Tag: Dan Strauss

City Council, homelessness

Strauss Legislation Would Require RV Residents to Get Permits, Accept “Appropriate” Shelter

RV residents who violate the permit terms— for example, by declining shelter too many times or failing to “comply with all laws”—would permanently forfeit their right to park overnight in Seattle. 

By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmember Dan Strauss is proposing legislation that will prohibit people from parking RVs on Seattle streets for more than two hours at a time without a permit, including in the industrial areas that are currently the only place RVs can be legally parked overnight.

The legislation would require everyone living in an RV or “fifth wheel” trailer to apply for a permit with the city; only people who are the registered owners of RVs with up-to-date registration would be eligible to apply, and only people counted in a one-time “census” of every RV in the city would be eligible for a permit, which would cap the program at an estimated 400 to 500 people citywide.

As a condition of the permits, RV residents would be required to enroll in case management and eventually go into housing or shelter. Under the legislation, if an RV resident violates any of the permit requirements or “turns down offers of appropriate shelter” more than five times, they will lose their permit and forfeit their right to park inside the city.

“Appropriate” is not defined in the legislation, and it’s unclear who will decide what counts as appropriate. It’s a truism among homeless service providers that people don’t generally turn down shelter that works for their needs, so by definition, a housing or shelter offer that someone turns down is inappropriate for that person at that time.

The goal, Strauss told PubliCola on Monday, is to get everyone currently living in RVs to move to a sanctioned “safe lot,” a shelter, or permanent housing, and to eliminate RVs from city streets.

“Through this framework, we are being really clear about what is and is not going to be an option,” Strauss said. “If you live in the city of Seattle in your RV while we get additional safe lots stood up, you’ll need to have a permit, and when we have safe lots stood up, you need to live in a safe lot if you want to live in an RV.”

“We want to be able to say, in a year from now, ‘We are no longer allowing motor homes and fifth wheels on our streets.'”

Permitted RV residents would have to park in the geographic area where they receive their permits. Strauss said this provision ensures outreach workers can locate their clients; however, no similar provision applies to people living in tents, on the street, or in other types of vehicles, who can move freely about the city.

Strauss’ plan would provide funding for a new safe lot for RVs whose owners are ready to move into shelter or housing; a separate RV storage lot for those want the ability to go back to their vehicles if shelter doesn’t work out; and seven more Unified Care Team members to coordinate with outreach workers who work with vehicle residents.

The Unified Care Team is a team of city employees, vastly expanded under Bruce Harrell, that removes encampments and, in some cases, refers their displaced residents to available shelter beds.

Strauss’ plan to expand RV parking and shelter would cost $3.5 million a year on an ongoing basis, with a funding boost of $1.5 million at the beginning of implementation to get the program going. The money has already been set aside in the budget, thanks to previous actions by Strauss, but could be spent on other purposes if the council decided not to use it for the RV residence program.

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

Support PubliCola

 

A spokesman for Mayor Katie Wilson’s office said Wilson is “supportive in principle of new safe lots, storage and additional outreach.” However, he added, Wilson’s office “has shared operational and policy concerns about the details of the permit program, and continue[s] to review the current legislation.”

Strauss worked with Vehicle Resident Outreach, a project run by the University Heights Center, on the legislation. Jen Manlief, the VRO program manager, called the legislation “a step in the right direction” that provides “places for people to be. It’s not just hiring people to put bandaids on things.”

Currently, Manlief said, “there’s a lot of RVs and there’s nowhere for them to be. What we’re doing now as outreach workers is chasing them around the city and not solving anything.”

But other homeless advocates have expressed concern about the more punitive elements of the proposal, which could result in vehicle impoundments that lead to an increase in street homelessness. For example, one of the ordinances expresses an “intent” to give unpermitted RV owners up to three warnings before towing away their homes, but explicitly allows “impounding of motor homes and travel trailers without notice.”

Alison Eisinger, director of the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, said, “We appreciate Councilmember Strauss’ proposal to assist people living in RVs through additional dedicated safe parking, skilled outreach, and the idea of a vehicle storage program.”

However, she added, “we have significant concerns about his suggested permit program, which as written is punitive and likely unworkable. What would happen to people who miss the one-time opportunity to get a permit, whose circumstances change, or who start living in an RV after the permitting process is closed?”

It’s also unclear what will happen if there’s insufficient shelter for people who do get the permits. In San Francisco, a similar temporary RV permit system had to be extended because there weren’t enough places for people living in RVs to go.

Strauss said he believes people who want to live in their vehicles, rather than coming into shelter, will figure out a way to comply with the law, possibly by moving into smaller vehicles. “Humans are very smart, and if they’re certain they need to live in their vehicle in the city of Seattle, they will likely find a vehicle that is not as unique as an RV, in terms of size, space, and hazardous materials, where they can continue to live in their vehicle,” Strauss said.

Strauss’ legislation anticipates that RV residents will get direct, dedicated access to tiny houses, a model that has worked well at Salmon Bay Village—a now-dismantled safe lot with 11 tiny houses operated by the Low Institute Housing Institute in Interbay. The village was replaced by an indoor pickleball complex; LIHI plans to open a larger safe lot in West Seattle, the Glassyard Commons, in November, with space for 72 vehicles and 20 tiny houses.

LIHI director Sharon Lee said 60 percent of the 87 people who lived in Salmon Bay Village over 18 months went on to permanent housing; according to one-pager on the village, LIHI was able to permanently dispose of 67 RVs.

“Salmon Bay showed that people are happy to get out of their rundown RVs and into a clean, habitable, nice tiny house with a kitchen and hygiene and all of the amenities,” Lee said.

Currently, Lee noted, many RVs get reused after they’re impounded by the city, showing back up on city streets in worse condition than before. “You can’t just keep people living in their rundown RV,” Lee said. “The important thing is that rundown RVs should be destroyed and not reused.”

The legislation sets up many pitfalls that could make RV residents ineligible for permits or cause them to lose a permit after it’s issued, including expired tags, visible trash, or leaving a pet tied up outside and “unattended.” The bill also requires RV residents to “comply with all laws,” a vague but all-encompassing directive. It also stipulates that the only people who will be eligible for permits are those counted in a one-time “census” by the city’s Human Services Department; any vehicle residents who aren’t included in that count, including those who arrive in Seattle or starts living in an RV later, would be violating the law.

Permit holders would be allowed to park in industrial areas for up to 72 hours, the time limit that applies to all on-street parking in the city. They’d still risk losing their vehicles if they break down and can’t be moved, just like today.

A resolution accompanying the five ordinances Strauss is proposing expresses the city’s commitment to “removing eco-blocks currently placed in City right-of-way” within six months. These large concrete blocks have proliferated all over industrial parts of Ballard, which Strauss represents, as well as parts of SoDo, West Seattle, other neighborhoods—placed illegally in city rights-of-way by businesses who don’t want RVs parking outside.

“Removing the eco-blocks gives the RVs a place to be, which is something we’ve been fighting for for the last five years,” Manlief said. However, the resolution does not say who would be responsible for removing eco-blocks or identify any enforcement mechanism to ensure it actually happens.

Lee says the proposal strikes a good balance between providing new places for people living in RVs to relocate and getting RVs off the streets of Seattle. “I think it creates an incentive for long-term RV dwellers to move into shelter and tiny houses or housing—or, for that matter, to be receiving help to reunite with family or friends,” Lee said.

The council’s public safety committee discussed Strauss’ proposal for the first time on Tuesday. Strauss has said he plans to bring the bills back to committee on September 22, after the council’s annual August recess. It’s an ambitious timeline. Homeless advocates will likely push the council to spend time making the bill less punitive toward RV residents, and the council will be working by then on next year’s budget, which generally occupies most of their attention through November.

City Council, Density, housing, Utilities

Seattle May Actually Limit Anti-Housing Land Use Appeals; More People Will be Eligible for Utility Discounts

 

1. The Seattle City Council’s land use committee will vote tomorrow on a proposal, from Councilmember Eddie Lin, to eliminate an appeals process that allows activists to halt pro-density legislation before it becomes law. Currently, anyone can stop or delay city land use decisions by filing an appeal with the city hearing examiner under the State Environmental Policy Act, arguing that the city hasn’t done enough environmental review before proposing legislation that would change city land use law.

Speaking to PubliCola on Tuesday, Lin said the vast majority of appeals are filed by a relatively small group of activists and attorneys with long experience appealing  complicated land use laws.

“The fact that we often see the same people appeal  again and again shows that 99 percent of Seattleites, if not 99.9 percent, do not find [hearing examiner appeals] a way to engage” on land use issues, Lin said. “This is a small number of people engagnig who have the resources” to file complex legal appeals.

Lin’s legislation would remove the right to appeal land use decisions to a hearing examiner, requiring opponents of land use legislation to appeal directly to the state Growth Management Hearings Board or King County Superior Court. Eliminating the local appeals process allows legislation to go into effect while the activists and lawyers appeal through the other two available avenues. Had the legislation been in place when the council took up the remaining parts of the long-overdue Comprehensive Plan update, the council would have spent the last few months meeting to discuss important amendments to the plan; instead, it’s stalled until next year at the earliest.

“I’ve never been a big fan of our SEPA appeals process,” Lin said. “I’ve seen the decades-long delays [it caused] to Fort Lawton housing and the Burke-Gilman Trail,” two projects that have been stalled for years by a seemingly endless series of environmental appeals. (Opponents argue that it’s better for the environment to move cyclists next to a busy arterial roadway rather than the current path where, it just so happens, a lot of industrial businesses like to drive their trucks.)

Activists lined up earlier this month to denounce the legislation as a reckless giveaway to developers that would allow them to “clearcut” Seattle, sacrificing trees, orcas and birds to apartments in Seattle’s suburban-style single-family neighborhoods. The land use committee will discuss Lin’s proposal tomorrow at 9:30; so far, there’s just one amendment, from Council President Joy Hollingsworth. It would add a 30-day public comment period to every land use decision that would be exempted from hearing examiner appeals by Lin’s legislation.

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

Support PubliCola

 

2. On Tuesday, the council approved legislation PubliCola covered last month that aims to increase participation in the city’s Utility Discount Program by increasing the threshold for eligibility from 70 percent of the state median income to 60 percent of Seattle’s muchhigher median income next year, with two more bumps—to 70 percent  of Seattle median in 2027 and 80 percent in 2028. Both those increases will require separate legislation.

The bill’s sponsor, Dan Strauss, initially seemed surprised at the lack of controversy surrounding the proposal, which would result in slight utility rate increases and would make UDP one of the easiest income-based programs to apply for. A press availability to discuss the bill (and other topics) enticed just one reporter (me), and the vote on Tuesday was unanimous—and even followed by a rare burst of applause for every council member.

One challenge the program has faced is getting more eligible people to sign up; at the end of last year, only about 36 percent of eligible Seattle residents were participating in the program. To apply, visit the city’s Utility Discount Program page.

City Council, housing

“We’re Gonna Throw It Away.” Dan Strauss, on Losing End of Stadium Housing Vote, Predicts Disaster for Industrial Seattle

By Erica C. Barnett

On a 6-3 vote yesterday, the Seattle City Council approved legislation sponsored by Council President Sara Nelson to allow new apartments in the area immediately south of Seattle’s two stadiums, after weeks of often acrimonious debate between supporters of the bill (including affordable housing developers, community groups, small manufacturers, and the Building Trades union) and opponents (representatives from maritime industries, the Port, and housing advocates who argue it’s unhealthy to allow apartments on arterial streets near an industrial zone.)

Councilmember Rob Saka, considered the swing vote, voted “yes,” as did Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who voted against the bill in committee.

The new law will allow a maximum of 990 apartments, half of them affordable to people making less than 90 percent of median income (smaller units would lower income limits). Under amendments adopted yesterday, renters would have to affirm in their lease that they know they’re living in a “geologic hazard” area that’s vulnerable during earthquakes; building owners would have to post several prominent warning signs saying the same; and housing would be prohibited along the west side of First Ave. S., the main artery through the area. The amendments also prohibit building owners from seeking any public subsidy at any point, including for future environmental remediation.

Without belaboring the five-hour meeting (which I covered in real time over on Bluesky), one key dynamic jumped out: Councilmember Dan Strauss, who opposed Nelson’s legislation from the jump, dominated yesterday’s meeting, first by attempting repeatedly to delay the vote, and then by reiterating his arguments against the proposal long after it was clear that the vote wasn’t going to go his way. In about three and a half hours of deliberation, which included nine amendments by other councilmembers, Strauss spoke for well over an hour, returning to the same points again and again and suggesting repeatedly that if his colleagues had only done their homework, they would be voting with him.

It’s common for city councilmembers to speak out in vociferously when they know they’re going to lose (as Bob Kettle, who also opposed the bill from the beginning, did yesterday, even accusing his colleagues of being “aligned with the Trump administration” by voting to put housing near a polluted area). It’s unusual, with the notable exception of former councilmember Kshama Sawant, for a council member to use every opportunity for comment to make the same repetitive points long after it’s clear they’ve lost.

Strauss returned more than a dozen times to the fact that hotels are already allowed around the stadiums, suggesting at one point that his colleagues probably weren’t even aware of that. (There’s a Silver Cloud Inn right next to the stadiums, so it’s hard to imagine they aren’t). Strausswas chair of the land use committee when the city adopted an updated industrial lands policy that was changed at the last minute to allow hotels and offices in the stadium district, but not housing, a decision Strauss characterized as a maximalist and permanent compromise. (Proponents of housing in the area have argued that the deal was actually the opposite—the city would approve industrial lands without the contentious housing element, then revisit the housing question later.)

“Again, say it with me now,” Strauss intoned, some four hours in. “This proposal could be built today, if the units were hotels.” Since one of the main arguments against housing in the area is that renters’ cars would jam up traffic to and from the Port’s freight terminals, it’s hard to see how hotels would be much better—unless the idea is that tourists would use transit and renters would not, a conclusion that isn’t borne out by Seattle’s own experience with parking mandates, which have shown that renters in areas served by transit are far less likely to own cars than other Seattle residents.

As the meeting neared its 7pm conclusion, Strauss went so far as to imply that the 990 proposed apartments would actually obliterate the city’s maritime and industrial industry. Gesturing toward the “orange cranes” on the waterfront outside City Hall, he wondered aloud, “how much training does it take to get a skilled operator? How much investment does it take? And we’re gonna throw it away. We’ll keep the picture of it, though, in the conference room.”

Strauss repeatedly suggested shadowy forces were at play in some of his colleagues’ yes votes, fixating on a comment from Cathy Moore about a walking tour she and Maritza Rivera took at which, they said, a neighborhood group member suggested vacating South Occidental Street near the stadiums so it could become a pedestrian-only zone.. “The package of amendments today clearly demonstrates that council members have good intent, and that they know that housing in this area is a bad idea, but feel compelled to vote on this proposal or for this proposal,” Strauss said. “Today, for even me, new information has come to light, which further leads me to believe there were commitments or things shared in private.”

“If the next step from here as an alley vacation, this isn’t about affordable housing or union-built anything—this is back to 2016 about a whole different conversation,” Strauss said. The apparent implication was that the owner of much of the property rezoned for housing yesterday, Chris Hansen, had cut a side deal with other council members to bring back his 2016 stadium proposal without Strauss’ knowledge; that proposal died after the council narrowly rejected a proposal to vacate Occidental. Rivera and Moore denied this and said they regretted bringing it up.

Strauss said the zoning change, if approved, would “possibly be the first decision before this council that cannot be taken back.” While it’s true that once a building goes up, the council doesn’t have the power to tear it down, the city does change zoning laws all the time. It seemed like what Strauss wanted to say is that he didn’t like the way his colleagues were voting. But that’s sometimes just part of the job.

City Council, Crime, Elections, public safety, Transportation

Transportation Levy Funds Leary Bypass of Burke-Gilman Trail; Council Escalates Street Racing Rhetoric (and Fines)

1. The Seattle City Council voted Tuesday to approve a $1.55 billion, eight-year transportation levy for the November ballot, and Mayor Bruce Harrell signed the legislation Wednesday.

In a reversal from its previous position, the council decided Tuesday to earmark $20 million to “complete” the long-disputed Burke-Gilman Trail by rerouting cyclists and pedestrians off the current route and onto new path next to busy Leary Way NW. Cycling advocates and industrial businesses have spent decades locked in a legal battle over the “missing link” of the trail along Shilshole Ave. NW, with business groups opposed to a straightforward link between two sections of the trail through Ballard.

By explicitly funding the Leary detour, Strauss said his amendment will finally settle that debate, “putting this 30-year problem to rest.” But the debate is likely to continue, even assuming voters approve the transportation levy and secure the $20 million for the Leary option. The proposed route, as we’ve reported previously, would require cyclists to cross 13 active intersections, the most of any alternative the city has studied, plus 33 driveways and loading docks—each presenting its own opportunities for collisions.

Three council members—Sara Nelson, Bob Kettle, and Maritza Rivera—voted against Strauss’ proposal, with Cathy Moore and Rob Saka reversing their previous “no” votes. Rivera said she supported completing the Missing Link, but that she didn’t support earmarking so much money for a specific option when there would be more opportunities to discuss the alternatives and finalize the details later; Nelson said she was concerned about stripping all but $6 million from an arterial maintenance fund that was supposed to help leverage millions of dollars in other investments.

Model T speedster photo via ModelTPix.com.

2. Also this week, the council’s public safety committee, chaired by Kettle, approved legislation that will allow police to issue tickets to anyone engaged in illegal street racing in Seattle.

The new ordinance (much like last year’s controversial drug law, which incorporated an existing state law into a local ordinance) imposes a fine of $500 for the first infraction and, thanks to an amendment added by Councilmember Rob Saka, escalating fines that top out at $1,500 per infraction. Another Saka amendment, modeled on a law in Kent, makes it a civil infraction for people to be “spectators” at street races.

“Many of these races are occurring because they’re putting on a sideshow. They’re putting on a show for people,” Saka said, adding that spectators can number in the “hundreds—hundreds!” The “key delta” between the Kent law and Seattle’s proposal, Saka added, is that Seattle’s only imposes a civil fine, while Kent’s allows criminal penalties.

“We can’t be afraid of taking risks and taking strong action to solve this problem that has plagued our city over and over again,” Saka said.

A council spokesperson said it “will ultimately be up to SPD” how to enforce the ban on watching street races, which could include issuing tickets on site or using footage from nearby surveillance cameras to track down and ticket people after the fact.

None of these measures are likely to end street racing, which has been illegal in Washington state since the age of the Model T. State law has banned street racing since at least 1915, suggesting it has been a perennial problem. The original law banning street races allowed officers to arrest drivers for “racing on the public highways,” except when local authorities set aside time for “speed trials or speed contests.”

City Council, homelessness, King County, Morning Fizz

Morning Fizz: COVID at City Hall, Why “Consolidation” Won’t Fix the City Budget, and More on Burien’s Efforts to Kill a Church Encampment

1. Seattle City Councilmember Bob Kettle recently contracted COVID after coming in to his City Hall office while a family member was home sick with the highly infectious disease. During the period when he was not yet testing positive, he and his staff continued to work at City Hall without wearing masks, according to sources on the floor.

Although Kettle told PubliCola that he personally stayed home for a week after his first positive COVID test (including five days after his symptoms receded), his presence on the second floor during the time when his family member was sick unnerved at least one council member, Tammy Morales, who wrote in an email to the city clerk and council HR, “I just learned that a couple folks on the floor are home with Covid. Can I ask you to send around our policies to remind folks WHEN TO STAY HOME.”

According to a staffer for his office, Kettle “took multiple tests and the moment he received a positive result, he immediately began to work from home, and followed the five-day protocol once he received a negative test(s).” The city asks employees to isolate for five days after a positive test and stay home if they still have symptoms; however, even asymptomatic people can be contagious. Kettle and a staffer confirmed that no one else in his office contracted COVID from him.

Council president Sara Nelson and other council members have frequently touted the benefits of in-person work to council members and their staff as well as the recovery of downtown businesses. The council now holds all its meetings in person; previously, some council members attended remotely, including one council member with a young child and one who is immunocompromised.

Saka and Strauss are correct that the city has arborists in multiple departments. It has a total of two: One in the Parks Department, and one in SDOT. It’s unclear how moving both positions into one department or the other would save the city money.

2. Facing the largest budget shortfall in recent history, many city council members have latched on to the idea that city departments are inefficient and full of costly redundancies—a problem council budget committee chair Dan Strauss has recently taken to illustrating with the example of city arborists. “We have multiple different departments that have arborists,” Strauss said at a committee meeting last month, and “I think it makes more sense to have them all in one department.”

Earlier this week, Councilmember Rob Saka took up the mantle, calling the city’s many arborists the “canonical example” of the need for “consolidation” at the city on an episode of the Seattle Channel’s “City Inside/Out,” which features panel discussions with city council members.

“Do we need 17 different departments with arborists, or can they sit under one [department]—parks, for example, or whatever it is. But we need to better consolidate our functions, services, our lines of business, avoid duplication of efforts, [and] I think we’ll achieve some some great savings through that,” Saka said.

Curious, we looked to see how many arborists the city has and in how many different departments. As it turns out, Saka and Strauss are correct that the city has arborists in multiple departments. It has a total of two: One in the Parks Department, and one in SDOT. It’s unclear how moving both positions into one department or the other would save the city money.

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

Support PubliCola

3. As PubliCola reported late last year, Burien City Manager Adolfo Bailon failed to inform the city council about a letter from Deputy King County Executive Shannon Braddock telling him the city needed to come up with a plan to spend $1 million the county was offering to build a shelter or lose the money.

Bailon sat on the letter for a week before telling the full council about it, claiming he was too busy responding to to emails opposing a temporary encampment at a local church that was run by a nonprofit started by then-council member Cydney Moore.

Although Bailon later changed his story, documents obtained through a records request show that he did spend a great deal of time responding to opponents of the encampment and raising questions about its legality. Those emails included:

• A note to the Burien fire chief asking him if the city could ensure that all the tents at the encampment would be “flame retardant”;

• An email to Burien Police Chief Ted Boe asking him to send an officer to a meeting to refute “potentially false claims” by the encampment’s sponsor that sex offenders would be barred from the encampment (which they were);

• An email warning the superintendent of the Highline Public School District about the church encampment’s “proximity to Highline High School” and claiming that the encampment violated city law;

• At least seven emails to people who wrote him to oppose the encampment, saying he was “very sorry to hear” about the problems the encampment would cause them and encouraging them to attend an upcoming meeting where they could express their opposition.

The encampment closed in February.

 

 

City Council, Elections

PubliCola Questions: City Councilmember Dan Strauss, District 6

By Erica C. Barnett

The 2023 election will dramatically reshape the Seattle City Council. Four council members are not seeking reelection, while a fifth, Teresa Mosqueda, is running for King County Council and will be replaced by an appointee if she wins. Even if all three of the incumbents who are running win reelection, the council will probably have at least five new members next year—a new majority of freshmen on a council whose most experienced members will, at most, be entering their second terms. If all eight seats turn over, it would make Sara Nelson, an at-large council member who started her first term last year, the most senior member of the council.

Debates over issues and ideology are understandably front and center in campaigns. But with eight of nine council seats up for grabs, I want to focus for a moment on an often overlooked question that impacts how the city council makes decisions and functions on a daily basis:  Can these people work together? Among the current council, the answer is frequently no. At best, there’s a sense that council members aren’t talking to each other outside public meetings, which are still largely virtual. At worst, the hostility bursts out into the open—as it has during this election, when one council member, Sara Nelson, is actively campaigning against three of her incumbent colleagues.

In this setting, five—and up to eight—new council members could provide a needed reset and eliminate some of the bad blood that has built up over the past several years.

Less optimistically, an inexperienced council could leave Mayor Bruce Harrell’s exercise of executive power unchecked, allowing the mayor to push through any number of priorities that the current council has shot down—like raiding the JumpStart payroll tax, which is supposed to be spend on housing and equitable development, to pay for general city obligations.

The next council will have to get up to speed fast, because they’ll soon face challenges that are only growing in scope—from homelessness, gun violence, and addiction to a looming $250 million budget deficit that will require tough decisions and could mean significant service cuts.

To get a better sense of how council incumbents, challengers, and first-time candidates would tackle these challenges, PubliCola spoke with 10 of the 14 council candidates, representing every council district.

Two candidates—Rob Saka in District 1 and Tanya Woo in District 2—ignored our emailed requests to sit down for an interview and did not follow up after I asked again in person. One candidate, District 3’s Joy Hollingsworth, set up an interview but then canceled, and did not respond to my request to reschedule. Maritza Rivera, running in District 4, would not sit down for an interview but did provide emailed responses to written questions. And Cathy Moore, in District 5, declined my request in an email.

The number of candidates who declined, canceled, or ignored our requests for an interview is unusual. While PubliCola isn’t shy about expressing our views on issues, that has rarely been an impediment to dialogue in the past. These candidates’ refusal to sit down for an in-depth conversation about the issues they will have to address if elected could bode poorly for transparency on the new council; in our experience, candidates who refuse to talk to members of the press they perceive as critical rarely become more tolerant of tough questions under the pressure of public office.

I’ll be rolling out interviews with the council candidates in every race over the next two weeks. I hope readers will learn more about the candidates from these in-depth conversations and use them to inform your vote. Ballots go out on October 18.

Today’s interview is with city council incumbent Dan Strauss, who represents Northwest Seattle in District 6.

PubliCola [ECB]: Your opponent, Pete Hanning, has criticized you for saying on your campaign mailers that “defund the police was a mistake,” given that you did vote to reduce the size of the police department by 50 percent in 2020. Why did you decide to stake out this anti-defund ground now, and how do you respond to his criticism that you flip-flopped?

Dan Strauss [DS]: The thing that I found is that those three words mean something different to every single person I talk to. So I was [doorbelling] on one block and a person asked me, ‘Did you vote to defund the police?’ And the answer was, yes. And then just halfway down the block, somebody else said, ‘Did you actually defund the police?’ And the answer is, no.

And when you look at my council colleagues, some wanted to defund completely, some were at 50 percent. And what I said is that we have to define our cuts and we have to scale up our alternatives before we scale down the police force, and that police officers shouldn’t be responding to homelessness or mental health calls or traffic stops.

“Do I want government to work faster across the board on all things? The answer’s yes, I do. I also understand why sometimes it takes time. And so it’s important for us to continue moving forward, continue trying things like the CARE Department and co-response, rather than just saying, ‘Oh, it took too long, we’re done.’”

ECB: So why did you turn around and say that was a mistake?

DS: The reason why [the vote] was a mistake is it didn’t say what we were going to do. It didn’t say that those three words means something different to every single person.  And frankly, there was so much yelling going on, that people couldn’t hear my nuanced position, which was that we need to define cuts before we make them, because blanket cuts doesn’t make sense. You know, the really clear answer here is, defunding doesn’t create accountability. So one of the things that was important to me is that we have more accountability.

ECB: Some critics have claimed that the loss of hundreds of police officers since 2020 is because the council support defunding the police, and that that damaged morale. Why do you think retaining and hiring police has been so challenging?

DS: I’ll focus on the positive, which is that we have some of the highest recruiting numbers right now. And part of the role I played in that was fully funding our police recruitment plan last year.

You know, nationwide, there is a shortage of police officers. Almost every municipality in the area is looking to hire police officers. Republican cities in western Washington are down on their police officers. And we know that this is in a situation on the horizon for a long time. And at the end of the day, for me, what matters most is that we recruit the types of officers that meet Seattle’s values, so that the folks that are hired to wear a badge and carry a gun share the values, and the culture of the department shares the values, of Seattleites.

ECB: How far away do you think the current culture is from that goal?

DS: There are clearly some issues that have come out just in the last couple of weeks that demonstrate that there are problems that need to be fixed, because we need our police officers to be caring, to be setting an example for how you behave with your neighbors and using racist slurs or diminishing a person’s life is not in keeping with those values.

ECB: The council is currently discussing the mayor’s proposed budget. Do you think the proposal to pilot a new co-responder model for some low-priority calls is adequate? Will adding six new civilian responders be able to make noticeable progress toward the goal of reducing the number of police responding to calls where they aren’t needed, and is the city acting with enough urgency toward this goal?

DS: I think co-response is incredibly important. And right now, it’s too early to ask, is this a success? Is this a failure? The important thing about a pilot is you try it and you fix what isn’t working and you double down on what is working. I heard the same skepticism about Health One, which we know to be a very successful model.

Enjoying this article? PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you. Help keep PubliCola sustainable by CLICKING HERE to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

It took 10 years to get [the Seattle Fire Department’s mobile response unit,] Health One. The time it takes to get to a place doesn’t determine how successful will be. Perfect world, wave a magic wand, and yes. I would love government to work faster in so many different areas. I mean, we’ve got us we’ve got a power outage down the street now that’s been going on for, I think, 12 hours. And that was following a power outage yesterday.

Would I like to see park rangers up here at Ballard Commons Park? Yes, absolutely. Do I want to see the people-only lane on Ballard Avenue implemented four months ago? Yes, absolutely. Do I want government to work faster across the board on all things? The answer’s yes, I do. I also understand why sometimes it takes time. And so it’s important for us to continue moving forward, continue trying things like the CARE Department and co-response, rather than just saying, ‘Oh, it took too long, we’re done.’

I mean, again, when I look at Health One, that was a 10-year endeavor to get to 2019, where we started with one unit, and then that one unit demonstrated its value very quickly. And that’s why it continues to expand.

And I think the missing ingredient right now is, where do people go? We’ve got this post-overdose site that’s being stood up right now. But what happens after that? Where does somebody go for anything from needle exchange to long term inpatient? This is why having the crisis center levy investments coming up as fast as possible is important.

ECB: You voted twice for the drug criminalization bill, but you never gave any speeches about it or publicly explained your vote. Why did you support it?

DS: I voted for the bill because I do believe that that diversion and treatment should be our first, second, and third choice. For some people, if they fail in those avenues, we have to have every option on the table. Jail is the most expensive option we have. It is the least rehabilitative. And for some people, that’s the option that they [reach]. And so for me, it’s having all options on the table.

ECB: The city has challenged a recent ruling that found the city’s practice of removing encampments with no notice on the grounds that they constitute an “obstruction” unconstitutional. The city has interpreted its own policy broadly in recent years, to include any tent or encampment on virtually any city property, including isolated areas in parks. Do you support the city’s position on clearing “obstruction” encampments?

DS: You know, Portland got sued [for violating the] ADA, because they were not keeping their sidewalks passable [because of encampments]. There are absolutely sidewalks that are a half mile from [central Ballard] that are not passable. And those encampments are not being removed right now, because we’re doing a drawdown. The sidewalk shouldn’t be blocked. We have worked in every way, shape and form possible to have voluntary compliance to make sure that the sidewalks are not blocked, and they’re not getting swept.

When we were doing our drawdowns in Ballard Commons Park and Woodland Park, people were camping in the park. And we as the city said, we see a better way to get people inside than just pushing them down the street, because it’s going to make things worse. And so we are not going to enforce that rule right now. At the Ballard Commons, we got 69 people inside. At Woodland Park, we got 89 people inside. And so we see the the broader benefit there.

“When the overall economy downturns, the economic engine in the industrial zones stays the same. And it suddenly is the thing that is keeping us all power as a city through the economic downturn. And that’s why developers are always thirsty to change industrial zones into other zoning, because they can get more money for it.”

ECB: Do you think transportation impact fees are going to pass next year, now that the council’s two most vocal advocates for the fees, Lisa Herbold and Alex Pedersen, are leaving? [Editor’s note: I conducted this interview before the council voted to move forward with a proposal to incorporate the fees into the city’s Comprehensive Plan.]

DS: For us to take on a complex policy like this, we do need to understand what we are doing, because it’s not just that the two people who are the loudest advocates for it are leaving, it’s that none of the council members who are currently council members, other than Councilmember Herbold and, I’d say, Council President [Debora] Juarez, ever dug deeply into it. And so that’s why I scheduled the public hearing.

[Mandatory Housing Affordability] was passed during an economic boom, and a building boom. And I’m not sure that it would pass today, because we’re not in an economic boom. The thing with transportation impact fees is that during a building boom would be the time to pass it. We’re in a building depression, and I have concerns about that.

ECB: Your committee passed a significant rezone of the city’s maritime and industrial areas earlier this year. Controversially, it eliminated an entire proposed zone that would have allowed some limited housing above light-industrial businesses, like commissary kitchens and craftspeople, around the stadiums. Do you think prohibiting housing in industrial areas was the right long-term call?

DS: What I found is that among stakeholders who disagree on almost everything, there was almost unanimous agreement on everything in that plan, except for the stadium district. And so we were faced with the choice. Do we wait until the stadium district has resolved? Or do we move forward with zoning changes that have been desired since 2007 and create benefits to our city?

You were asking me all those other questions. But this is this is the good stuff. Because when our economy does well, nobody pays attention to the industrial zones, because they’re not creating as much economic activity and generating as much economic growth. But when the overall economy downturns, the economic engine in the industrial zones stays the same. And it suddenly is the thing that is keeping us all power as a city through the economic downturn. And that’s why developers are always thirsty to change industrial zones into other zoning, because they can get more money for it.

ECB: What about the “brewery district” in Ballard? That’s a huge change in use from what that area was like 20 years ago, and now there are tons of people coming into the area because the breweries are a destination. Wouldn’t it be better to have housing above those breweries, rather than having people drive in and park?

DS: If you have housing in the industrial area, in in the brewery zone, the top dollar for housing is going to exceed the top dollar that [breweries] can pay for the space. And that space will be sold and turned into housing, and then you won’t have a brewery district.

So what we did change in the brewery district is allowing office space to be above [industrial uses], as long as you preserve an industrial space. And that is a pretty big change, and the brewers already are feeling worried that that’s going to push them out of the neighborhood.

ECB: If you’re reelected, you will be one of the most senior members on a council full of newcomers. Are you concerned about the loss of institutional knowledge on the council, and how do you plan to tackle the looming budget deficit as one of only four, and perhaps fewer, councilmembers with any experience? Will the council be at the mercy of the mayor?

DS: Man, do you have any non-downer questions?

ECB: Nope.

DS: Mayor Harrell has a very collaborative way of doing business. The thing that I really appreciate about him is that he hires smart people, and listens to them and takes their advice, even if it’s not necessarily the first thing that he personally would have jumped to. I think that that demonstrates real leadership. Mayor Harrell and I both grew up in the city. We grew up on opposite ends of the city, we grew up at different times, and we share a certain kind of know a certain chutzpah for our city.

Something [else] that I share with him is engaging in collaboration. Unfortunately, with some of my current colleagues, when I offer collaboration, they choose conflict. And whenever you choose conflict, it makes our solutions harder. It makes the conversations harder. And so when I look at our new council going on, we need to do some cultural resets. The council picked up some really bad habits and the pandemic. A lot of those stemmed from having to work remotely, because it reduced the opportunity for happenstance conversations—like the ability for somebody to just pop down into somebody else’s office and say, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’ ‘What’s your take on this?’ It’s incredibly important.

The majority of us, and I’m including myself in this, are doing council briefing [meetings] from our offices [over Zoom], and council briefing should be done [in person, so] we’re all looking at each other. That sets up a really positive relationship, even if we disagree, that we are all still working together.

For anyone to come in and take on the seat, it will take them a year to figure out what’s going on. And that’s not a disparagement of anyone, it’s just a fact of taking a new job. And you know, what’s most important to me is being accessible to my residents, continuing to hold office hours, continuing to be the only council member with a permanent district office so that people don’t have to have it go out of their way to have their voice heard by City Hall.