By comparison, even though Democrats have a chance for a pickup in the 35th LD, where Democratic Thurston County commissioner Carolina Mejia is running against Republican incumbent State Sen. Drew MacEwen, Democratic groups have spent around $495,000 supporting Meija—a large amount that’s nonetheless dwarfed by the nearly $1 million Republican groups have poured into supporting MacEwen.

The Democrats also have to defend seats. In the formerly Republican-controlled 42nd Legislative District, first-term Democratic incumbent State Sen. Sharon Shewmake decided not to seek reelection. And Republicans are spending big to retake the seat in the race between Republican Erika Creydt and Democratic Port of Bellingham Commissioner Michael Shepard. Pro-Shepard PACs have spent around $385,000, while pro-Creydt groups have spent $600,000. Democratic IEs shouldn’t have taken their eyes off the ball like that.

With a commanding 30-19 majority already in place, progressives might feel this is a safe year to nudge the Democratic Party to the left by running challengers. However, safe is not a word I’d use to describe Trump’s America. The Democrats’ paramount mission in 2026 needs to be a thundering, top to bottom rebuke of the GOP.

Josh@PubliCola.com

City Council, Mayor Wilson

Council Majority Supports Fiscal Accountability for the Mayor, But Not for Themselves
West Seattle Councilmember Rob Saka wore a “Straight Outta Delridge” t-shirt to highlight several of his proposed budget adds, including $235,000 for an “art wall” he said would deter graffiti in the Delridge neighborhood.

By Erica C. Barnett

A five-member majority of the Seattle City Council declined to sponsor a proposal from Councilmember Dionne Foster to hold themselves to the same standard of fiscal responsibility they imposed on Mayor Katie Wilson this year, rejecting the idea that they should have to create a balanced fiscal plan while proposing new spending that would swell the mayor’s budget by more than $100 million. The new spending amendments that received at least five sponsors—a council majority—last week add up to almost $68 million on their own.

As we’ve reported, Wilson balanced the budget by making targeted reductions to mostly vacant positions, reducing or eliminating some of the new spending former mayor Bruce Harrell and the council piled on to the budget last year, and laying off 15 people, about 0.1 percent of the city’s workforce. Last week, City Council budget chair Dan Strauss called this plan “the Mayor Wilson Austerity Budget,” saying it “will put the city government at a full stop” and promising to “reverse the cuts.”

Wilson’s budget includes a financial plan that’s balanced through 2030, a new requirement (for this year only) that was part of the “Seattle Shield” business and occupation tax restructure that voters passed in 2025. Councilmember Bob Kettle, who added that requirement to the Seattle Shield package as a “fiscal responsibility” measure, proposed one of two identical amendments (the other is sponsored by Dionne Foster) that would make the requirement permanent. In budget terms, this means that all future mayors would have to present both a balanced short-term budget and a financial plan that shows no deficits for four years after the current two-year budget cycle ends.

During a discussion about potential budget amendments last week, councilmembers appeared eager to preserve this mayoral mandate. “I think that the amendment from last year had a positive effect, in terms of the budgeteering process, on the executive’s budget compared to what we’ve seen in the past,” Kettle said. Together, the identical Kettle and Foster amendments won sponsorship from eight of nine councilmembers, making the proposal a shoo-in for the’ “chair’s package” of consensus budget amendments Strauss will release later this week.

Moments later, though, council members expressed virtually no interest in a second proposal, sponsored by Foster, that would impose the same requirement on the council. Foster’s amendment, intended to complement that mayoral budget mandate, says that not only should the mayor send a balanced budget plan to the council, the council should send a balanced budget plan back to the mayor at the end of their annual budget amendment process.

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

Support PubliCola

The amendment, Foster explained, “establishes parameters for the council’s adopted budget, so our decisions do not make the general fund or JumpStart future-year outlook less sustainable than the financial plans that we receive from the mayor’s proposed budget.” Taken together, she said, the two proposals would “strengthen transparency, establish consistent expectations, and help prevent future residents and current residents from service disruptions.

The council’s six centrists, who backed Kettle’s proposal to require balanced mayoral budgets, seemed to balk at the idea of following the same rules themselves; besides the original sponsors—Foster, Alexis Mercedes Rinck, and Eddie Lin—only one councilmember, Debora Juarez, signed on to cosponsor. (Juarez, an appointee filling out Cathy Moore’s aborted term, will be replaced by either Nilu Jenks or Julie Kang later this month.)

With just four supporters, the legislation won’t appear in Strauss’ consensus package. On Friday, Foster told PubliCola she didn’t consider the legislation dead, but she’ll have to convince at least one more councilmember to back it. Without it, the council will have free rein to give in to its spendthrift instincts—larding the budget with pet projects that don’t have a sustainable funding source and hiding the cost by describing ongoing programs as “one-time” budget adds.

Despite Strauss’ complaints about “austerity,” most of the budget reductions in Wilson’s budget are items former mayor Bruce Harrell and council members added last year with full awareness that they were using one-time dollars to pay for services and programs that would run out of money this year. The council’s central staff warned about this explicitly last year, noting that the budget was “inherently unsustainable” because it increased the city’s structural budget gap, with a built-in deficit of about $150 million in 2027 that was projected to balloon to more than $375 million in 2029.

Foster’s amendment would force the council to keep those out-year numbers at or above zero by living within the city’s actual means. No wonder many of them don’t like it.

“Austerity,” typically used to describe budgets that drastically cut human services while adding money to big-ticket departments like SPD, is an odd word to describe Wilson’s budget. The plan includes minimal cuts to council priorities like the Unified Care Team (where Wilson has proposed eliminating six and a half vacant positions and transferring two vacant positions to a different part of the Parks Department) and police (whose budget Wilson increases to fund raises and 66 new positions).

The council’s spending proposals would restore and fund many of those vacant positions, including many the city has never been able to fill. The money they want to add back to the budget would fund the vacant UCT positions, accelerate police officer hiring, and preserve nine empty parking enforcement officer positions that SPD has never filled.

Alongside these adds, councilmembers have proposed restoring $7 million in spending on Seattle Fire Deparment overtime, which an analysis (requested by Foster) found was about $2 million more than SFD can actually use on overtime shifts, given the number of firefighters who are actually available to fill open shifts throughout the year.

They also want to restore funding for 14 vacant positions on the CARE Team, which would add $2.3 million to the two-year budget, and resurrect the “district funds,” a recent addition to the budget that gives councilmembers $1 million each to spend on new Seattle Department of Transportation projects in their districts.

And, as has been the case for years now, many of the council amendments that would increase funding for new or resuscitated programs in 2027, but not 2028, are obviously meant to be ongoing, because they pay for things like food assistance, sex worker outreach, gun violence reduction, and economic revitalization in specific neighborhoods like Lake City. These are all worthy priorities, but making them “one-time” actually deprioritizes them in the budget, making them the subject of annual scrambles for funding. Ongoing programs the city pays for with one-time dollars will inevitably just show up again as budget adds next year, setting the council up to once again complain about “austerity” if Wilson doesn’t take it upon herself to find stable funding for them to continue.