City Council, Police

Council Amendments Could Restore Some Oversight in Bill Removing Restrictions on “Less-Lethal” Weapons

By Erica C. Barnett

Legislation to repeal Seattle’s current restrictions on police officers’ use of “less-lethal” crowd-control weapons is moving forward quickly, with a committee vote scheduled for January 14, shortly after the council returns from a winter break that starts this Friday afternoon.

That leaves just five days for council members to propose amendments to the bill; council public safety committee chair Bob Kettle, who’s sponsoring legislation sent down by Mayor Bruce Harrell, told council members in an email last week that he needs amendments to come in early “in part to ensure transparency but also because of the unique aspects of the Federal Monitor, DOJ, and the Court as this impacts the Consent Decree process.”

The legislation repeals a law governing SPD’s use of less-lethal weapons that has been in effect since 2021. SPD has never followed that law, which their legal counsel argued would “compromise public safety”; instead, the department created its own “interim policy” that does not specifically restrict or bar police from using any less-lethal weapons. (The 2021 law replaced a total ban on less-lethal weapons that the federal district judge overseeing the consent decree, James Robart, enjoined earlier that year).

The bill the council is considering empowers SPD to come up with its own crowd control policy, guided by with a list of “values and expectations” in the legislation—effectively instituting a lightly amended version of the interim policy SPD has been using, in defiance of existing law, for more than three years.

The passage of the crowd-control bill could set the stage to end the 12-year-old consent decree between the city and the US Department of Justice.

Council public safety chair Bob Kettle, who’s sponsoring the legislation sent down by Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office, was unavailable for comment Friday, so we weren’t able to ask him directly why he wants to push the legislation through so quickly. After all, the council and mayor have known for years that the Seattle Police Department considered the law on less-lethal weapons unworkable, and took no action.

Last week, Councilmember Cathy Moore expressed concerns about the timing, noting that passing a new crowd-control law isn’t a guarantee that Judge Robart will release the city from the consent decree.

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

Support PubliCola

 

“I appreciate that we want to get out of the consent decree,” she said. But given the many unknowns, Moore added, “I just don’t think there can be a false sense of urgency that we’ve got to get this done so we can get the consent decree lifted. There’s no guarantee that what we do here today is going to result in the consent decree being lifted, and I think we need to use this opportunity as we are to be very thoughtful about this policy going forward.”

Moore (who, like Kettle, said through a spokesperson that she was unavailable on Friday) is expected to propose several amendments, including some co-sponsored with new Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck.

The first potential amendment would require the mayor to approve the use of blast balls—grenades, used widely during the protests against police brutality in 2020, that can cause serious injuries—in addition to tear gas, which requires mayoral approval under a recently passed state law.

In a November memo suggesting changes to the legislation to improve safety and accountability, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights included several examples of injuries caused by police using “less lethal” weapons. At a meeting last week, Councilmember Rob Saka appeared to dismiss these examples, saying they were from “all across the world.”

A second amendment would require council approval for new less-lethal weapons that emerge in the future. The current proposal gives SPD carte blanche to approve new technologies, as long as the department believes they comply with the “values and expectations” laid out in the legislation. According to a central staff memo, the change would let SPD use new weapons against the public “without the delay associated with the legislative process, and without drawing the Council into technical, rather than policy-level, judgements about appropriate tools and methods.”

Saka praised this aspect of the mayor’s bill last week and suggested expanding it, saying he saw no reason the council needed to approve surveillance technologies like “throw phones” used in hostage standoffs.

Another potential amendment would require police departments outside Seattle that provide “mutual aid” during large events to either follow SPD’s policies or be assigned to desk duty, freeing up Seattle officers to respond on the street. The legislation, as written, exempts mutual aid agencies from following Seattle’s law, or SPD’s internal policies, when doing crowd control on the city’s behalf.

Finally, council members are exploring whether to retain a private right of action, included in the 2021 law the new legislation would repeal, for people injured by police using less-lethal weapons. “It is important to provide accessible opportunities for residents to pursue their claims under city law rather than under state or federal law where the proof required is more stringent and the doctrines of qualified immunity and public duty may prevent them from receiving damages for their injuries,” SOCR wrote in its memo.

This Week on PubliCola

This Week on PubliCola: December 14, 2024
Phases 5 and 6 of SPD’s “Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control Strategies.”

Seattle prepares to repeal restrictions on “less-lethal” weapons, SDOT loses a leader, and much more.

Monday, December 9

Police Deny Request to Produce Records in a Timely Fashion; Burien City Manager Filed Complaint Against Progressive Council Member

Two stories to kick off the week: First, an update on the Seattle Police Department’s ongoing refusal to follow a settlement prohibiting its practice of “grouping” multiple public records requests, including PubliCola’s, into a single mega-request, a delay tactic that keeps public records out of view. Also, we learned that Burien City Manager Adolfo Bailon filed a complaint against a city council member who raised concerns on X about the number of high-level staffers leaving the city.

Tuesday, December 10

Discussion of Women at SPD Skips Over Men’s Behavior

SPD has set a goal of having a 30-percent female recruit class by 2030, and has begun laying out steps toward that goal. Despite women in the department consistently reporting a culture of misogyny created by men, most of the recommendations focus on creating more flexibility for women to raise babies and young children.

City Transportation Director Greg Spotts Will Leave After Two Years on the Job

Greg Spotts, appointed by Mayor Bruce Harrell in 2022, will leave the department in February. Urbanists liked Spotts because he advocated for (and oversaw the construction of) bike lanes and pedestrian safety improvements, like restrictions on right turns at red lights; these priorities may have put him at odds with Harrell, who has not placed much emphasis on Vision Zero despite mounting road fatalities.

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

Support PubliCola

Thursday, December 12

Legislation Would Remove Restrictions on SPD’s Use of “Less Lethal” Weapons for Crowd Control

The city council is considering legislation to get rid of existing restrictions on the use of “less lethal” weapons for crowd control, which SPD has called unworkable and has ignored in favor of its own internal “interim policy.” The bill would allow SPD to set its own policies, subject to a general list of “values and expectations,” and is seen as a final step to end a 12-year-old federal consent decree.

PubliCola on News, Views, and Brews: Less-Lethal Weapons and Two High-Profile Departures

I went on Brian Callanan’s “News, Views, and Brews” podcast this week to talk about the less-lethal weapons legislation, Spotts’ departure, and the ongoing fallout from last week’s news that Tammy Morales is leaving the city council a year after winning reelection.

Friday, December 13

Old-Fashioned Furor Erupts Over Plans for Adult Cabaret License in Ballard

Opponents of a bar that plans to feature burlesque, drag, and other adult entertainment in its upstairs event space have tried to stir up opposition to the venue, arguing in a petition that a “strip club” in Ballard will hurt property values, lead to crime and prostitution, and harm area children.

Business, Speech, zoning

Old-Fashioned Furor Erupts Over Plans for Adult Cabaret License in Ballard
A local property owner says this “park” is too close to a Ballard bar whose owner is seeking an adult-entertainment license.

By Erica C. Barnett

Nextdoor—the social media site for lost cats, stationary bike sales, and NIMBY panic—was buzzing last week with the news that Roam, a bar on the largely industrial south end of Ballard Ave. NW, recently applied for an adult cabaret license.

Laurie Lohrer, who owns a nearby building where a Filson store has operated since 2016, warned neighbors that a new business “has applied to City for ‘Adult Entertainment’ permit to operate a strip club. … We don’t want another Aurora Avenue North scene on Ballard Avenue. It’s our responsibility to protect our community and its family-friendly & safe atmosphere from this incompatible use.”

But the owner of Roam Bar, Nicole Healy, says she isn’t opening a strip club; her plan is to turn the upstairs event space at the bar into an actual cabaret that will include “all kinds of entertainment like comedy, drag shows, and more,” including adult entertainment like burlesque. “I’ve always loved the arts, and while I’m not particularly creative myself, I have so many talented friends who inspire me,” Healy said. “Creating a space they’d feel excited to perform in has been a dream of mine for years.”

Lohrer did not respond to a request for an interview. In her December 8 Nextdoor post, she urged Ballard residents to “TAKE ACTION TODAY!” by writing Councilmember Dan Strauss, who represents Ballard, opposing the permit, and signing a petition she created on Change.org to “Stop Strip Club permit on Ballard Avenue.”

Strauss did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the cabaret kerfuffle.

Lohrer’s change.org petition, which had been removed as of Friday morning, claimed Roam’s license application is illegal, citing a 2007 ordinance that prohibits “adult cabarets” within 800 feet of schools, community centers, child care centers, and parks. The bar isn’t near any of those things, but the petition argues that a nearby street end—a strip of scrubby bushes at the far end of an industrial parking lot—constitutes the kind of “open space” the city council intended to protect when they wrote the ordinance.

The street end, Lohrer argued, “has been improved with enhanced shoreline habitat and bench for public viewing and enjoyment. It is a public park and provides a public open space use.” This is incorrect, according to the city’s Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. Bench or no bench, “the area remains a city right-of-way use with no formal designation as a park or open space,” SDCI spokesman Bryan Stevens said.

“The submitted plans have demonstrated compliance with these standards as a part of our zoning review process,” Stevens added. “We are waiting for the applicant to address other fire-safety corrections before the permit is approved and issued.”

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

Support PubliCola

 

In her petition, Lohrer argued that Roam Bar’s plans will “reduce foot traffic of shoppers, diners and to events. It would devalue Ballard Avenue as a safe and attractive place for local & greater Puget Sound residents and other visitors to spend the day or evening.”

“It’s well known that ‘adult entertainment’  businesses often become hubs for ongoing prostitution, disruptive conduct, and criminal activity,” the petition continued. “Few of us want to bring our children, family & friends for an afternoon of shopping, a meal out, or to Sunday Farmers Market—in the vicinity of a strip club.”

There’s no evidence that a bar holding events for adults at night will reduce property values, lead to street sex work, or make the area less “family friendly” during daytime hours.

Before it was removed, Lohrer’s petition had garnered only about 190 signatures.

Healy noted that Roam is “proudly woman-owned” business, and said her “goal is to create a space that is fun, safe, and empowering for performers.”

“If exotic dancing does become part of the mix,” Healy said “there will never be full nudity. For me, traditional burlesque and similar styles of provocative dance are about creativity, artistry, and comfort—not necessarily nudity. I’d want performers to feel completely free to choose their costumes and whether topless dancing is part of their act, without any conditions set by me as the owner.”

Roam opened in October as a neighborhood bar, and features large portraits of entertainers like Lady Gaga and Josephine Baker, created by Healy’s wife.

Seattle has had a long, weird history with strip clubs and other kinds of adult entertainment. In 1988, the city passed a “temporary” moratorium on new strip clubs, then extended the moratorium annually for 17 years. Back in 2003, when Seattle had just four remaining strip clubs (including two that have since closed) Josh and I reported that the only study the city ever bothered doing on their impact on surrounding neighborhoods showed no correlation between strip clubs and public safety problems.

In 2005, federal judge James Robart (better known these days for overseeing the SPD consent decree) declared the then 17-year-old “moratorium” unconstitutional, and the city proposed new guidelines for adult entertainment, including a  “four-foot rule” that required a four-foot buffer zone between dancers and patrons. The four-foot rule was eventually overturned (along with a law requiring strip clubs to be lit up like operating rooms), and the state legislature finally passed a “Strippers Bill of Rights” allowing alcohol sales at adult entertainment venues this year. If Roam gets its license, it will be one of the first bars with a cabaret license in the state (Dream Girls, in SoDo, became the state’s first strip club serving alcohol earlier this year.)

The 800-foot buffer between strip clubs and places where “children congrate” was established in 2007 and has never been contested. According to a report on the legislation, which dubiously refers to “some” unspecified “evidence” that strip clubs caused crime, a key reason for keeping strip clubs away from places where children congregate is that because alcohol was banned inside clubs at the time, “it is believed that consumption of alcohol and drugs may occur in club parking lots, on adjacent public streets, or in the surrounding neighborhood. These activities are particularly problematic and incompatible with locations where children congregate.”

Now that the city can no longer use the excuse that people hang around strip clubs and drink (not that they presented any evidence for this claim in the first place), maybe it’s time to revisit not just the buffer zones, but the prudish insistence that strip clubs and cabarets—enclosed adults-only places where children are not allowed—somehow harm “the children” just by existing.

City Council, Police

PubliCola on News, Views, and Brews: Less-Lethal Weapons and Two High-Profile Departures

By Erica C. Barnett

I was honored to be a fill-in host this week on “News, Views, and Brews,” a podcast on local news and politics hosted by Brian Callanan (probably best known to PubliCola readers as the host of “City Inside/Out” on the Seattle Channel.)

We talked at length about legislation proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell (and sponsored by Councilmember Bob Kettle) that the city hopes will be the final step before federal judge James Robart releases the Seattle Police Department from the 12-year-old federal consent decree.

The proposal, which is likely to pass early next year, would repeal two previous crowd-control ordinances and lay out general guidelines for the police department to come up with its own crowd control policies; it also removes a private right of action for people injured by “less-lethal” weapons, like blast balls and 40-mm projectile launchers, to sue the city, and lifts restrictions on other police departments that SPD calls on to provide “mutual aid” when they don’t have enough officers to respond to a large event.

One fact that has gotten somewhat lost, or been deliberately obscured, in the current debate over SPD’s crowd control policies is the fact that there is currently a crowd control policy in place, and it sets clear parameters around what weapons SPD can use against the public and in what circumstances.

The current law, as I’ve reported, replaced an earlier ordinance that banned the use of all crowd-control weapons, which, indeed, never went into effect. (Judge Robart enjoined it). But the current law is in effect; SPD has just ignored it, preferring to create and operate under an “interim policy” that is much less prescriptive.

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

Support PubliCola

The new ordinance will allow SPD to continue operating under a modified version of that policy, and will allow SPD to modify that policy in the future, subject to certain “values and expectations,” without the need for legislation. Although some councilmembers have raised concerns about this laissez-faire approach, particularly when it comes to the use of blast balls, most seem eager to be done with the crowd control issue and leave it in SPD’s hands.

One of those council dissenters, Tammy Morales, will leave the council next year, just one year into her four-year term. And Seattle Department of Transportation director Greg Spotts, who oversaw this year’s successful transportation levy proposal, has also announced he is stepping down after just two years on the job.

Have a listen on Apple podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

 

City Council, Police

Legislation Would Remove Restrictions on SPD’s Use of “Less Lethal” Weapons for Crowd Control
SPD Assistant Chief Dan Nelson speaks to the city council’s public safety committee on Tuesday.

The proposed new law, which establishes “values and expectations” for SPD’s crowd control policies, could be the final step toward ending a 12-year-old federal consent decree.

By Erica C. Barnett

The Seattle City Council is considering legislation proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell and sponsored by Councilmember Bob Kettle, to repeal restrictions on the Seattle Police Department’s use of “less lethal” weapons for crowd control. The bill would allow SPD to continue operating under an amended version of its “interim” policy, which allows cops to use tear gas, blast balls, and other weapons against groups of people if they perceive “an imminent risk of physical injury to any person or significant property damage.”

If passed, the new law will allow the use of “blast balls”—grenades that explode and send out projectiles and, in some cases, pepper or tear gas—for crowd control. SPD contends that these projectiles, which can cause severe injuries when police deploy them to disperse crowds of people, are less problematic than tear gas because they are more targeted.

The ordinance would also align city law with state law requiring the mayor to sign off on any use of tear gas.

“We have changed our policy to say that officers will deploy blast balls into open spaces when feasible,” SPD Chief Operating Officer Brian Maxey told the council on Tuesday. A bit of history: In response to SPD’s brutal actions against protesters in 2020, the city council passed legislation banning the use of all crowd control weapons. However, Judge Robart effectively enjoined the city from enforcing that law, leading the council to pass a new law that allowed less-lethal weapons but established rules governing how SPD could use them.

That law limited the use of pepper spray and tear gas, stipulated that only trained SWAT officers could use certain weapons, restricted cops’ use of less-lethal weapons use to “violent public disturbances” involving 12 or more people, and created a private right of action for people injured by crowd control weapons.

The department immediately disavowed the new law, arguing that it wasn’t the city’s role to dictate SPD’s crowd-control policies through legislation, and has never followed it; on Tuesday, both SPD and central staff insisted that the law is “not in effect,” although it is very much still on the books and has never been enjoined. Instead of following the new restrictions, SPD came up with its own “interim policy” on crowd control and began operating under that policy.

Harrell and Kettle’s legislation would formally repeal both of these crowd control laws: The one Judge Robart enjoined and the one that is still technically in effect. The proposal includes a list of “values and expectations” that are supposed to guide any crowd control policy SPD adopts in the future, but it otherwise leaves SPD to come up with its own approach to crowd control, officially sanctioning what SPD has been doing, in practice, since 2023 when it created its own interim policy.

The legislation would set the stage to end the federal consent decree between the city and the US Department of Justice, which has endured for the last 12 years. In October, federal district judge James Robart told the city that crowd control is one of the last remaining issues the city needs to address before he will release SPD from the 12-year-old agreement.

SPD argues that it’s inappropriate for the city to legislate what kind of weapons police can use against crowds of people, and in what circumstances. Instead, they’ve drafted a policy that lays out how police are supposed to behave in an escalating series of circumstances, from “lawful assembly standoff” to “unlawful assembly (riot)” and “immediately life safety.”

The ordinance also repeals a requirement police officers from departments outside Seattle follow Seattle’s policies when providing “mutual aid” in responding to large events—a change that leaves open the possibility that agencies with fewer restrictions on crowd control weapons could deploy them without SPD approval.

Maxey told the council that these outside officers are “not going to be issuing dispersal orders and throwing blast balls tear gas without a whole lot of other involvement from command,” but said it would be counterproductive to place formal restrictions that might dissuade other police departments from coming to Seattle’s aid, given SPD’s current hiring challenges.

The new ordinance would also eliminate a private right of action for people injured by crowd-control weapons, such as blast balls and 40-mm projectiles, to sue SPD.

SPD representatives assured the council that their policies have evolved since 2020 and seem to be working. “We have a much more reduced footprint at these events,” Assistant Police Chief Dan Nelson told the council. “Our goal is to differentiate criminal conduct and not penalize the crowd as a whole. …  And we’ve actually recently had a lot of really positive success with this strategy.”

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

Support PubliCola

However, Councilmember Cathy Moore pointed out that SPD’s new policies haven’t been tested by massive, largely spontaneous protests since 2020, so it may be premature to declare the department’s new internal policies a success. “It seems to me that, in a way, we could take a scalpel to the current ordinance, rather than repealing it entirely and basically just saying we’re going to rely on [SPD] policy,” Moore said. Moore said she was most concerned about the use of blast balls, given their potential to cause grave injury, and the likelihood of mass protests under the second Trump administration. “Frankly, we do need to be very, very much in the weeds on this issue.”

Councilmember Rob Saka, in contrast, argued that the council should have much less direct authority over how SPD conducts crowd control and other aspects of its work, including new technologies that require significant vetting under the city’s surveillance ordinance.

“I find it really poignant that this ordinance would allow SPD to address changes in both available crowd control technologies and emerging best practices or emerging trends, without the delay associated with the legislative process,” Saka said. “That is a proposition that I strongly agree with. And I think the same challenge kind of manifests itself in other policy areas and topics, including with respect to policing.”

Purpose Dignity Action co-director Lisa Daugaard, one of the original members of the city’s Community Police Commission, recalled that while the CPC didn’t recommend completely banning blast balls, they did seek a suspension of their use until SPD adopted a policy that meaningfully addressed the risks of using them at in crowds, where “crowd flow is chaotic and the explosion radius is hard to control.”

Since then, Daugaard said, nothing “has really changed that analysis—blast balls haven’t been used since 2020, and in 2020, there were similar outcomes to those seen while I was on the CPC.” That doesn’t mean there needs to be a law prohibiting blast balls,  Daugaard said, but “it does mean that there’s important work to be conducted on policy guidance on how to use them—for example, instead of saying ‘don’t fire them at people,’ say ‘fire them away from people and no closer than X distance.'”

After years of inaction on SPD’ crowd control policy, the city is suddenly in a hurry to get it done. This week, Kettle said he would not consider any council amendments submitted after January 9, “and it really needs to happen beforehand, because there’s so much coordination [that has to happen], due to the fact that it has these other aspects to it, related to the consent decree.”

Because of the short timeline, the city’s Community Police Commission is scrambling to come up with a response to, and potentially recommendations on, the proposal. “Once the ordinance passes, [and SPD has] they think is aligned with it, they’re probably going to run to the court with that policy and say, ‘Look, we’re done,” CPD co-chair Joel Merkel said. “What I’ve been trying to do is make sure the CPC doesn’t get skipped over in this process.”

Currently, CPC members and staff are looking over SPD’s proposed crowd control policy and raising concerns, most of which have related to “the circumstances under which certain less-lethal weapons could be used.” If the city is going to let SPD off the leash to develop its own crowd control policies, Merkel added, “the policy is really important, and how you train on the policy is really important.”

Judge Robart has said that he would not release Seattle from the consent decree unless SPD had a crowd control policy in place that is consistent with city laws; repealing the crowd control laws that remain on the books will remove that obstacle and could be the last step toward ending the consent decree. For years, there has been a growing consensus at the city that the consent decree unduly restricts Seattle’s authority to govern its own police department; whether SPD will use its new autonomy by responding appropriately to the next wave of mass protests remains an open question.

 

Mayor Harrell, Transportation

City Transportation Director Greg Spotts Will Leave After Two Years on the Job
SDOT director Greg Spotts in 2022

By Erica C. Barnett

Seattle Department of Transportation director Greg Spotts announced Tuesday morning that he will leave the department, one day after PubliCola contacted him to ask him if Mayor Bruce Harrell had asked him to step down. Spotts’ tenure, at just over two years, was short by SDOT standards; previous permanent directors have generally served for at least one mayoral term, although former mayor Jenny Durkan didn’t hire Spotts’ predecessor, Sam Zimbabwe, until more than a year into her term.

In his letter, sent late Tuesday morning, Spotts said he wanted to spend more time with family and friends in Los Angeles, where he was assistant director and sustainability officer for street services before moving to Seattle in 2022. “Early 2025 seems like a good moment to pass the baton to the next leader of SDOT, an agency which now has the plans and the resources to maintain and modernize Seattle’s streets and bridges,” Spotts wrote.

During just over two years as SDOT director, Spotts managed to rapidly implement projects that stagnated during and after the pandemic under Durkan, including protected bike lanes, bridge maintenance, and spot improvements such as leading pedestrian intervals at crosswalks and “no right on red” signs at intersections where collisions between vehicles and pedestrians are common.

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

Support PubliCola

In the past year, Spotts found himself on the defensive at City Council meetings as transportation committee chair Rob Saka, whose top budget priority this year was removing a traffic safety barrier that prevents illegal left turns into the parking lot of his kids’ former preschool, clashed with him publicly over spending priorities. During deliberations on the transportation levy renewal, which voters passed overwhelmingly in November, Saka (along with Cathy Moore) tried to strip funding from a program that gives community members a direct say in which small projects get funded in their neighborhoods; Saka wanted that money to go to a “district fund” in each council district that would be controlled not by community, but by council members themselves.

The city hasn’t made much progress toward its “Vision Zero” goal of ending traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030, but many of the improvements SDOT implemented under Spotts improved safety for vulnerable road users, and Spotts appeared genuinely committed to making Seattle safer for people who don’t drive.

A spokesman for Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office said Spotts made the decision to leave on his own. In a statement, Harrell praised Spotts’ “collaborative” working style and his “thoughtful leadership toward our shared priorities with a comprehensive focus on safety, completing projects, and investing in the future of Seattle’s transportation system.”

Harrell’s spokesman declined to provide details about how the mayor will choose a new SDOT leader or whether he will appoint an interim from within SDOT (such as senior deputy director Francisca Stefan) after Spotts leaves on February 12.