Mayor Katie Wilson’s centrist critics on the Seattle City Council spent most of Wednesday accusing the mayor of creating a budget that, as Councilmember Bob Kettle put it repeatedly throughout the day, “unfunds” (rather than defunds) critical services, including encampment removals, graffiti and park restroom cleanups, and transportation projects.
The theme of the day was insinuation: Council members complained about things that have supposedly fallen apart that Bruce Harrell is no longer in office, like the state of parks restrooms or the swiftness of encampment sweeps, then blamed them on Wilson and her budget priorities. Dan Strauss, for instance, said a business owner’s complaint about an encampment that stayed in the same spot for three months shows that there’s been “acompletechange in how effectively thecityisaddressinghomelessness,” while Rob Saka assailed the mayor for proposing 10 new portable public restrooms when “we can’t even get our own bathhouse in order!”
“How many new bathrooms are proposed for expansion?” Rob Saka asked rhetorically, projecting to the rafters. “Now we want to expand, create new shiny things, when we can’t even properly take care of the things we have today? Hmm!”
In general, the day’s two budget meetings (which I covered in detail on Bluesky, starting here) were an opportunity for councilmembers who opposed Wilson’s election to overstate the likely impact of her proposed budget cuts and suggest that she should have made different, unspecified decisions to address a $175 million budget deficit.
Take, for example, the “unfunding” of the city’s Unified Care Team, which would lose two and a half administrative positions—desk jobs—that have never been filled.
This cut, Kettle said, represented a larger “deprioritization” of encampment removals—one that has deprived the Parks Department of the “heavy equipment” it needs to haul tents, trash, and people’s possessions away after encampment sweeps. Piling on, Maritza Rivera claimed Wilson’s “budget renders us incapable” of addressing homeless encampments. And Saka railed against the mayor’s decision to move the city’s Unified Care Team back to the Human Services Department rather than having its duties spread across four separate city departments.
Addressing the mayor (who, quite possibly, could hear him from her office five floors above), Saka said, “Now, thismightbeagoodthingtodeprioritize [the UCT] tandburythatworkdowninadepartmentsomewhere.I might be a political bone to throw at your democratic socialist base, but it does our communities harm!”
Last year, Saka sponsored a budget proviso, or spending restriction, that required Wilson to maintain the $30 million, 116-member Unified Care Team and keep spending money on specific priorities, such as $2.2 million for police to be present at sweeps. “Somepeopleonthefar,ultra-leftlosttheirnationalminds!” when he sponsored the proviso, Saka bellowed. “Callstoemployeewellnessprogramsskyrocketed,apparently,insomecirclesafterIdidthat! Butitwasawiseandresponsiblethingtodo.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Later in the day, during a discussion about how to resolve a growing deficit in the Seattle Department of Transportation’s transportation fund ($41 million on average each month this year), council members suggested this was the first they were hearing about the seriousness of SDOT’s financial problems. (SDOT has said the shortfalls stem from higher-than-anticipated costs and lower-than expected revenues.) “Ididnotknowupuntilacoupleweeksago,rightduringthebudget,aspartofthebudgetprocess,thatSDOTwasoperatingbasicallyintheredinthisway,” Rivera said. “This is a new development for council.”
In fact, a staffer reminded her, the budget the council adopted last year showed a growing negative transportation fund balance starting in 2027. That same budget noted that SDOT had finished paying off a previous interfund loan, unanimously approved by the council in 2020, last year. “I think there was some awareness that the transportation fund was having challenges,” the staffer said. “Now it may not have had awareness that starting in 2026, after the interfund loan was paid off, that we continue to have those challenges, but … I looked at last year’s financial plan, and it was a negative balance, and projected for it to be negative balance for this year and the coming years.”
The council has the authority to revise the budget to reflect their own priorities. But there’s a difference between expressing genuine concern about cuts and deficits and continually rehashing the last election.
Instead of responding like the business community has to Wilson’s budget (with a tone of surprised approval, since the budget funds centrist priorities, like police, with minimal cuts and no new taxes), the council is spending a huge amount of rhetorical energy this year grandstanding over relatively insignificant cuts (rarely have so many budget speeches centered on the elimination of two vacant administrative positions) without acknowledging that for every program they restore, they’ll have to find commensurate cuts elsewhere in the budget. It’s as if Wilson’s opponents on the council think the mayor made up a mean budget just to spite them, and that their job is to righteously restore funding for all their pet projects without balancing the ledger.
Which is to say: Get ready for tomorrow’s meetings, which will focus on the human services, police, and fire departments, three areas where many on the council have, if anything, even bigger feelings about the mayor’s budget proposal.
Mayor Katie Wilson, with new interim chief Andre Sayles at far left
By Josh Feit
PubliCola isn’t making endorsements this year, but election season (see item 3 below) gives me the perfect opportunity to debut this new opinion column with its simple premise: X > (is greater than) Y.
1) The Case for Firing SPD Chief Shon Barnes > The Case for Keeping Shon Barnes
The case for firing police chief Shon Barnes, a holdover from the Harrell administration, might seem disproportionate to the happenstance of being out of town during a shooting (and subsequently fucking up media briefings on the shooting because of your absence).
But if you’re a regular PubliCola reader, you know there are plenty of reasons beyond Barnes’ alarming OOO MO that made him an odd fit with Wilson’s progressive administration. Among them: His aversion to the CARE Team; SPD’s violent treatment of counter-protesters at an anti-trans rally in Cal Anderson Park; lawsuits accusing him and his team of discriminating against women and LBGTQ staffers; the department’s ongoing failure to recruit more women, and his questionable hiring and promotiondecisions.
Wilson can get pretty anxious about diverging from Seattle’s older Black community, which I think partially explains why she recently disappointed her activist base on surveillance cameras. But Wilson is also known for listening to the facts, assessing the situation, and acting accordingly. Thankfully, in weighing Barnes’ rocky tenure against the vague call for stability, she made the right call last week.
And by the way: Barnes’ recent chest-forward display of toxic machismo (after a South Seattle Emerald reporter dared to ask him about Erica’s reporting on those frequent absences) was red card material. If not a fireable offense in its own right, Barnes’ playground behavior surely gave Wilson an unnerving reminder of why he wasn’t a fit.
2) Seattle City Council Members Eddie Lin, Dionne Foster, Alexis Mercedes Rinck, Bob Kettle, and Dan Strauss > Seattle City Council Members Joy Hollingsworth, Debora Juarez, Maritza Rivera, and Rob Saka
A million years ago, I used to write a column on Seattle City Hall called Five to Four. So pardon me for being extra excited about a narrow city council vote last week that distinguished the pro-housing council members from the anti-housing council members.
Erica has the rundown on the 5-4 win for Southeast Seattle Councilmember Lin’s pro-density legislation that will stop homeowners from turning the Seattle Hearing Examiner into a weapon against renters and new housing, something NIMBYs have been doing for the 20-plus years I’ve been reporting on this issue. I just want to add: WTF Joy Hollingsworth? You represent one of the most progressive, densest, renter-centric districts in the city. What’s the gatekeeping about?
3) Ron Davis (and even Will Dreher) > State Rep. Gerry Pollet
In this year’s North Seattle election battle between mansplainers, longtime North Seattle rep Gerry Pollet (D-46, N. Seattle) versus know-it-all housing pundit Ron Davis, at least Davis is the YIMBY in the race. Pollet is a NIMBY who spent the bulk of his tenure as housing committee chair stalling legislation that would have created more housing in his district. The pro-housing, urbanist wing of the Democratic Party eventually got fed up with Pollet and removed him as chair of the housing committee.
In addition to supporting upzones as a way to increase density, Davis also supports hacks to the building code that will allow more density without changing overall zoning, such as Sightline initiatives like parking, stairway, and elevator reform; Davis has been a regular contributor to Sightline, the state’s leading pro-housing, urbansit think tank, and is endorsed by Mayor Katie Wilson and The Urbanist.
Private attorney and first-time candidate Will Dreher is a former clerk for liberal SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan and a DOJ prosector who went after J6 rioters. He’s also, yikes, a former clerk for pre-SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh who signed a letter supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination in June 2018. However, three months later Dreher and two other clerks withdrew their support, calling on the FBI to reopen its background investigation into Kavanaugh over Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
Dreher’s focus is on corporate accountability, particularly when it comes to the environment and regulating A.I. He’s been endorsed by A-student progressive Seattle City Council member Dionne Foster and progressive City Attorney Erika Evans.
Slow growther Pollet has been endorsed by the Seattle Times of course.
Maritza Rivera’s amendments would shrink neighborhood centers—areas where 3-to-6-story apartments would be newly legal—across her northeast Seattle district.
The comprehensive plan sets rules for how Seattle develops in the future, including where the city will allow its renter majority to live.
By Erica C. Barnett
After nearly a year of delays, the city council is finally getting ready to put its stamp on Mayor Bruce Harrell’s proposed 10-year Comprehensive Plan—a document Harrell has branded with his campaign slogan as the “One Seattle Plan.” The council has been meeting for months to discuss elements of the plan, including the creation of a few dozen new “neighborhood centers” where apartments will be allowed for the first time in decades, but this week was the council’s first opportunity to propose tweaks to the plan—107 amendments in all.
The comprehensive plan sets policies for growth and development, designating where new housing, transportation, and other infrastructure should go and placing limits on housing density in the city’s neighborhoods. It’s updated every 10 years, with periodic amendments, and inevitably reflects the political priorities of whoever is in office at the time.
We’ve reported previously on the Harrell Administration’s reluctance to allow significantly more housing in Seattle’s traditional single-family neighborhoods as part of the plan.
After killing an early draft of the plan that would have allowed significantly more density, Harrell released a plan last year that fell far short of the changes necessary to create enough housing for new and current residents—including renters—to live in Seattle affordably. After intense criticism of that proposal—the city’s Planning Commission said it upheld exclusionary policies rooted in redlining and failed to provide the housing Seattle needs—the mayor came back with a new plan that allowed slightly more housing, though still less than the proposal most members of the current city council said they supported when they ran for election in 2023.
The council’s proposed amendments are a mixed bag. Several proposals would collectively shrink the size of the proposed “neighborhood centers”—areas within 800 feet of certain frequent transit stops where 3-to-6-story apartments would be allowed—by hundreds of acres, in a blatant retreat to old single-family zoning patterns that benefit people who already own property and don’t want renters living in “their” neighborhoods.
Others would impose new restrictions on any new development that requires removing trees, including one that would give the city free rein to force builders to redo projects if even one tree, of any size, was threatened.
Still others would provide new incentives for developers to build dense housing, serving as a counterpoint to other councilmembers’ proposals to shrink the areas of the city where people who can’t afford to buy a house in Seattle are allowed to live.
Breaking the substantive amendments down into broad categories, we have:
Expanded Neighborhood Centers
On balance, the proposed amendments that make it easier to build housing—including everything from density bonuses for affordability to expanded and brand-new neighborhood centers—outweigh NIMBY proposals to restrict housing, although some of the proposals are probably nonstarters—or negotiation starters—in their current forms.
Harrell’s final comprehensive plan proposal included 3o neighborhood centers—down from 48 in an early draft, but more than the 24 included in an early version of the plan. Since then, though, there’s been intense pressure on the council to further reduce the number of neighborhood centers in the plan, coming primarily from incumbent homeowners in neighborhoods like Wedgwood, Madrona, and Maple Leaf.
Although several council members did end up proposing amendments that would scale down the size of neighborhood centers, in some cases dramatically, the amendments to add new areas of potential density outweigh those proposals, meaning that if every proposed change to the neighborhood centers was adopted, the amount of land in designated neighborhood centers would increase significantly.
Council members who proposed new or expanded neighborhood centers included Dan Strauss (who proposed a new East Ballard neighborhood center and called for expanding the boundaries of five others, including in Magnolia), Bob Kettle (who proposed a new North Queen Anne/Nickerson Neighborhood Center) and Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who’s proposing eight new neighborhood centers, one in each council district.
“Seattle needs more housing,” Rinck said. “Seattle also needs full and thriving communities, and we’ve heard an overwhelming call from constituents to achieve these goals with more housing, especially in high-opportunity neighborhoods which haven’t seen proportional growth.”
Build This, Not That
Other proposed amendments would add density bonuses and incentives for different types of housing, such as stacked flats and affordable apartments.
Kettle, for instance, proposed getting rid of an “amenity area” requirement for new housing in neighborhood residential zones, freeing up more land for housing.
Under the current proposal, 20 percent of the space around new apartment buildings in the city’s traditional single-family areas would be reserved for open space, typically a yard, for residents to “recreate on site”—as if what apartment dwellers in cities really want is a tiny lawn where they can all hang out together.
An amendment from Sara Nelson would retain a requirement that residential buildings, including new apartments in all parts of the city, be exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); that exemption is otherwise set to expire next month, making housing harder to build.
Other amendments, from Hollingsworth, Nelson, Kettle, and Rinck, would provide bonus density for developers who agree to build specific types of housing, including social housing, accessory dwelling units, and low-income or affordable housing. Several proposals would create incentives for developers to build stacked flats—apartments spread out across a single story of a building—including density bonuses for retaining trees and amendments that would allow stacked flats to be denser than other types of apartments in neighborhood residential (former single-family) zones.
Rob Saka also has an amendment that would give a density bonus for one- or two-story “cottage” apartments surrounding a large common area, a style that resembles single-family housing more than the three-to-six-story apartments that will be allowed in the new neighborhood residential zones under the current plan.
Strauss proposed an amendment that would increase the maximum height in these areas from six to seven or eight stories immediately next to a major transit stop, and Rinck proposed changing the definition of “major transit stop” to include high-frequency buses.
15-Minute City
Several amendments would reduce or remove mandatory parking requirements. The most ambitious, from Rinck, would “remove parking requirements citywide for all land uses in all zones,” a phrase that brings joy to my car-hating little heart. (Yes, I own a car. No, I don’t think the city should socially engineer car culture, as it currently does.)
Builders wouldn’t be barred from including parking in their developments, but they wouldn’t be forced to do so, as they are in many places under the city’s current code.
Another amendment from Rinck, essentially a backup if her first parking proposal fails would reduce parking mandates to comply with a statewide parking reform bill that requires cities to eliminate some of their parking mandates by 2028. Another proposal, from Strauss, would establish parking maximums in the city’s regional centers—the densest areas, including downtown, Capitol Hill, and Strauss’ home turf of Ballard. In a concession to the tree-preservation lobby, Rinck’s amendments also include one that would eliminate parking mandates for developments that preserve trees.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
A proposal to allow corner stores in neighborhoods could also see some meaningful changes.
In the past, we’ve dunked on Harrell’s proposal to allow corner stores in neighborhoods, because it would only allow new stores and restaurants on literal corner lots, with restrictions that don’t apply to other businesses in the city, such as a mandatory 10pm closing time. Several amendments attempt to remedy those issues. The amendments range from extremely modest (a Nelson amendment that would remove the literal-corner requirement but retain restrictions on business type, size, and closing hours) to ambitious, by Seattle standards (a Rinck proposal that would remove the corner requirement, allow businesses to be open past 10pm, and add bars to the list of businesses that are legal in neighborhoods.
Three amendments, from Rinck, Strauss, and Nelson, would make it easier to open stores and restaurants in residential neighborhoods where they’re currently banned. As we’ve reported, Harrell’s comp plan proposal would allow corner stores in neighborhoods, but only on literal corners, with additional restrictions such as mandatory 10pm closures and a stipulation that they can include restaurants, but not bars.
The amendments range from modest (amendments from Strauss and Nelson to allow stores throughout residential zones, not just on corners) to ambitious (a Rinck proposal that would allow restaurants and bars throughout these areas, eliminate a requirement that businesses be closed from 10pm to 6am, and ditch a 2,500-square-foot size restriction included in the mayor’s proposal). Allowing bars in neighborhoods, a policy that works fine in big cities across the country, may be a bridge too far for censorious Seattle, but a compromise between these proposals could be a first step toward creating more 15-minute neighborhoods in Seattle.
Homeowners vs. Renters
Of course, it wouldn’t be a zoning update without some NIMBY poison pills. Although no one, including newly appointed District 5 Councilmember Debora Juarez, has proposed reviving former D5 councilmember Cathy Moore’s quixotic effort to remove an entire neighborhood center from Maple Leaf, several councilmembers have proposed reducing the amount of land in their districts where people who rent apartments can live.
Maritza Rivera, who has frequently claimed that the city did insufficient outreach to single-family neighborhoods before allowing apartments near frequent transit stops, has three amendments to shrink neighborhood centers in Bryant, Ravenna, and Wedgwood. Her proposal to scale back the Wedgwood center is the most radical of the three, in that it would reduce the size of the center by about 40 percent, limiting apartments to 35th Ave. NE, already a busy arterial, and prohibiting them in the adjacent blocks. (In contrast, one of Rinck’s amendments would expand the Wedgwood neighborhood center to the south; expect strong objections from Rivera to that one).
“Based on months of feedback from community members who live in and near the proposed neighborhood centers, my amendments modify the boundaries of the neighborhood centers in the D4, including Wedgwood, Bryant and Ravenna, to reflect resident concerns…. around the ability of local neighborhood streets to handle increased growth and the infrastructure,” Rivera said.
A Rivera amendment for Ravenna traces a similar line to carve single-family houses in a designated historic district (itself a way for older neighborhoods to oppose density) out of the proposed neighborhood center around Third Place Books, leaving the commercial area but ensuring that there would be no apartments in the neighborhood surrounding the commercial center.
Separately, Rivera proposed an amendment that would give the city the HOA-like authority to dictate what kind of external siding would be allowed on buildings within designated national or local historic districts, based on factors like the “historic character” of an area; this extraordinary new power would also apply to historic districts that might be designated in the future, including those proposed by house owners who oppose new development in their neighborhoods.
Joy Hollingsworth wants to cut the Madrona Neighborhood Center by about seven blocks, concentrating new housing into a smaller area that already includes parks, schools, and other areas where housing can’t be built.
Joy Hollingsworth has proposed shrinking down another controversial neighborhood center in Madrona, whose homeowning residents showed up en masse to oppose the zoning change in their neighborhood. Hollingsworth’s amendment would shrink the Madrona center by nearly 40 percent, slicing off big chunks of current single-family areas on the east and west sides of the proposed center and concentrating any new housing around an existing commercial stretch that includes an elementary school, library, and playfield where housing can’t be built.
Finally, it wouldn’t be a conversation about housing in 2025 without hand-wringing over trees—not planting or maintaining trees in public spaces, which are actions the city could take at any time, or encouraging property owners to plant new trees themselves, but preserving trees that already exist, generally at the expense of new development.
In addition to the tree preservation incentives I mentioned earlier, there’s an amendment from Strauss to “recognize the importance of the natural environment and native species, including trees, bees, salmon, orca, and herons,” plus several from Rivera to make it harder to develop housing if trees are on site.
The most extreme proposal from Rivera—and the one that made Rinck confirm with council staff that the amendment really would do what it appeared to do—would allow the city to require developers to come up with a completely new alternative plan if it turned out their housing proposal would require the removal of any tree, no matter its size, age, or viability.
It’s easy to see how this could grind development in traditional single-family areas to a halt. If someone planted a sapling on a property slated for development, or if there was already unremarkable small tree on site, the city could stop the project and require the developer to start from scratch.
Housing is already tremendously expensive to build in Seattle, and construction permits are declining as developers pull out of the city. Empowering unelected city staffers to force full project redesigns around every existing tree would exacerbate the housing crisis, adding costs to projects that are already financed while reducing the amount of housing that could be built in every project with a tree on site. And forget about expanding the city’s tree canopy—who would plant a new tree on a property they may want to sell in the future, knowing it would instantly reduce their property value?
A story posted earlier today in the Burner—an online publication started by former Stranger writer Hannah Krieg—claimed that the Seattle Public Library was “capitulating to fascism,” as Krieg put it on X, by forbidding frontline workers from recording ICE raids in library buildings on their phones and telling them that ICE does not need warrants to barge in and make arrests.
Citing a memo titled “Protocols for Immigration Enforcement: Compliance and Readiness at The Seattle Public Library” as well as an all-staff email from library director Tom Fay, the post also claimed that library staffers can’t ask ICE for a warrant to make arrests, and that SPL will not protect any employee who’s arrested for allegedly interfering in an ICE arrest.
What’s more, according to the article (written by a guest writer but posted by Krieg) the memo itself was apparently written by someone every progressive hates—Republican City Attorney Ann Davison.
Banning staffers from asking ICE agents for warrants? Prohibiting people from recording arrests on their phones? It all sounds quite alarming—and it would be, if any of it was true.
The Burner, which represents itself as independent journalism with a lefty twist, seems to have forgotten the journalism part. I got a copy of the memo, which was not linked in the post, and it took about five seconds to realize that at least one of the statements the publication represented, between quotation marks, as quotes from the memo … is not actually a quote from the memo.
These misrepresentations would just be sloppy if the memo actually did tell library staff that ICE never needs a warrant or that people can’t record ICE on their phones, as the story explicitly claims. But the memo (which is 12 pages long) basically says the opposite, so the misquotes are really misinformation.
The false quote from the memo is “Do not record interactions on a phone.” In fact, the memo (and a followup email to staff from Fay) emphasizes that it is legal to record ICE interactions, but that employees should use their personal devices to do so and understand the risk that a cop might get excited (as they do) and decide to arrest them. Describing a shitty fact about police behavior is a far cry from the saying that the “City will not defend, support or represent them in any legal case,” which is how the article describes the policy. The memo does not say any of that.
“This guidance does not intend to to strip library staff of their citizen right to film law enforcement,” Fay wrote, adding a link to guidance on recording police officers from the Freedom Forum, a First Amendment advocacy group.
UPDATE: On Wednesday, in an email to staff that also advised staff about the Burner’s inaccurate reporting, Fay said the library’s guidance not to record on city-owned phones was “the result of a misunderstanding that occurred at a citywide training in February.” That was the only part of the guidance that was specific to SPL’s protocols; now, the rules at the library are identical to those for all other city of Seattle staff.
This change won’t actually impact any frontline library staff, because none of those staffers have city-issued phones. In fact, just 76 of the library’s more than 650 employees have phones, including regional managers, supervisors, gardeners, and maintenance workers.
The story also says the memo directs staff that “warrants [are] not required” for ICE to make arrests. “[A]rrest warrants definitely are required except in limited cases (the memo does not acknowledged this),” the piece claims, contrasting the library’s policy unfavorably with a Seattle Public Schools policy that requires ICE to present a warrant before entering school buildings.
In fact, the memo dedicates several pages to the library’s protocol for barring ICE officers from all non-public spaces unless they can present a judicial warrant; explains the difference from a judicial and administrative warrant and notes that the latter isn’t sufficient; and gives staffers a script to use if an ICE officer tries to get into areas where they aren’t allowed without a warrant.
“Officers need a judicial warrant to enter and search non-public areas,” the memo says. (Emphasis in original.) “DO NOT consent/grant access to non-public areas.Please tell them the following: ‘You may not enter this non-public area, and I am not authorized to let you enter. I will notify Library administration, and someone will be coming to verify.” At that point, staffers are supposed to call their manager and document everything that happens.
Legally, ICE can make arrests in most public places, including libraries; schools were exempt under a federal policy that designated them as “sensitive” areas ICE needs a judicial warrant to enter. Although Trump rescinded that Biden-era policy in January, his executive order—which also covers churches, where the sanctuary movement began—is being challenged in court.
The library’s guidance comes directly from a citywide training on February 27 about how city employees should respond to ICE raids, among other topics related to immigration. The training was created by the city’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, which has a ton of other know-your-rights resources on its website.
More than 1,000 employees across the city took part in the training, which explained existing city policies for dealing with ICE (which have not changed, but have obviously become more urgent) and included resources from Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the National Immigrant Law Center.
I posted obliquely about this on Bluesky earlier, and I see that since then, the Burner has posted a whole separate post that now includes a completely different two-page memo, and has changed the headline on the original post, which was “Seattle Public Libraries Tells Workers Not To Interfere With ICE Raids.” Once you tell people they should be outraged at the local library for violating the First Amendment and forcing staff to roll over for ICE arrests, and shout on social media that they’re basically fascists, it’s pretty hard to walk that back.
“Library memo describes citywide ICE policy for public buildings, developed by Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs” isn’t much of a headline, though. That’s because it isn’t much of a story.
Update Wednesday: The original story has been removed, replaced by a new piece by Krieg asserting essentially the same facts and with a misleading headline that still suggests the library has ordered staff to stand by passively and not ask for warrants when they are required, which is false. The story was purportedly taken down because it did not include “copies of the memos” laying out the city’s policy, but the new piece still doesn’t include the the 12-page memo laying out the policy, which includes a script for demanding warrants and barring ICE from entering areas of public buildings where they are not allowed to be. The new piece also argues that SPL should order its frontline workers to be confrontational toward armed ICE agents. By doubling down on the false narrative and failing to correct or acknowledge any errors, the new post does not address any of the the issues outlined below.
Down in the basement of City Hall, at the end of a corridor most city employees have little reason to visit, is a faux-wood paneled section of wall with an unmarked door and a small ledge that looks like it once served as a customer service counter. The only indication that there’s anything behind the wall, besides a jutting door handle, is a red-lit security panel, indicating that someone has the ability to badge their way into this unmarked room, and that it isn’t you.
The space, located just past the Boards and Commissions room, was at one time a walk-up counter for the city’s credit union, but was vacant for years—until 2022, when Mayor Bruce Harrell had it converted into a workout facility. The unmarked gym is only open to the mayor and members of his security detail, who are SPD officers; in an unscientific poll of a half-dozen current and former City Hall staffers, not one was aware of the gym’s existence.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
The insider who told PubliCola about the gym said Harrell didn’t end up using it very often, preferring a private club nearby that has better facilities. According to Jamie Housen, a spokesman for Harrell’s office, the mayor used the gym “a handful of times, maybe five or six. Housen said the equipment in the gym is all the “personal equipment” of the SPD officers on Harrell’s security team, and includes “a 10+ year-old treadmill and used weight equipment”—definitely a step-down from the Washington Athletic Club, where Harrell is a member.
The basement of city hall also contains a lactation room that one staffer described as the equivalent of a “supply closet.” Seattle Channel is also down there, as is the office for the city’s janitorial division and a garage access point for city staffers.
It’s unclear how often members of Harrell’s security team use the gym. SPD officers have access to a fully equipped gym at SPD headquarters right across the street from City Hall, as well as at every police precinct, but Housen said the mayor’s detail “is unable to use those spaces because they are required to keep close proximity to the mayor at all times.” Housen said SPD pays a lease for the gym to the city’s fleets and facilities department, and let us know that Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times passed on writing about the gym last year.
We filed a records request for more details about the gym, and will file an update if we learn anything interesting, like the max incline on that decade-old treadmill or whether there’s an explicit policy against dropping weights.
Former police chief Adrian Diaz appeared to accept his fate when Mayor Bruce Harrell removed him as chief last week, but some of his most ardent supporters are still fighting for his reinstatement, claiming he is the victim of disgruntled employees who fabricated stories to take him down.
Six women and one man have sued or filed intent to sue the Seattle Police Department over allegations that include gender and racial discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment. Some of the allegations are against Diaz himself, along with his public relations director, John O’Neil.
Some of Diaz’ supporters, including nd Seattle Community Police Commission co-chair Harriett Walden, said Diaz’ accusers were disgruntled employees engaged in a racist campaign against Diaz, who is Latino.
On Wednesday, two of Diaz’ most vocal supporters, SPD employee and police advocate Victoria Beach and SPD Latino community liaison Carmen Martinez, organized a pro-Diaz demonstration in front of City Hall. As protests go, it was a small one: Around a dozen people, counting children, marched around the downtown block that includes both City Hall and SPD headquarters, holding with slogans like “Due Process for Chief Diaz” and “Honk 4 Diaz ❤️”. Over the course of an hour, a handful of drivers honked their support, prompting cheers from the group, which included Pacific Merchant Shipping Association vice president Jordan Royer and Burien City Councilmember Jimmy Matta.
Some of the demonstrators told PubliCola they supported Diaz because he had been present and available in their communities when other police were not. “I’m here to support the chief because he’s always been there to support the [Chinatown/International District] ever since he came on board,” said Gary Lee, cochair of the CID Public Safety Council. “And he would come to our events.”
Matta said he respected Diaz for reaching out to the South Park community as a patrol officer in the area and providing a positive model to kids at a time when “we were losing a lot of our children to gang violence, to drugs, the same things that we’re having now going on in our streets. … I just believe that it’s important to make sure that we support an individual that’s done the hard work.”
Royer and Lee both said they just didn’t think Diaz is the kind of person who would sexually harass women or engage in gender or racial discrimination.
“We go back a long way,” Royer said said. “I know his character. I know who he is, and that’s why I’m supporting him. … What happens if the investigation comes back, and he’s cleared? How does he clear his name? It just seems like a really good man is getting trashed.”
None of the people PubliCola spoke to said they were 100 percent certain Diaz was innocent, as Beach and Martinez have suggested. “If the process played out he was found factually [guilty] of wrongdoing, then you let the chips fall where they may,” Royer said. “I’d be very disappointed. I’d be upset. But I wouldn’t be out here.”
“I’m glad that the mayor has given [Diaz] the benefit of doubt in this deal” by keeping him on at the police department, Matta said. “Now, when the investigation comes through, we’ll see what happens. There may be a different conversation, because no woman, no personal of color, nobody should be put in a situation where it’s not a healthy work environment.”
Instead of firing Diaz outright, Harrell assigned him to an unspecified “special projects” role. When he returns to the department (from an indeterminate personal leave), Diaz will almost certainly have to return as a lieutenant—the rank he held before Harrell appointed him police chief.
Civil service rules for police stipulate that anyone assigned to the rank of captain or higher, then removed, has the right to return to their previous highest rank—for Diaz, who never took a test to become a captain, that rank is lieutenant. New interim chief Sue Rahr could get around this requirement by appointing Diaz assistant or deputy chief, but that appears unlikely, given the still-unresolved allegations that led to his removal last week.
A lower rank would come with a significant reduction in pay and perks for the former chief, who makes a base salary just shy of $340,000. Currently, the top pay for a lieutenant, before overtime, is just over $199,000, although long-serving lieutenants also receive “longevity premiums”; Diaz, who has been with the department for 27 years, would presumably be eligible for a 12 percent salary bump, which would put his base pay in the low $200,000s.
Rahr will make a base salary of nearly $350,000 a year, setting up the next chief, whoever they are, to make even more. Earlier this year, the city signed a contract with Seattle’s largest police union that gave rank and file officers a retroactive pay increase of 24 percent, making Seattle police officers the highest-paid in the region, with six-figure starting salaries.
Neither SPD’s communications office nor Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office responded to PubliCola’s inquiries about Diaz’s status at the department.
Note: This story has been corrected. Due to a brain freeze, I incorrectly identified Jimmy Matta as the mayor of Burien. Kevin Schilling is, of course, the current mayor of Burien. Here’s a story about him.
