1. While much of the city council was on vacation, transportation committee chair Rob Saka apparently spent his two-week summer break padding out his already messy Vision Zero legislation, which is now much longer—but no more substantive—than the draft he introduced as an “information item” in late August.
Saka first rolled out his three draft bills one day before Mayor Katie Wilson issued several substantive executive orders on traffic safety, in what seemed like a clear attempt to get ahead of the mayor’s announcement. (Saka declined to participate in the mayor’s event, which two of his colleagues attended). At his committee meeting on Tuesday, Saka emphasized the fact that his legislation technically came out first.
“I suppose great minds can arrive at some of the same intersections as we appear to have done and aligned on from a legislative and executive perspective, and that’s a good thing. I’m pleased to see additional complementary actions from the mayor,” Saka said.
But Saka still hasn’t formally introduced his legislation, which remained an “informational item” on Tuesday’s agenda. And his latest draft bills remain almost entirely nonsubstantive, requesting reports from the Seattle Department of Transportation, issuing recommendations on truck side guards to protect cyclists and pedestrians, and giving SDOT the “authority” to do various things that it already has the authority to do. Even sections that appear to require SDOT to produce various reports are essentially just requests, since SDOT does not answer to the city council. (Generally speaking, if the council really wants a department to do something, they pass a budget “proviso” that conditions funding on whatever action the council wants.)
One thing that can be said for Saka’s legislation: It’s definitely longer now, with more statements of purpose than there are letters in the alphabet. Ordinarily, these kinds of statements are known as “recitals” and they occur at the beginning of a bill to establish the purported reasons the legislation is necessary. (See, for instance, the 23 “whereas” clauses used to justify the 2024 ordinance reinstating a ban on “prostitution loitering.”)
But in an unusual twist, Saka is proposing to give each of these individual statements more force by including them in the bill as official findings, which could be used in the future to interpret whether legislation complied with the council’s intent.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
To put this in concrete terms: Saka’s proposal, everything from A., affirming that Vision Zero is “effective,” to Z., stating that 26 percent of streets lack sidewalks, to CC., affirming that the city supports union labor, would have the force of law. Item L., affirming that “Each life lost or constrained due to crashes represents not only loss and grief for affected loved ones but an individual’s unrealized potential,” would be become part of the ordinance itself.
Editor’s note: This story originally said the findings section of Saka’s Vision Zero ordinance—the one with Sections A through CC—would go into the Seattle Municipal Code. In fact, they would become part of the adopted ordinance, but not the municipal code. Findings have more weight than recitals, but less than a law such as a speed limit. We regret the error.
Saka wants to pass his bills out of committee on September 17, which means that even though he hasn’t formally introduced them yet, any amendments are due today. Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, sounding incredulous, said yesterday, “I’ve never seen an amendment deadline for a piece of legislation that has not formally been introduced yet.”
Councilmember Eddie Lin said he would like to hear from SDOT before voting on the bill, but Saka said there was no need. “In fact, it’s pretty standard practice, when we talk about who’s at the table, to have our central staff at the table, sometimes community at the table, but not having the executive branch. This is a legislative effort. This is a legislative effort, I want to underscore,” Saka said. The rest of the council will now have to decide if they want to give Saka his way or put the legislation off until after the budget—or indefinitely.
2. This year’s citywide day of service—rechristened “Show Up, Seattle!”—includes an encampment “cleanup” event hosted by We Heart Seattle, a local group whose founder, Andrea Suarez, regularly teams up with right-wing influencer Jonathan Choe on videos where they harass and shame unsheltered people.
Former mayor Bruce Harrell’s office rejected We Heart Seattle’s initial application to participate in the day of service in 2022, but since then, they’ve gotten the OK every year.
That’s despite a controversial reputation and accusations that they frequently throw away people’s possessions and occupied tents.
In addition to arguing that homeless people “refuse” treatment, Suarez has railed against Narcan distribution and argued for “banning tents” on the grounds that they “enable” homeless people to keep living outside with addiction. (A 2022 story in Willamette Week quoted Suarez saying that giving people food and clean needles amounted to “coddling” a baby in his “crib.”)
The group’s Gresham, Oregon-based co-founder, Kevin Dahlgren, pled guilty last year to identity theft, theft, and misconduct after stealing from at least one unsheltered person as well as the city of Gresham.
We Heart Seattle is currently under a state investigation for allegedly failing to train its volunteer staff on how to properly pick up and dispose of hazardous materials, including needles. Suarez has portrayed herself as a victim of state overreach, using the investigation as an opportunity to fundraise for the group.
A spokesperson for the Department of Neighborhoods, which now sponsors the day of service said We Heart Seattle met the criteria to qualify for its day of volunteerism.So far, just four people have signed up, although don’t be surprised when the group posts—as it did last year—that the city-sanctioned event was a “truly epic” success.
