Category: housing

Affordability, City Council, housing, Mayor Wilson, Police, Taxes

Mayor Katie Wilson Says She’s “Doing a Reset” on Housing Agenda, “Very Hopeful” About Police Chief

In Part 2 of our interview, the mayor talks about the police chief and potential cuts to SPD’s budget, the future of the city’s CARE alternative first responder team, and what’s happening with her affordability agenda.

By Erica C. Barnett

PubliCola sat down this week with Mayor Katie Wilson to talk about how her agenda is going at six months in. This is Part 2 of our interview, which took place at City Hall on Tuesday morning. Read Part 1 here.

PubliCola (ECB):  Let’s shift gears to SPD. You decided to keep Police Chief Shon Barnes when you came in. You said you’re going to evaluate his performance and decide how to proceed. Have you made any progress on that evaluation?

Mayor Katie Wilson (KW): I am very hopeful about the relationship that Chief Barnes and I are building, and the work that we’re doing with Chief Barnes and SPD, especially around neighborhood of policing models.

ECB: So are you planning to keep him on as chief?

KW: I’m not making an announcement right now. [Pauses]. Yes, I’m retaining Chief Barnes, and we’re working on a number of things.

ECB: Are you concerned by any of the stuff that has come out on PubliCola and elsewhere about anti-LGBTQ statements and actions by Barnes, his deputies, and SPD officers, and the culture of SPD in general?

KW: Absolutely. And that’s one of the things that we’re working on. I think obviously SPD is a complicated department with a complicated history, and I also don’t think that leadership change changes that. So there’s really deep work that needs to happen within the department, and I’m confident that through a partnership with Chief Barnes, we can make some progress.

ECB: Barnes has said a few times now that he plans to keep hiring at the same pace even though the department’s own budget director said SPD will have to slow down hiring to stay within the budget. Councilmember Bob Kettle has said the same thing. At the same time, I’ve heard that you asked SPD to come up with $20 million in cuts. What would that level of cut look like, and what will you do if the police chief disagrees and keeps hiring?

KW: I’m the mayor. This is ultimately direction that’s coming from my office. We have not directed SPD to slow hiring at this point, and we are working with them very closely with the aim of making sure that they remain within their budget for this year,

ECB: And will there be budget cuts to SPD next year?

KW: We have asked all departments, including SPD, to model cuts, and we’re in that deliberative budget process. There are many things, many variables, but we have asked all departments to model cuts, anticipating that all departments will need to take some kind of cut.

ECB: If you propose an actual cut, conservative media like KOMO are going to scream that you’re defunding the police. How likely is it that we’ll actually see cuts to the police budget?

KW: That’s not just up to me, that’s also up to the council. Big picture, we’re in a very challenging budget situation, where we’re facing a shortfall of $175 million. Plus, JumpStart [tax] revenues are certainly not increasing significantly. And so we’ll have to make some hard decisions across the board.

“It is an option to dig deeper into JumpStart, which means basically cuts to affordable housing. Capital gains tax is an option, but it’s not something where we would see revenue in the short term.  Obviously, raising JumpStart is also an option. We’re still working on other progressive revenue ideas, but we don’t have a silver bullet.”

ECB: Your fire district proposal would have really helped with the budget. Obviously, it’s not happening. So, what else is left? Raiding JumpStart even more?

KW: I mean, yes, it is an option to dig deeper into JumpStart, which means basically cuts to affordable housing. Capital gains tax is an option, but it’s not something where we would see revenue in the short term. It might take a couple years to get that up and running, so that doesn’t [help with] next year’s budget. Obviously, raising JumpStart is also an option. We’re still working on other progressive revenue ideas, but we don’t have a silver bullet.

For me, the bottom line is, we are going to be trying to preserve programs and services that directly serve Seattle residents, that contribute to a city that’s affordable and livable, and support our most vulnerable communities. So there’s definitely values guiding where we might choose to cut. And we’re also in the process now of talking with each council member to understand what their priorities are, the things that they would absolutely want to be preserved, so that we can try to transmit a budget where they see their priorities represented.

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

Support PubliCola

ECB: What’s going to happen to the CARE Team [whose authority was sharply curtailed in the last police contract]? Do you see a way forward for them?

KW: Obviously there are constraints in the police contract, but we’ve been working with the CARE Team and with SPD, and there’s plenty of work out there. There’s plenty of people in crisis, so it’s really a matter of how do we get the CARE team to a place where they’re serving people in crisis. And I think there’s a lot of opportunities to do that, that may be in some cases outside of the 911 dispatch system. So we’re working on making sure that we’re fully utilizing that team.

ECB: CARE is integrated into the 911 dispatch system [911 is known as the CARE Department]—what would it mean to take them out of that system?

KW: I haven’t heard like the latest on what that looks like, but I know that we’ve been working with them and SPD, to try to make sure that they’re not sitting idle.

ECB: If you talk to [CARE Department Chief] Amy Barden, she would say, ‘We’re supposed to be a co-equal department with the fire and police departments, and we can’t go into parking lots‘ [because of the contract].

KW: Yeah, I’m, very, very aware.

ECB: You’ve announced legislation that would ban rental junk fees, and you decided not to move forward with proposals to change the three-day notice requirement for evictions and overturn the roommate law. You’ve also delayed changes to the Mandatory Housing Affordability program that developers say they need to move housing projects forward. The comprehensive plan update is delayed by a lawsuit, which is outside your control. Is there anything else moving forward on affordability this year?

KW: There’s so many pieces to housing. I ran on affordable and abundant housing, and the things that you need to do to advance it are legion. I think what I realized is that for a lot of constituencies on the outside, they want to see more of a vision on housing, and when we’re moving forward with just one piece, then people look at that and they’re like, ‘Oh, that’s your vision on housing, but what about this, what about this, what about this?’ And it kind of accentuates that feeling of, ‘Why weren’t we brought in?’

“In this very difficult budget process, I think the fight is going to be over how to retain funding for existing food security programs at the city. There was a lot that was added in the last budget cycle as one-time, like the expansion of Fresh Bucks, so we are going to have to figure out in this budget how to maintain those.”

So I think what we’re trying to do here is a little bit of a reset, where we can set a table, bring people in, and look at what is it going to take to accelerate housing, from the private market all the way to affordable housing and permanent support housing. Including people’s concerns about displacement, which are totally valid. We’re going to keep it a tight process, but what I’m hoping will come out of that is a little bit more of, ‘Here’s our work plan on housing for the next four years.’ And so that is a process that we’re about to embark on that I think will give us a more coherent vision for housing affordability.

When I think about affordability, housing is core, obviously, but food is a big part of this. Free preschool lunches—I think that’s a really impactful investment that we’re making. Honestly, in this very difficult budget process, I think the fight is going to be over how to retain funding for existing food security programs at the city. There was a lot that was added in the last budget cycle as one-time, like the expansion of Fresh Bucks, so we are going to have to figure out in this budget how to maintain those.

Obviously, the FEPP levy implementation included significant expansions of subsidized child care and preschool program that are certainly affordability investments. I think there’s a larger conversation around child care, which is also not just about subsidy, but also about the supply side, and what it takes to open and operate childcare. We’re working with the business community on what they’re doing to facilitate childcare. That’s a conversation that I think we’re going to be teeing up before the end of the year, but it’s not going to result in policy before the end of the year.

ECB The best thing about the World Cup for me, and I think for a lot of people, has been being able to just walk around in Pioneer Square without cars, and there’s food trucks and there’s excitement and there’s people, and it’s just a vibe. So have you given any thought to taking some of the lessons from that experience, like pedestrianizing the streets, or allowing food trucks, or any of the other things that have made downtown an exciting place to be over these past few weeks?

KW: I think that the last few weeks in Seattle have been amazing, and people are discovering their city anew, and we’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how do we keep that momentum going, how do we do more of this? Obviously, I’m a big fan of pedestrianizing spaces, and I think that the vitality of our city depends on having of people-centered spaces where people can go and hang out and go to restaurants and all that. So yeah, we’re thinking about how we can carry that forward, and I don’t have any specific plans to announce right now, but we’re working on that.

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 an estimated $22 million last year, because of a precipitous drop in the number of housing projects in the pipeline. UPDATE: Actual MHA revenues last year were $47 million, according to numbers published on July 20, thanks mostly to several large apartment buildings. We’ll have more on this in a separate post.

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.

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.

 

housing, podcasts

Seattle Nice: Is Seattle’s Housing Market In Trouble?

By Erica C. Barnett

On the latest episode of Seattle Nice, we talked to Redfin’s chief economist, Daryl Fairweather, about the recent slowdown of Seattle’s housing market and what it means for the future of our economy.

When we talk about a “decline” in the housing market, that refers to a slowdown or reversal of housing price increases because more people are selling than buying—in other words, it’s bad news for people who already own houses that they are trying to sell, but potential good news for those trying to buy or rent here.

That’s an important distinction I tried to keep in focus as we talked about what a “slowdown” means for the city. Renters, who make up more than half of Seattle residents, bear the brunt of an increasingly expensive housing market; although buying a home in Seattle has become much more expensive than renting, anyone who does manage to buy a house has their monthly housing costs more or less locked in place, apart from annual tax increases, while rent generally increases unpredictably every year.

For those who already own houses, it’s true that the equity they gain through monthly mortgage payments only comes to fruition when they sell, which may not make sense if they plan to stay in Seattle, since they would have to buy a new place in the same expensive market. However, longer-term Seattle house owners whose mortgage is, say, $3,000 a month are exponentially better off than renters who would have to pay thousands more for the same house, since rent goes up so much faster than property taxes.

All of which is to say: If the pace of job growth continues to stall, as Fairweather predicts it will, affordability will improve somewhat. But, Fairweather noted, “we’ve already gotten to this place where affordability has gotten so bad that I don’t know if people will really feel like things are getting better for them” even if housing prices decline a bit. For renters, “if you’re going from $2,000 a month rent to $3,000 a month rent, and then I’m telling you, ‘Oh, but next month or next year it’s going to be $2,995, it doesn’t really feel like things are getting meaningfully better,” Fairweather said.

Fairweather also threw some cold water on David’s belief that AI could be a tool to meaningfully lower the cost of housing. Both she and David are more techno-optimistic than I am, but Fairweather noted that most of the factors that have increased the cost of housing development have nothing to do with brainstorming or permit times (two things David and Fairweather said AI might help with) but construction materials and human physical labor, which can’t be digitized.

Sandeep also brought up his “heretical view” that the region should expand its growth boundaries to allow much more housing outside current growth limits, which already allow significant amounts of suburban sprawl. The argument against sprawl isn’t so much an anti-housing argument, in my view; it’s that sprawl is energy-intensive and destroys natural resources (in our region, forests) and farmland while requiring huge investments in infrastructure that contributes to climate change, like the freeways and feeder roads to move people from the suburbs to their jobs in Seattle by car.

In addition, Fairweather said, moving the urban growth boundary outward “results in longer commute times … and if they’re paying for gas on top of their mortgage, then maybe they’re not actually doing any better, or maybe their quality of life isn’t any better” than it would be if they paid for a more expensive house closer to the city.

homelessness, housing, Trump

New Federal Guidelines Put Funding for Permanent Supportive Housing at Risk

By Erica C. Barnett

After a long delay resulting in part from a lawsuit by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development has released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for $4 billion in federal funding for homeless shelters and transitional housing. The new guidelines signal a move toward federal funding for temporary transitional housing, street outreach, and faith-based programs that have not previously received federal dollars, and away from permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people.

The result could be a significant reduction in federal funding for local homelessness programs and a resurgence in funding for transitional housing. Seattle, like many other cities, moved away from transitional housing about a decade ago in favor of permanent housing programs like rapid rehousing—essentially, subsidies for people to rent in the private market—and permanent supportive housing. The annual NOFO is administered by the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA), acting as the Continuum of Care (CoC) for the Seattle region.

The new guidelines serve as a replacement for a proposal last year that homeless service providers and advocates said would make it virtually impossible for Seattle-area programs to get federal funding, largely because they placed a 30 percent on funding for permanent supportive housing programs, which make up the bulk of federally funded homelessness programs in Seattle and King County.

While the new NOFO no longer includes this cap, it also makes about 40 percent of the package newly competitive, using a points system that awards extra points to programs that promote “self-sufficiency” and include service participation requirements, such as mandatory substance abuse treatment.

Currently, almost all of the federal funding for homelessness programs in the region, around $60 million (of $67 million total), goes toward permanent supportive housing for people with disabilities, including mental illness and addiction, who need intensive case management and other services.

The new NOFO includes pages and pages of bellicose language about “housing first”—the idea that housing is a necessary condition for recovery and self-sufficiency—calling the approach “a profound failure by any measure.” (Conservatives and the Trump Administration have defined “housing first,” inaccurately, as “housing only,” when such programs actually include supportive services designed to address underlying conditions that lead or contribute to homelessness.)

And it specifically calls out Seattle and King County, along with Portland, as areas of the country where overdoses are high and crime related to homelessness is supposedly out of control.

“HUD is restoring the CoC program to its original goals of reducing homelessness and optimizing self-sufficiency by focusing on meaningful outcomes, expanding  competition, prioritizing treatment, economic independence, and emphasizing law and order,” the NOFO says.

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

Support PubliCola

Despite some over-the-top political rhetoric, the new requirements do not include restrictions such as mandatory sobriety. They do require homeless service providers to “attest” that they won’t operate safe drug consumption sites or ” knowingly permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control” under a law widely known as the “crack house law.” That law says no one can own or lease a property “for the purpose of” manufacturing or selling illegal drugs, a provision that has not been applied to housing for unsheltered people.

The new application guidelines also open the door for nontraditional providers, including faith-based groups and organizations that do outreach, to get federal funding. The guidelines give extra points for organizations who “cooperate and [do] not interfere or impede with the enforcement of local laws such as public camping and public drug use laws and assist/be willing to assist first responders in their efforts to engage homeless individuals.”

A group of providers, advocates, and elected officials are meeting this afternoon to discuss the possible implications of the new NOFO rules.

Earlier this week, HUD also released the national results of the annual Point in Time Count, traditionally a one-night count of unsheltered people conducted in January. That count found 16,936 people living unsheltered in the King County region. The KCRHA had planned to release its own PIT count, which is based on one-on-one interviews and statistical sampling, last week, but is now delaying the release until later this month.

City Council, Courts, Density, homelessness, housing, Mayor Wilson

This Week on PubliCola: April 11, 2026

Shelter expansion, anti-apartment pushback, Northeast Seattle gets dedicated cops, and a bunch of other stories you may have missed this week.

By Erica C. Barnett

Monday, April 6

Seattle Nice: Mayor Wilson Wants to Expand Housing Faster

On this week’s episode of Seattle Nice, we talked about how Mayor Katie Wilson’s personal experience renting in Seattle may have impacted her decision to go “bigger, taller, and faster” on the city’s comprehensive plan. We also talked about City Councilmember Maritza Rivera’s still-vague proposal to “audit the Human Services Department.”

Councilmember Rivera Wants to Audit Human Services

Speaking of which, here’s what we know about that proposal: Rivera believes that in light of King County’s audit, which found serious problems with some its own human services contracts, the city should audit its own human services contracts. The auditor’s office told us this would be a long, involved process; generally, their audits are more focused and happen at the direction of more than just one councilmember.

Tuesday, April 7

Seattle Council Hears from Renters Who Want Quality of Life and Homeowners Who Want to Keep Neighborhoods to Themselves

A meeting on the proposed comprehensive plan update, which could allow some apartments in parts of the city that are not directly on large, polluting arterial roads and highways, broke down along predictable lines: Renters and housing advocates asked for the right to live in Seattle’s quieter neighborhoods, and housing opponents argued that allowing apartments near them would be tantamount to clear-cutting Seattle, murdering orcas, and making birds go extinct.

Wednesday, April 8

SPD Dedicates Three Officers to Magnuson Park, Citing Success with “Disorder” and Property Crimes During Pilot

The Seattle Police Department is permanently assigning three officers to the area around Magnuson Park, a large lakefront park in an affluent part of Northeast Seattle where residents, and Councilmember Rivera, have been calling for more cops to crack down on loud summertime parties and street racing. The park is home to hundreds of low-income residents who live in apartments run by two nonprofits; it’s also where police shot and killed Charleena Lyles, a woman who called 911 during a mental-health crisis.

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

Support PubliCola

 

Thursday, April 9

Larger Library Levy Moves Forward

The city council added nearly $70 million to a $410 million library levy renewal that will be on the ballot this year, including new funds for repairs and maintenance at the downtown library, air conditioning for libraries that don’t have it, and more electronic copies of popular books. Rivera voted against every amendment, citing the need for fiscal responsibility as the city approaches a state-imposed cap on property tax levies.

Founder of AI Worker Surveillance Startup Appointed to Ethics Commission

Evan Smith, formerly of Starbucks, created a system for companies to spy on retail workers by recording all their conversations and using AI to analyze their speech for compliance with company policy. Councilmembers Rivera and Joy Hollingsworth nominated him to serve on the city’s Ethics and Elections Commission.

County Assessor Pleads Not Guilty to Stalking, Must Wear Ankle Monitor in Five-Year No Contact Order

John Arthur Wilson, who has refused to step down from his elected role as King County Assessor despite being arrested for stalking and harassing his ex-fiancée, was slapped with a five-year no-contact order while awaiting trial on stalking charges. He’ll have to wear an ankle monitor to ensure he doesn’t come within 1,000 feet of his ex; his term expires at the end of this year.

Friday, April 10

Developers Ask for Mandatory Affordable Housing Fee Holiday as Permits for New Apartments Dry Up

Seven years ago, the city approved Mandatory Housing Affordability fees on new development; the fees fund affordable housing projects, or developers can build affordable units on site. Since then, development has slackened and the cost of building has gone up, and developers say the fees are a major reason. Now, they’re asking the city to lower the fees temporarily. But the request raises larger questions about how Seattle funds affordable housing, and whether it’s smart to treat apartments like a negative thing by charging special fees on new development.

Also this week: I covered two stories exclusively on Bluesky.

First, the mayor met with opponents of police surveillance cameras in a Zoom town hall that was clearly frustrating for both sides. (I attended a watch party at Stoup on Capitol Hill.) Wilson seems committed to turning on the cameras proposed by her predecessor, Bruce Harrell, and approved by the previous city council, and opponents of police surveillance feel betrayed by the mayor they supported, in part, because they thought she shared their commitment to getting rid of the cameras.

Second, Wilson announced that the city has secured a site for the first 75 units of new shelter of her term—a small step toward the 1,000 new shelter units she promised during her first year. The announcement came at a public meeting where the mayor moderated a panel and took questions from the public, a dramatic departure from the way most previous mayors have rolled out big announcements.

I also talked about these stories and more on Hacks and Wonks with Crystal Fincher on Friday; we also discussed the lawsuit that was filed this week to stop the state’s new high-earners’ income tax, some sheriff’s opposition to a new law saying they can’t serve if their law enforcement certification has been revoked, and more.

 

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

Support PubliCola