City Council, Mayor Wilson, Transit

Council Amendments Would Slash Transit Funding Plan, Subject Measure to Annual Council Vote
Image by Atomic Taco, via Creative Commons

Other amendments would allow the city to divert funding from additional King County Metro bus service to transit security and introduce new levels of micromanagement to the transit funding measure.

By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmembers Rob Saka and Bob Kettle want to heavily amend Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposed renewal of the Seattle Transit Measure—a sales tax that funds extra Metro transit service in Seattle—by cutting it to a level that would require cuts to existing service and lowering the term of the tax from 10 years to a baffling 6.75.

Kettle’s proposal would be the most dramatic change: He wants to reduce the proposed sales tax from 0.3 percent to 0.2 percent—an amount that would result in cuts to service compared to the levels the tax previously funded. Currently, the tax is 0.15 percent, which was enough to preserve existing bus service back in 2020. Because the cost to provide service has increased over the last six years, a 0.2 percent tax would require cuts to service, while a 0.3 percent tax would increase bus service by about 140,000 hours a year.

Or, rather, it could increase service by that much. Because in addition to Kettle’s proposal to cut the tax, Saka and other council members are offering amendments that would carve out part of the money for pet priorities, including many that are not the city’s responsibility or part of the original intent of the service enhancement levy.

Saka came into the amendment process having already won a bizarrely picayune battle that threatened to upend the legislation before it was introduced. During discussions with the mayor’s office, Saka, who heads up the Seattle Transportation Benefit District committee, told the mayor’s office he wouldn’t take up the legislation in his committee unless he got a $5 million annual earmark (up from the $3.5 million in the mayor’s original plan) for capital improvements that enhance bus service, like curb cuts.

Saka later boasted from the council dais that Wilson had agreed to this concession. But that didn’t stop him from proposing five new amendments, including one that could divert transit funding into more King County sheriff’s deputies and private security officers on Metro’s buses, which centrist Seattle leaders continue to insist are unsafe. His amendment would add transit security to the list of items the transit measure can fund, without any specific limits on how much could be diverted from service hours to security.

Many other proposed council amendments are attempts to micromanage Metro—which is, again, run by a completely separate and independent government—by dictating specific details of its service or requesting reports on council members’ pet priorities.

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

Support PubliCola

For example, one Saka amendment would require King County to report on fare compliance, fare recovery ratios, the extent to which service was delivered “consistently and predictably,” and “On-time performance across service hours and routes served.”

The city does not have the authority to require King County Metro to produce reports—because, again, the county is completely separate from the city. But Saka’s amendment would attempt to force Metro’s hand by making the transit measure subject to annual approval, based on these reports, by the city council—a novel overreach designed to hold funding for the county’s bus system hostage to the Seattle City Council’s will.

Saka is also behind the amendment that would change the length of the tax measure from 10 years to 6 years and 9 months, with an expiration date of December 31, 2033. No other current city tax has a term that includes a partial year.

Other amendments—from Kettle and Maritza Rivera—would request reports from the Seattle Department of Transportation, “in partnership with King County Metro,” on “opportunities to expand” the use of shuttle buses rather than real buses during off-peak hours (Kettle); the feasibility of increasing the space between bus stops (Kettle again), the “performance outcomes” and feasibility of expanding service on two northeast Seattle bus routes, the 62 and 65 (Rivera), and more.

While Metro already compiles lots of information on ridership, reliability, and bus stop efficiency already, this level of micro-reporting has never been part of the Seattle transit measure.

The transit benefit district committee will meet to discuss the proposed amendments on Monday, July 6 at 11am.

Affordability, housing, Mayor Wilson

Proposal to Temporarily Cut Fees on New Housing Is Dead (For Now), Negotiators Say

By Erica C. Barnett

A proposal that would have given developers an 80 percent break on Mandatory Housing Affordability fees for two years is dead, according to an email to members of the Housing Development Consortium sent by HDC director Patience Malaba yesterday afternoon.

In her message to HDC members,, Malaba wrote, “After careful consideration, I informed the Mayor’s Office that HDC was withdrawing its support for advancing the proposal at this time. Following that decision, the Mayor’s Office chose not to move the legislation forward on a summer, pre-budget timeline and instead will convene a stakeholder workgroup to continue refining the proposal and related policy considerations.”

Wilson’s office confirmed that the proposal isn’t moving forward. “this month,”

Instead, Wilson said in a statement to PubliCola, “we will be setting a table with labor, affordable housing providers, community-driven organizations, and market rate developers to identify shared, collaborative solutions and make sure that our city and region takes every action possible to 1) expedite and encourage housing production 2) support community-driven development, 3) build the critical affordable housing  our city and region needs and 4) prevent displacement of low-income households and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities.”

Developers who have been waiting for the legislation say its failure will jeopardize about 30 projects immediately, and make new housing projects far less likely, at a time when market-rate housing development has slowed to a trickle.

The HDC, which represents affordable housing developers, had been negotiating with the mayor’s office for months over the proposal to temporarily reduce MHA fees, which private-market developers must pay as part of the 2016 “grand bargain” that allowed taller buildings in exchange for payments into an affordable housing fund.

Behind the scenes, a number of HDC members and advocacy groups raised concerns over the last several weeks that the MHA “holiday” would lead to the end of the program itself, which is based on the principle that “housing should pay for housing.” New housing, according to this logic, causes displacement and other harms, and MHA fees offset those harms.

Downtown Emergency Service Center Daniel Malone sent an email to Wilson last month expressing “deep concern” about the proposal, which he said would reduce local funding for the kind of housing-first projects DESC builds at a time when federal funding may dry up.

“As we explore solutions and mitigation strategies in preparation for unprecedented federal disinvestment in our existing programs, we will need to rely more on local resources than ever before,” Malone wrote. “Allowing housing developers to receive the benefits of upzoning to only create luxury apartments for the few who can afford them isn’t a solution; it adds to our problems by decreasing the production of affordable housing units.”

Opponents of the temporary fee reduction reportedly sought concessions like a cap on the number of new apartment buildings that could take advantage of the break on MHA fees, along with “backfill” of MHA revenue that would be “lost” due to the fee reduction by other city funding sources.

However, since many of these hypothetical new building projects wouldn’t happen, at least according to the developers who would build them, without the fee reduction, it’s misleading to describe these as “lost” revenues.

Scott Berkley, an organizer with Tech 4 Housing, said the group was “disappointed to see this worthwhile proposal fed to the insatiable maw of the Seattle Process. We encourage the mayor and city council to move beyond a revenue source that demands middle and working class renters fund affordability, while expecting nothing of our city’s wealthiest homeowners and corporations.”

Nicole Macri, a state legislator and deputy director of strategy for the Downtown Emergency Services Center, said there are better ways to reduce costs for developers than slashing MHA fees, even temporarily. The city could, for example, “refund permit fees, or a portion of permit fees, if you deliver the project in X amount of months, or give a partial sales tax exemption for projects” that are finished on time, Macri said. “There are many things the city can control, including the permitting fee,” without giving developers a temporary break on MHA fees, she said.

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

Support PubliCola

 

The city’s budget process starts in August and ends in November, meaning that any “stakeholder workgroup” process would be delayed until next year, past the point when many developers have said they will have to cancel projects that won’t pencil out with MHA fees attached. The fees range from $6.75 per square foot in the small “urban industrial” zone to $50.46 per square foot in places like north Beacon Hill, with most fees ranging between $10 and $20 a square foot.

In a statement, the leadership of the pro-housing group Seattle YIMBY urged Wilson “to show true leadership on housing by making hard choices to prioritize the homes that can be built right now. Our housing crisis was not caused by having too little process. Seattle has a critical window to show the region we are ready to act, ready to deliver thousands of new homes, millions in new tax revenue, and millions more for affordable housing as we start building again.”

MHA originated at a time before large majorities of Seattle residents agreed that building more housing, not just purpose-built low-income housing, is an urgent need. It also began at a time when development was booming, and for years, it produced tens of millions of dollars of funding for affordable housing projects. But fees have plummeted in recent years, going from a high of $74 million in 2021 to just $22 million last year, because of a precipitous drop in the number of housing projects in the pipeline.

Emily Thompson, a partner at GMD Development, said a lot of developers are currently in their fifth or six round of “corrections,” which occur just before a permit is issued. “I think that shows the applicant is slow playing it because as soon as you get our permits you have to start” the development process. As for the argument that giving developers a break will reduce MHA proceeds, Thompson says, “Any amount of zero dollars is zero dollars”—that is, if developers don’t build because of MHA fees, there won’t be any MHA proceeds anyway.

Development has slowed precipitously since its peak in 2020 and early 2021. So far this year, developers have only filed permits for 1,134 units of housing. By this time in 2020, in comparison, there were more than 8,600 units in the pipeline, which increased to more than 20,000 units by the end of that year.

Meanwhile, according to data provided by the Housing Roundtable, a group of developers who had been pushing for the MHA “holiday,” more than 50,000 units that were going through the city’s development pipeline between 2023 and 2025 have since been canceled.

PubliCola has reached out to Malaba and Mayor Wilson’s office and will update this post when we hear back.

 

City Council, Environment, housing, land use

“Ballard is an Environmental Disaster”: Opponents Rail Against Plan to Eliminate One Avenue for Land Use Appeals

By Erica C. Barnett

Legislation would eliminate an early local appeal process that has delayed land use decisions a year or more drew the usual crowd of longtime Seattle property owners to City Council chambers on Wednesday, where they claimed the proposal would eliminate their “voice” in land use decisions and result in the “clear-cutting” of Seattle.

On the other side were environmentalists and housing advocates who argued that the lengthy delays that routinely bog down efforts to add housing contribute to sprawl, worsens pollution from cars, and exacerbates the affordability crisis that impacts Seattle’s growing renter majority.

In recent years, property owners have shifted away from saying out loud that renters will take away “their” street parking and harm their property values, a view that has become somewhat less acceptable amid a growing affordability crisis. Now, they insist that denser housing for renters will turn Seattle into a treeless desert and kill orcas and salmon.

Many of the opponents’ comments on Wednesday bore little relationship to reality. One speaker, for instance, falsely claimed the legislation would “eliminate environmental appeals on all city land use legislation and any city building project” at a time when the city experiences “heat islands because of clear-cutting thousands and thousands of mature trees” for development, which is also untrue.

Another speaker, who identified himself as a Seattle resident for more than 30 years, called the Ballard neighborhood—which has transformed over the past 20 years from sleepy fishing village to lively urban center with the addition of thousands of new residents—”an environmental disaster. … I lived in the New York City area. I moved from the East Coast to here to get away from that. And when I see Seattle changing into something that resembles New York City, it’s very sad to see that we’re going in that direction,” he said.

Other speakers claimed that eliminating administrative appeals would result in deaths due to heat islands caused by apartment construction, “take away the voice of the people” the same way Trump is trying to take away people’s voting rights, and, yes, kill orcas and salmon.

The actual proposal, which is sponsored by District 2 councilmember and land use committee chair Eddie Lin, is much more benign, though it’s obvious why density opponents are against it: The bill would eliminate their ability to delay changes to the city’s land use code by filing the equivalent of a complaint form with the city.

Currently, anyone can halt a proposed land use change in its tracks by paying $120 and filing an appeal with the city’s hearing examiner. Appeals at this level stop the legislative while it’s still ongoing, cutting off deliberation and debate while the hearing examiner considers whether the city has made the right determination about a proposal’s environmental impact.

This process rarely results in changes to legislation—between 2016 and 2026, just three appeals have even partially succeeded—but it does slow down proposals to allow more density in the city’s historic single-family enclaves: Over the last 10 years, cases have taken an average of 151 days to resolve, with two-thirds of all claims resulting in a dismissal or being withdrawn.

While Seattle has offered this “administrative” appeal process since the 1980s, other local jurisdictions, including King County and Bellevue, do not.

Lin’s legislation would get rid of this “pre-legislative” process, while still allowing appeals to the state’s Growth Management Hearings Board or King County Superior Court, which both occur after the city has adopted actual legislation, rather than while the deliberative process is still going on. Although many of the speakers at Wednesday’s hearing said eliminating hearing examiner appeals would “silence” their “voices,” that’s clearly not true: The city’s long-delayed Comprehensive Plan update is currently stalled indefinitely due to a legal appeal, demonstrating that density opponents don’t need a local process to prevent new housing in single-family neighborhoods.

House Our Neighbors co-executive director Jeff Paul, one of several public commenters who spoke in favor of Lin’s bill on Wednesday, said he was “remarkably frustrated,” as a lifelong environmentalist, to hear so many people claim that dense housing leads to environmental harm.

“According to every environmental scientist in the world, we have to massively reduce the amount of time that people spend driving in cars,” Paul said. “The only way that we can do that is build densely. Public transit only works when people have dense cities. It’s the most important single drawdown that we can do, and we needed to start five decades ago.” Yet Seattle homeowners are still busy “talking about [how] it’s so important that one person can stop the entire city from making decisions about what is going to happen with our land use and our ability to meaningfully address the climate crisis.”

Lin’s land use committee meets again, and is expected to take up the proposal, on July 15.

 

homelessness, human services, King County, Mayor Wilson, Uncategorized

Regional Homelessness Agency “Right-Sizing” Will Largely Restore Pre-KCRHA Status Quo

The announcement, which will send most homeless service contracts back to the city and county, aims to preserve federal funding at risk after a damning forensic audit and changes in funding priorities under Trump.

By Erica C. Barnett

King County Executive Girmay Zahilay and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson announced Wednesday that they will transfer the region’s homelessness contracts back to the city and county, respectively, effectively ending the King County Regional Homelessness Authority as it has existed for the past five years.

Most of the region’s homeless service contracts, totaling around $160 million, will transition back to the city and county, where they used to live, by January 1, 2027, with some more complex contracts remaining at KCHRA on at least a temporary basis. As previously announced, the city and county will fund a team of consultants, from a company called Turning Point, to correct some of the major financial issues identified in the audit. The total cost, according to officials, will be under $1 million.

The KCRHA will continue to serve as the region’a Continuum of Care, the entity that applies for and administers federal funds, at least for this year. It will also oversee the Homeless Management Information System, a regional database of homeless people and the services they receive, administer the Point in Time Count of the region’s homeless population, and oversee the region’s severe weather shelters.

“It is not being dissolved, it is being strengthened,” Wilson said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

The changes will result in about 20 layoffs at KCRHA right away, officials said, with more to come in the future as the contracts move out. The decision to bring contracts back in-house will also result in some new costs for the city and county, especially while the KCRHA is still providing duplicative staffing, although officials said it’s currently unclear how much and what the impact will be on next year’s city and county budgets.

The KCRHA was recently subject to a damning forensic audit that found the agency had a large and growing deficit and lacked basic accounting standards; since then, the agency has released a “corrective action plan” that the auditors themselves said was  inadequate and failed to address many of their concerns.

The city and county are describing the new as a plan to “stabilize, right size, and reset” the KCRHA.

“This agency was given incredible responsibility without sufficient capacity or authority to really effectively create and drive an overall strategy for addressing the homelessness crisis in our region,” Wilson said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon, “and I think that the audit really reflects this reality—and also, of course, brings to light specific problems that have to be urgently addressed.”

Wilson and Zahilay both said moving all the homelessness contracts back to the city and county does not mean the KCRHA is a “failure” as an agency. “I think the assumption of city and county contracts by the KCRHA was not terribly successful,” Wilson said. “That’s not saying the agency was a failure, but I think that particular part of its function, talking to service providers, that was not a successful function of this work.”

On Wednesday, city and county officials characterized the decision to take back their contracts as a reset that will allow KCRHA to focus on its “true core function” of serving as the Continuum of Care for the region—that is, as the entity that applies for and administers federal contracts.

As PublicCola has reported, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity this year—the first step in a competitive bidding process for federal dollars—that prioritizes transitional housing and high-barrier programs that include mandatory services over permanent supportive housing and harm reduction.

Because most of the region’s current federal funding (around $67 million) is for low-barrier permanent supportive housing, KCRHA was already likely to lose federal funds; the recent chaos at the agency makes that even more likely. (HUD recently froze all federal funding with LA’s homelessness agency over financial issues that are similar to those at KCRHA).

City and county officials suggested today that moving the contracts back to the city and county would make the city competitive again. “Taking our local dollars back to the county and back to the city really will relieve KCRHA of that additional responsibility of administering those dollars to really focus at this point in time on the changes in the Continuum of Care and that core function,” Wilson’s deputy director for operations, Mark Ellerbrook, said.

The KCRHA was established at the end of 2019 to replace the previous, locally atomized homelessness system with a “regional approach to homelessness.” The agency began administering homeless service contracts in 2022, but never got around to accomplishing its primary stated goal—getting every city in King County aligned behind a coordinated approach to homelessness and issuing new contracts to nonprofit providers as part of a coherent “five-year plan.”  Instead, the KCRHA got mired in a series of ideological arguments and policy missteps, including an aborted pandemic era effort called “Partnership for Zero” that was supposed to end unsheltered homelessness downtown.

The city and county, meanwhile, were never willing to let go of control over what the homeless system looked like—whether, for example, the KCRHA should focus primarily on temporary shelter or permanent housing—and the agency ultimately turned into a pass-through entity for contracts chosen and funded by the city and county. With no taxing authority, KCRHA couldn’t direct homelessness policy in any substantive way, taking direction instead from a series of elected officials with differing political priorities.

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

Support PubliCola

PubliCola has reported in recent weeks on the KCRHA’s oddly blithe response to the forensic audit and the mayor and county executive’s response to its corrective action plan. Both agency CEO Kelly Kinnison and William Towey, the KCRHA’s associate director for strategy, have publicly treated the audit findings as little more than a speed bump, and blamed most of the financial and accounting issues on the way the agency’s budget functions (as a reimbursement system, in which the agency pays nonprofit service providers and gets reimbursed afterward) and previous leadership.

On Wednesday, however, Kinnison said, “As it was launched, [KCRHA] is a failed experiment,” she said.

Given that Kinnison and Towey have largely blamed the agency’s problems on decisions made before Kinnison was hired in 2024, I asked if she saw any of the problems that resulted in today’s announcement as her responsibility. “Absolutely, there are always things I would do differently and prioritize differently,” she said. “Being a newcomer to the region, I think”—Kinnison moved here from D.C.—”was more challenging than maybe I even expected it to be.”

Otherwise, Kinnison said, she came in and took charge of a bad situation by hiring administrative staff and getting the agency into financial shape. If she could have done something different, Kinnison said, she would have “been louder” and “more public” about the agency’s financial issues—”I came in when we were not paying providers on time and people were doing payroll on credit cards”—and lack of finance and administrative staffing. “There’s decisions a reasonable person could have made that would have bene different, but this missing money and construction of the back end [financial system] that didn’t  work—that’s an implementation problem.”

Kinnison also reiterated her claim that she had asked the city to initiate a forensic audit into the agency after she arrived and began identifying problems that occurred under her predecessor, Marc Dones. The mayor’s office says that isn’t true, and that the city (under then-mayor Bruce Harrell) and county (under then-executive Dow Constantine) requested the audit. Simon Foster, the former KCRHA deputy CEO, reportedly also raised concerns about the agency’s finances to the city. Foster was laid off by Kinnison last October, as was KCRHA finance director James Rouse, who was not replaced.

City and county officials, as well as as Wilson and Zahilay, were reluctant to say what will happen to the KCRHA after the contracts move. “That’s what the broad stakeholdering is designed to do” over the coming year, Zahilay said. Kinnison’s future at the agency is also up in the air, and she stood at the back of the room, rather than front and center, as Zahilay and Wilson answered questions. In a joint statement after the announcement, King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski and Seattle City Councilmember Maritza Rivera—who both proposed dissolving the agency earlier this year—celebrated the news. “While this is not a complete dissolution of the Regional Homelessness Authority that we may have called for, it is a major step in the right direction,” they said. “This is a much-needed reset of how we manage our homelessness response.”

 

Mayor Wilson, Media, Police

News Vouchers Delayed Until 2027, Stranger’s Editor Out, Ex-Cop Fired for Punching Handcuffed Woman Involved in Fracas at Pride

1. Mayor Katie Wilson, who had been planning to release her “News Notes” proposal to help fund independent media on or around Independence Day, has pushed the potential ballot measure back a year, according to her office. We’ve followed up with more questions about the reason for the delay and will update this post if we hear back.

News vouchers would work much like democracy vouchers, Seattle’s public campaign finance program. If approved, the program would use a small property tax to provide funding to local news outlets that meet certain criteria, such as providing core content for free, adhering to basic standards such as factual accuracy, and having independent ownership. (Many of the details are TBD).

As they already do with democracy vouchers, Seattle residents could spend news vouchers on the outlets they want to support—providing a boost to the local news ecosystem and allowing more established independent outlets to expand their coverage.

Wilson’s team had reportedly been vetting the outlines of her plan with editorial board members at the Seattle Times, which had already started ramping up its opposition campaign—in the form of opinion pieces by their “save print newspapers” columnist Brier Dudley—as far back as 2023. The pro-news voucher camp was reportedly working to convince the Times editorial board to stay neutral on the measure, rather than opposing it.

2. The Stranger’s editor-in-chief, Hannah Murphy Winter, is out. Stranger publisher Tracey Cataldo told PubliCola Murphy Winter will “stay on to help see the team through the transition” but would not provide further details, such as whether the Stranger has hired a replacement. Murphy Winter took over the paper after it was bought by Noisy Creek, a media company founded by former state legislator and Grist CEO Brady Walkinshaw.

Stranger staff found out about the firing this morning. Internally, there appears to have been some shock at the timing, just before a print endorsement issue that will reportedly include at least one controversial pick. The optics of firing the paper’s top editor right as endorsements hit are also less than ideal.

Murphy Winter, previously the chief research editor at Rolling Stone, did not respond to text messages seeking comment. Walkingshaw also did not respond to messages. (Editor’s note: This post originally said Walkinshaw lives out of state; he contacted us to let us know that he lives in Seattle and owns a house in LA. We regret the error.)

3. A video from last weekend’s Pride events, taken by Turning Point USA activist Jonathan Choe., appears to show former Seattle police officer Adley Shepherd immobilizing a person’s wheelchair by standing on it as they yell “get off my chair!” Shepherd, ID’d in the video as a security guard protecting a street preacher who’s heard yelling something about the “kingdom of Satan,” then appears to shove or punch the person in the wheelchair, prompting a brief fracas in which Shepherd appears to trip and fall to the ground, where another person restrains him. When a third person briefly jumps on Shepherd, people in the crowd, including Choe, can be heard yelling “Stop!”

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

Support PubliCola

 

If Shepherd’s name isn’t immediately familiar, here’s a refresher: He’s the former cop who was fired in 2016 for punching a woman who was handcuffed in the back of his police car after she kicked him. The woman, who suffered a fractured eye socket, had not committed any obvious crime before Shepherd handcuffed her and shoved her into his car. An arbitrator overturned the firing in a case that led a federal judge to rule SPD out of compliance with a longstanding consent decree, but the firing was upheld after a protracted court battle.

Shepherd was in the news again in 2020 after he attended the January 6 rally alongside with several SPD officers.

Choe and TPUSA, unsurprisingly, have characterized the incident as a vicious attack by activists on a Christian minister and his security guard, but even his own heavily edited video does not show anything of the sort.

Shepherd now runs a security firm, Edrei Solutions. When we called him, Shepherd said PubliCola had treated him unfairly in the past and hung up on us.

Drugs, homelessness, Mayor Wilson, neighborhoods, public safety

KCRHA Spins the News that Homelessness Is Growing
Nearly half of all homeless families are unsheltered, according to the latest count.

We discuss the latest estimate of the region’s homeless population and the latest “new approach” to drug use and crime in Little Saigon on this week’s Seattle Nice.

By Erica C. Barnett

After releasing a high-level summary of the latest “point in time count” report on King County’s homeless population last week, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority tried to put a positive spin on the results at a meeting of the agency’s governing board last week. The new numbers showed a 9 percent increase in overall homelessness—from an estimated 16,868 to 18,365—between 2024 and 2026.

On this week’s episode of Seattle Nice, we dug into all these numbers—and the KCRHA’s take on what they mean.

At a presentation to the governing board on Friday, the KCRHA’s associate director for strategy, William Towey, said “one of the key takeaways from the Point In Time count is that the system is doing amazing work. It’s moving a lot of people through, we’re housing a lot of people, a lot of people are coming in and successfully exiting, but the inflow just continues to grow.”

Every year, according to KCRHA, about 17,000 people stop using homeless services (a widely used proxy for no longer being homeless), while about 18,000 enter or re-enter the system. As long as the rate of people entering the system exceeds the number of people exiting, overall homelessness will continue to grow.

The KCRHA has focused heavily on the fact that although both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness continue to increase, the rate of increase in overall homelessness has declined—from 21 percent between 2022 and 2024 to 9 percent over the last two years. At the governing board meeting, Towey argued that the “declination in the rate of increase” represented a specific number of people who would be homeless but are not. “That translates to over 2,500 individuals or households who aren’t homeless because of that decrease in the rate of increase,” Towey said.

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson pointed to a troubling aspect of the numbers Towey didn’t mention, but which we highlighted in our coverage of the count last week—unsheltered homelessness, which is both more visible and more dangerous for people living outdoors than living in shelter, has spiked by 21 percent even as sheltered homelessness has grown more slowly. That’s more than 2,000 additional people living unsheltered compared to the count released in 2024.

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

Support PubliCola

 

“I’m very, very concerned by the really significant increase in the rate of unsheltered homelessness,” Wilson said. “We were already a national outlier in having over 50 percent of our homeless population unsheltered, and now when it’s up to over two thirds, that’s pretty shocking.”

Towey attributed the increase to the closure of 689 shelter beds, including an unspecified number of family shelter beds, which Towey called the “primary driver” of the shelter losses. Family homelessness, according to the report, has declined slightly over the past two years, but the percentage of  families who are unsheltered increased almost 40 percent, to nearly half of all households with minor children. In the 2024 count, about 35 percent of people living in family households were unsheltered.

Also on this week’s show, we discussed the latest  “new approach” to address the crowded drug and stolen goods market around 12th and Jackson in Little Saigon, which consists of expanding the hours service providers are on site, directing existing LEAD diversion services to the area, and, as ever, flooding the zone with cops, who are supposed to send some people to LEAD instead of arresting them.

Personally, I’m tired of hearing elected officials (and certain podcast cohosts) argue that hot spot policing, plus a nominal new investment in services, will improve conditions this time despite the many previous times the same basic approach has failed. Sandeep thinks there’s something truly new this time. I’m far less optimistic.