♪♪
-How many people are in jail
when they need to be in a treatment bed?
-We want the services.
I don't believe we need five more buildings.
[ Sirens wail ]
-To meet King County's complex behavioral health needs,
voters will decide in a special election
this month whether to approve
a $1.25 billion property tax levy.
-I think it's a really important first step.
-But while many agree
more mental health resources are needed,
there are many concerns, too.
-It's a well-intentioned proposal
that raises a whole series of questions.
-What would this nine-year levy pay for?
And will homeowners, already feeling the pinch,
support the plan?
-This is a problem that we need to solve with urgency.
-We hear from both sides.
-It really does look like just another slush fund.
-Debating the crisis care centers levy
that's on the ballot
in the next King County election,
next on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
Welcome to this edition of "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
King County is asking voters
to support a $1.25 billion property tax
levy that would build five new crisis care centers
and recruit and retain the workers needed to staff them.
Supporters say a yes vote on Prop 1
would provide desperately needed mental health treatment
in a county where people in crisis
wait an average of 44 days to get help.
But opponents say our property taxes are too high already,
and they're asking why elected officials
can't provide adequate mental health services
with the budgets they already have.
This week, we're looking at the special election
this April for crisis care centers in King County
and how a vote to raise taxes
has already raised several challenging questions.
-Coffee or you want a latte?
-Welcome to the Recovery Cafe near downtown Seattle.
-One pump chocolate.
-Here, the food and the coffee are served hot.
-Here's your coffee. -And the gratitude
stays warm long after meal time.
-Thank you. I appreciate it.
-We say everyone's in recovery from something.
-David Coffey is executive director at the cafe,
which provides a safe drug- and alcohol-free space
to its members who are recovering from trauma
and trying to gain or maintain access
to housing or services.
Recovery Cafe serves thousands of meals every year,
but David Coffey remembers the one person who came to his door
in a crisis situation recently whom he wasn't able to serve.
-We made 52 phone calls that day to different places,
trying to get him in just into detox, and we couldn't do it.
-King County leaders say
they have an answer in Proposition 1.
The crisis care centers levy on the ballot
with a special election this April.
-For people to get off the street,
they must have somewhere to go.
-Prop 1 is a nine-year property tax levy
of $1.25 billion
to build five new 24-hour walk-in crisis centers,
one of which would be specifically geared
towards younger people.
-I think it's a really important first step
in addressing the crisis that we find ourselves in.
-The county currently has only one crisis facility
with 46 beds operated
by Seattle's Downtown Emergency Service Center.
But getting in requires a referral from a first responder.
[ Sirens wail ]
Coffey says Prop 1, which also includes money
to recruit and retain mental health workers,
will help more people in crisis
eventually find a path to recovery.
-We're never gonna get there if we're not willing
to really invest in it in a way that will make a difference.
-They shouldn't be doing a property tax.
-Seattle businesswoman Suzie Burke
says the $121 per year Prop 1,
would cost the owner of a median priced home
simply makes our region less affordable,
and she wants more treatment for people in need,
not what she sees as expensive new crisis centers.
-We want the services.
I don't believe we need five more buildings.
-Burke is one of three people
who signed the statement of opposition
against Prop 1 on the ballot.
There's no formalized "no" campaign.
Supporters of the measure have a wide array of endorsements
and have raised more than $360,000 as of early April.
But Burke says the "yes" side is getting people's hopes up, too.
-These buildings don't come out of the ground
like a mushroom.
-Prop 1 doesn't say
where the new crisis centers would be built.
And while the campaign promises two centers
could be opened by the year 2026, Burke isn't buying it.
-Seattle King County, you know, promise a lot,
but they don't really get to the goals,
and I think the voter has had enough of that.
-It's a well-intentioned proposal
that raises a whole series of questions.
-Phil Talmadge, a Democrat who represented West Seattle
in the state Senate for 16 years
and who served as a state Supreme Court justice
for six more, does not oppose Prop 1,
but still asks if King County passes a measure like this,
what would happen in Pierce, Snohomish, or other counties?
-Are they gonna be providing services
of a similar nature,
or are they going to have their patients
who are in need of these services migrate to our area
to to get those services that they can't get locally?
-Talmadge also says during his time in Olympia,
the state was providing property tax revenue
to counties for behavioral health.
But that funding model faded out,
and he's worried history could repeat itself.
-We had a dedicated property tax
for mental health services before.
It disappeared into the general fund of King County
and the other counties across Washington.
Where are the guarantees that that won't happen again?
-Talmadge is aware Prop 1 has a good chance of passing
with a wave of local support for a solution
that provides some hope.
-I'm probably gonna vote, for this measure
because having something is better than nothing.
-But he says Prop 1 is far from the statewide reform required
to restore the mental health services
and beds Washington desperately needs.
-And I don't see anybody, anybody in elected positions,
talking about coming up with the kind of comprehensive,
significant solution
to the problems that we're talking about.
-Now it's up to you to make a decision on Prop 1.
Is it a misguided property tax or part of the answer
to the crisis of mental health?
-I really, truly believe it will make our community better.
-Every time we pass one of these things,
we're making it less and less affordable to be here.
-And I'm here to welcome Councilmember Girmay Zahilay
from the King County Council. Great to have you here.
Thanks for helping us out. And also Tim Eyman,
who's representing the opposition to this measure.
Tim, good to see you, too. -Good to see you, as well.
-We spoke before the show here and talked about this.
Councilmember Zahilay, you'll have the first word.
Tim, you'll have the last word here in this discussion.
Why do you believe that voters need to support Proposition 1,
the crisis care centers levy?
-I've been on the council since the beginning of 2020,
and I think the public understands
that the public health crisis of our time
is the COVID-19 pandemic.
But at the same time,
we've been experiencing this shadow pandemic
that has been quietly ravaging our communities,
and that shadow pandemic is the behavioral health crisis.
Whether we're talking about unprecedented levels
of mental health issues or record-breaking overdose deaths,
substance use disorders,
this is a problem that we need to solve with urgency,
and we can spend a lot of time discussing, you know,
what are the causes of these national and global trends.
But what's crystal clear is what we need to do.
And what we need to do is to give people a place to go
when they are in crisis
so that they can get the care that they need to heal.
And that's exactly what this crisis care centers
levy will do.
It will provide the physical infrastructure,
places for people to go when they need care
so that they can have a fighting chance.
I think we should all work together
to give our neighbors a fighting chance to survive.
-Thank you for that. Tim, your thoughts on why voters
should not be supporting this?
-Well, all I hear about is just skyrocketing property taxes.
Now, this is a property tax increase
and a sizable one, as well, over the next nine years.
And I was struck by this proposal
in how many different ways this looks like a slush fund,
because they have given themselves
that much flexibility.
They said the implementation plan happens
after the voters vote for the tax increase.
I think most voters would want to see the implementation plan
before they okay the money.
And it's a terrifying thought that once you vote yes,
you're stuck for nine years.
So if it ends up being a boondoggle like the Big Dig
or something like that,
you're stuck continuing to pay this huge, massive property tax.
The other sneaky thing that I think politicians do,
and it's not just Democrats, but Republicans too,
is that they put the essential services on the ballot
and then they'll fund the, you know,
kind of their pet projects
with existing revenue.
And if there is this great need,
if there is this great desire for this,
why not use existing revenues --
the first dollar that they ended up spending on this
and the last dollar for the lower priority.
So I guess that's my -- I think,
what most voters are frustrated by
is that why is it I'm always voting on the essential stuff
where you're not gonna get an EMT showing up
if you have a heart attack
unless you vote for this tax increase.
It's manipulation.
And I don't think it's a good idea.
And so I think if voters vote no,
what's going to end up happening is they're going to go back
to the drawing board.
They have to do it better.
-So Prop 1 would cost a little bit more
than 10 bucks a month in property tax
for the median-priced home owner out there.
It doesn't sound like too much for mental health services,
but you have a number of other property taxes in King County.
Seattle residents, of course, pay more on top of that.
How do you respond to this whole idea that another tax like this
is just making King County unaffordable?
-I think what Tim is doing is absolutely as important
as the levy itself,
which is when we're asking the voters
to sponsor a large revenue stream like this,
we need to scrutinize it.
We need to scrutinize it,
because that's how you hold government accountable.
$1.25 billion sounds like a lot of money.
It is what's needed in a region that has one
of the highest costs of construction in the world.
It is what's needed in a place
that doesn't have any recovery infrastructure
in terms of the types that we're looking for.
And so I validate the concerns of our neighbors
who are saying property taxes are too high.
And it's really unfortunate that our state government
is putting the county in a position
where it's constantly having to choose
between do we solve pressing problems
or do we avoid raising regressive
revenue sources like property taxes
that disproportionately impact middle-income people?
And that is an impossible decision to make.
But it's not a decision that is, you know, $10 a month
versus $0 a month, because we have to also
take into account the cost of inaction.
And the cost of inaction on these issues is incalculable.
And I'm not just talking about the moral cost of inaction.
I'm talking about actual dollars and cents in the status quo
if we don't do this.
If you take into account
the cost of overloaded emergency rooms and hospitals,
if you take into account the cost of overloaded jails,
if you take into account the costs of what people are doing
when they are addicted and needing to feed that addiction,
how you see it playing out on the streets of our cities,
the cost is incalculable.
And so that's what we have to weigh it against.
-I think it's important to point out
it's not just raising measure money for buildings,
if indeed it does pass here, but it would also recruit
and retain people to work in the mental health field
and try to talk about a number of these different problems
that Councilmember Zahilay has brought up here.
How do you respond to that?
This idea that we can't afford not to do something like this?
-Well, I read the ordinance very carefully,
and it was very carefully drafted
to have a lot of "may's" and "might's"
and "probably's".
There isn't a lot of solidity to the proposal,
and it really does look like just another slush fund.
I have yet to see a King County government program
that doesn't go radically over budget,
and they wait for us taxpayers to bail them out.
Since for the last 10 years
there's been 41 tax increases at the state level,
those have added up to $62.3 billion in higher taxes.
Those are on top of the existing highest sales tax in the nation,
highest gas tax in the nation,
property taxes going through the roof.
Now, King County, they just went from a $15 billion budget
to a $16 billion budget.
So over the next nine years,
they're gonna have well over $100 billion.
He seems like a very persuasive person.
Why can't he convince his members to use existing
revenues rather than putting this on the ballot?
It seems to me with the amount of money that they have,
if it truly is the priority that he says that it is,
why can't they use the first dollar,
not count on the taxpayers to bail them out?
-I think this whole concept of raising taxes
in this way to critical services doesn't make sense to Tim.
And also this idea that voters are looking for some assurance
that this funding will actually be dedicated
to mental health help.
Can you talk to those for us, please?
-Yeah. First, I'll address this idea
that these funds are a vague slush fund.
This is one of the most specified ballot measures
that I've ever seen.
The money is going to five crisis care centers
that are already geographically designated.
One in South King County, one in North King County,
one in East King County, one Seattle,
and one youth-focused one.
The money is going toward building back
our long-term residential behavioral health beds
from what it is at right now,
which is 255 beds for a county of 2.3 million people,
and bringing it back up to around 355,
which is the capacity we've lost in the past two years.
It's also going toward workforce development.
The workforce in this field is depleted,
defeated, and making poverty wages
to do some of the hardest work known to human beings.
And so it is going to go toward recruiting, retention,
pay raises for people who are making $30,000,
$40,000 a year, again,
to do some of the most difficult work known to human beings.
And so the idea that it's not specified or it's too vague,
sure, we're gonna be able to do an implementation plan
that adds more details, but it's not vague.
It's not just a $1.25 billion slush fund.
It has designated pots already.
-Those locations weren't necessarily laid out
specifically, like, where are they actually gonna go?
Some ideas, there, about siting and why were these locations
not actually put on the ballot
when voters were looking at this?
-As you know, Brian, as Tim knows,
citing a facility like this
is gonna take a lot of community engagement.
It's gonna take a lot of negotiation,
it's gonna take a lot of work.
And that's gonna come later.
-Okay. All right.
I'm interested to see what happens there.
But I wanted to make sure, Tim,
if there was a point you wanted
to make about siting or any other piece here.
-Yes. The more vague they make it,
the easier it is for voters to say,
"Well, I don't know where it's gonna end up,
so therefore I'm comfortable voting for it,
because I don't know where they're gonna end up.
Maybe it's gonna be in my backyard, maybe it's not."
It's that vagary.
It's the implementation plan
after you vote yes on it.
Once you vote yes, once the money starts flowing,
all they got to do is just declare an emergency,
and they can divert the money to anything they want to.
You see it time and time and time again.
-Okay. -And I think that there is
a built up frustration
by a whole lot of property owners that don't realize,
for example, that rent, renters, you're paying property taxes,
you're just paying your landlord's property taxes.
As property taxes skyrocket, your rent's going up
exactly because the property tax is going up.
So I sympathize with what the councilmember
is talking about, but at the end of the day,
the average taxpayer is just looking at a property tax bill
that is going through the roof, and they feel helpless about it
and they see a proposal like this,
and again, he makes a persuasive argument on why it's necessary.
He's not made a persuasive point
on why is it you couldn't use existing revenues to fund
it rather than simply doing this.
And buildings --
building five buildings?
There's something about that.
Do we need more infrastructure
or do we need actual more services,
which is what the sales tax is already paying for?
-Fair enough. Let's talk about this idea.
Maybe we can focus on that buildings piece if we could,
because I've heard from a few people,
"Hey, why do we need a shiny new building?
Let's just really focus on services."
Can you respond to that?
-All of the new crisis care centers
won't be brand-new buildings. -I see. Okay.
Some of them will be buildings that already exist
that have many of the components of a crisis care center,
but we would need the revenue to add on the pieces
that would make it a full-fledged,
full-service crisis care center.
So, yes, some some buildings already exist, some don't.
And it'll be a combination of both.
Got it. Tim --
-So you know where the places are, then?
-Some of the ones that would qualify for adding components,
we do know where those are,
but it wouldn't be all five. Some of them would --
-So why wouldn't we be telling the voters where those are now
before you ask for the money rather than you knowing it,
but no one else knowing it?
-Some of them are alive and functional at this time.
-Yeah. Okay.
I think we're gonna see this play out
over the next couple of months here.
But, Tim, I wanted to follow up on a point with you here,
and I hear all the different criticisms you're making,
but I think about this.
Three people have signed on
to the opposition statement on the ballot.
You, Suzie Burke, Jim Coombes,
beyond that, there's no formal campaign.
And I found that to be interesting,
because you've seen the large number of endorsers
for Prop 1.
You've got first responders,
you've got labor service providers,
businesses, "The Seattle Times", too.
What does it say to you when so many people
have come out in support of this measure
and so few are opposing it?
-I guess, you know, the pigs at the trough,
the people that are gonna get the $1.25 billion,
of course they're gonna be in favor of it.
The average taxpayer, though, is struggling right now
just to be able to pay their property taxes
and their existing taxes.
And the reality is, we were lucky
to even get something in the voter's pamphlet.
It was so rigged where we had 24 hours to name members.
We had 24 hours to make a statement.
We were within 24 hours of not having any statement at all.
The fact that we even got something in there
is nothing short of remarkable.
But this is kind of what the situation
is with any tax increase.
The people who get the money, of course,
they're gonna pour tons of money into a "yes" campaign.
The "no" campaign tends to be the voter's pamphlet argument.
And I think what I've found time and time again
is voters care more about which side has the better argument
than the side that has the most money.
-Councilmember Zahilay,
if you want to respond to anything of what Tim's saying
and maybe talk about some of the people
who've endorsed this, too, because I think
that's an important piece of this discussion.
-Yeah. It's not just people who are quote unquote
"getting the money" that have endorsed this.
We have so many legislative district
Democratic organizations that have endorsed it.
I think it's basically all of them that exist in King County.
And those people are not gonna "get any of the money",
they're just concerned citizens
that see the lack of recovery infrastructure
and how that plays out on the streets of our cities
and in people's homes where they're overdosing
or family members
who are going through mental health crises,
so I disagree with that point.
But again, the point about -- that Tim is making
about property tax concerns,
he's making an absolutely valid point.
And it would be gaslighting to come up here
and say that that is not an issue.
I hear that issue, as well,
but I hear more than that issue.
I hear what people are saying about their family members
that they're losing, about unhoused people
having unprecedented numbers of overdose deaths,
about our high school kids who are experiencing record
levels of depression, anxiety, and isolation.
The percentage of high school students
who are experiencing that right now
has almost doubled in the past 10 years.
And so this is a problem that we need to address with urgency.
And yes, it is not a simple, clear-cut issue
where there are good guys and bad guys.
Most of what Tim is saying is also true.
-Tim -- Please.
-I would have to quickly add. -Okay.
-He is making such an articulate,
well-thought-out argument.
Why is it he wasn't able to convince
his fellow councilmembers, at least five of them --
this is so critical,
let us use the existing revenue we already have"?
We have this sales tax, we have this property tax,
we have all the taxes that we're currently collecting.
Why can't we make this a priority
and use the existing revenues that we already have?
The fact that he's not willing to do that,
instead relying on the voters to bail them out.
It's just a very uncomfortable --
for an average voter,
don't personalize it to me.
It's an average voter out there is struggling right now.
And all they're seeing from this is it's a crisis,
we have to do something.
That's the scariest time
when government says something must be done,
because Seattle's about to raise the property tax,
King County is about to raise the property tax.
This legislative session is gonna be the most tax-heavy --
property-tax-heavy, tax appetite
legislative session we've ever seen.
At what point is too much? -Thank you for that.
I want to make sure we keep the focus on this measure here.
Did you want to respond specifically
to some of these points? -I'd be happy to.
It's gonna get real technical,
because if anybody wants to deep dive
into King County's budget,
I have no incentive other than to make sure
that people are taken care of and healing.
So if anybody wants to do a deep dive into the budget
with me and find $1.25 billion that are unrestricted,
not going toward other critical services
that we can use, let's do that.
But if you look into King County's budget,
yes, $16 billion is a lot of money.
The vast majority of that is designated by the state.
So we have no flexibility in how that is going to be spent.
The only pot of money in King County's budget
that has flexibility is the general fund,
and 75% of that is state mandated
to go toward criminal justice issues.
So it's already funding sheriffs,
it's already funding jails,
it's already funding so many other things.
And so the tiny sliver of money that we have that's flexible
and not going towards state-mandated
criminal justice issues
is already funding critical things like housing
and human services.
And so if somebody finds $1.25 billion
in that pot of money
that's going toward waste, fraud, and abuse,
let's talk about that and let's fix that.
We have no other incentive
than to make this money go toward the right places.
-My only point is that this is over a nine-year period.
You don't have to come up with $1.25 billion tomorrow.
-Right. -I think it would be helpful
to have an implementation plan before you turn around and say,
where are you going to find the $1.25 billion?
But if he can't even articulate that to his own county
councilmembers, why is it the voters
should end up bailing him out?
-Thank you. I wanted to make sure
that I talked about this with you, Tim.
Just the urgency behind this.
If a person has to wait to get mental health services
in King County for 44 days, don't you think it's time
to make an investment in this system?
-There's no doubt if the county council
believes that this is a high priority,
then they should have made it the highest priority
and use existing revenues.
But it does beg the question at what point
can an average taxpayer even live in King County anymore?
All these people that he's talking about
that are gonna end up getting pay raises
in order to be able to entice them
in order to be able to join,
we're about to collapse as a marketplace,
as far as the economy is concerned.
Everybody's getting laid off,
and they're talking about building five buildings.
-Okay. -I'm sorry.
That's just doesn't seem to me to be the most well-thought-out.
And again, let me emphasize again the implementation plan,
we get to learn after the vote, not before the vote.
I think that's scary. -Fair enough.
I think we've heard that point a few times,
but I did want to make sure I moved on to one point here,
if I could, with you.
Even in "The Seattle Times", which endorsed this measure,
they said this is a statewide issue, not a county one.
And I wanted to talk about this.
Let's say this measure passes.
Would people from across the state be coming
and using King County's new facilities?
Talk about this intersection with what the state is doing
or not doing with mental health.
-Well, the state and the federal government
have absolutely abdicated their responsibilities in this realm.
We have seen the consistent defunding
of recovery infrastructure by the federal government
and the state government to the point where we are seeing
so many of our long-term residential health beds,
the buildings that house them, collapsing
and reaching their life cycle.
There was a recent article in "The Seattle Times" that said,
"Where have King County's mental health beds gone?"
-Right. -And it is absolutely connected
to the state's insistence on privatization,
on relying on small nonprofits to do this work,
and then not giving them the funding that they need
to continue operating to make capital improvements.
And so you're seeing this capacity diminish over time.
And so, yes, there are a couple of state champions
at the state level.
Senator Manka Dhingra, Representative Tina Orwall
are a couple that I can think of.
They're working on great things like 988
which is the phone line that you would call
to get crisis care over the phone.
They're working on providing more investment
into buildings like crisis care centers.
But the state is not doing what it's supposed to do.
And definitely the federal government's
not doing what it's supposed to do,
and it's resulting in local-level governments
like the county having to rely on imperfect tools,
tools that are absolutely doing everything that Tim
is saying through property taxes
which are harming middle income and senior people.
-Do you worry that people would all flock to King County
if these facilities were built?
-I see our state as one state that needs to solve problems.
And so if somebody from across King County's borders
is going through crisis and has nowhere to go,
I welcome them coming to King County
in order to get that crisis stabilization care.
But you're right,
the best result would be our state to step up
and have a statewide network of care centers.
-Thank you. We need to wrap up the show.
There's been a great discussion.
We can keep to about 30, 45 seconds
for a closing statement, please.
-Thank you.
The behavioral health crisis
is the shadow pandemic in the background,
and it has been quietly ravaging our communities.
It is terrifying to see so many of our loved ones,
so many of our unhoused neighbors
dying from these issues with nowhere to go.
The crisis care centers levy
would fund the recovery infrastructure
we need to take care of people when they are in crisis.
It would build five crisis care centers,
a network around the region for immediate stabilizing care.
It would bring back our long-term
residential health bed capacity
and would also support a workforce
that is really struggling right now
and allowing them to do the work of operating these buildings.
That's what's on the ballot,
and I hope everybody votes "yes" on April 25th.
-Thank you. Tim, final statement here, 45 seconds.
-I guess the greatest frustration is maybe
in the ivory towers of King County
where where they're making like $20,000 a month in salary.
This isn't a big tax increase for them.
I mean, Dow Constantine's house is worth like $1.3 million.
I mean, maybe this doesn't seem like a lot to them,
but if you're an average person in King County
trying to rent something today,
it's nearly impossible.
Trying to own a home right now
without this increase is a huge struggle.
We keep talking about affordable housing.
This is making housing unaffordable
even more than it already is.
And an implementation plan after you give them
the money, after a chance
where you have no opportunity to get a second guess at it,
it just seems, to me, to be
I'd rather they go back to the drawing board
and do it better. -Okay.
Thank you both for this input.
And we will be right back.
♪♪
What are people saying on social media
about the county's behavioral health levy?
One person writes, "Taxpayers won't pass this.
They can barely afford these overpriced homes as is."
But another person says, "It's not overly dramatic to say
that one day you or your loved ones
may need these mental health supports and services."
-We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an e-mail at contact@seattlechannel.org,
or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
-Coming up next time, finding the right balance
between creating more housing and preserving Seattle's trees.
The city has lost 255 acres of its tree canopy
in the last five years, leading to growing concerns
for health and equity in the Emerald City.
We take a look at the new tree ordinance proposal
and hear from both sides about this controversial plan
that's on the next "City Inside Out."
I hope you join us.
♪♪