-Hello. I'm Brian Callanan.
After months of debate,
the city council has finally passed legislation
on public drug use and possession.
Will officers be making more arrests?
Are there enough drug treatment services
for those who need help?
And it's budget time.
What issues are shaping up as top priorities for the city?
Plus, are you ready for a new way to vote
for city council members?
I'm talking with citywide council member
Sara Nelson about these questions
and the ones you're sending in, too, next on "Council Edition."
-It doesn't really matter who is paying the check
at a small business downtown,
whether or not they're on vacation or on business travel,
that helps our small businesses downtown
and throughout the city.
-It's all next on "Council Edition."
♪♪
And here she is,
Citywide Council Position nine Councilmember Sara Nelson.
Very good to have you with me.
Thanks for being here. How are you doing?
-Thanks for having me back.
I'm doing well. How are you?
-I'm great. I'm great.
Thank you for making time for this.
I want to jump into the ordinance
that the city has been working on over the past several months
to make public drug use or drug possession
gross misdemeanors, in line with state law.
And just two concepts to bring home, here, folks --
this law intends to give officers more clarity as to
when they can make an arrest, asking them to determine
if a person is causing harm to the public.
The new law would also invest more in drug treatment options
for people dealing with addiction.
Now, you've been talking about legislation like this
since April -- the end of April, there.
You held a press conference with city attorney
Anne Davison, Councilmember Peterson.
Looking back on what you proposed then
and what the council is working on right now,
did the Council get it right?
Some thoughts about that?
-Well, it's interesting, because what we proposed
initially was to prohibit public use as a simple misdemeanor.
So, it is interesting to me
that we're going -- that -- in following state law,
we're about to make possession
and public use a gross misdemeanor.
The conversation has changed since back then.
And I am simply glad that we are finally doing
what we need to do all along, which is conform with state law,
and provide another incentive for people to get into treatment
and -- and finally address this problem head-on.
-Got it.
And what has changed, in terms of that discussion?
You mentioned that it's -- that that rhetoric, I guess,
has changed a little bit.
How would you describe that?
-Sure.
Well, this is all occurred within the backdrop
of what was going on in Olympia.
So, the legislation that City Attorney Davidson,
Councilmember Peters, and I put forward in April,
we put that forward about three days
after the legislature closed without a resolution.
-There was that special session that needed to happen.
That's right. -Right.
And then, there was rumor that the governor
was going to call a special session.
And so, the initial -- within a week of or of the --
of our announcement,
my councilmember colleagues were saying
"We can't do anything now,
because we need to wait until the special session resolves,
because we don't want to be out of alignment
with other jurisdictions and state law."
And so, we thought, "Okay."
So, then, they came out with the --
with the new law making it a gross misdemeanor.
We resubmitted simple conforming legislation.
-Right.
-But then the conversation changed.
We were trying to conform with state law
and neighboring jurisdictions, but the conversation shifted to,
"Well..."
You know, some people were saying,
"Just let's not do this at all."
And other people were saying "It's another war on drugs."
Other people were saying that we -- we don't have
the the system set up for diversion.
So, that's what I mean when I say the conversation shifted.
But from the get go, I've been clear
that what's happening right now isn't working,
because we have skyrocketing overdoses
from fentanyl and other drugs.
And so, we have got to do something soon to address this.
-Thank you.
I'm gonna dive into some of those different points
you were bringing up here,
because you were working on an amendment with this law
that removed the requirement for officers
to make a reasonable attempt to get services
for someone using drugs before arresting them.
Some people, I know, have concerns about this,
and I know you've heard them.
One writer put it this way --
"Very sad how the changes in the language
simply move the discretionary action
down to the level of the police officer.
We've all seen how their discretion seems to go."
I know some people see it differently.
This writer, not supportive of giving police this much --
this much discretion in these cases.
Help me out with this amendment.
Why did you make it?
What do you think it's going to accomplish?
-First of all, by writing the assessment of the threat
to harm to others directly into the law,
we've still got the judgment of the officer center stage.
-Right. -Okay?
And I was concerned that if -- if that --
you know, if the...
it would be very easy to -- to -- to have --
although they will have probable cause to make an arrest --
-Right. Right.
That needs to happen first. -Right.
-Those cases could be considered...
They could be dismissed before even going to trial.
Mind you, trial and jail, all of that is not the goal.
But if the legitimacy of the -- of the arrest
turns on the decision making of the officer,
that complicates things.
-I see.
-And it also -- I said from the get go, on August 14th,
that if the -- if the judgment of the officer
is, um, is basically subject to dispute,
then we could be opening ourselves up
to charges of biased policing.
So, either way, I thought that that was a complicating factor.
It's less so by removing the mandatory directive.
In other words, there is still discretion.
Even without putting that into the law, officers --
their actions are based on their discretion every day.
And so, therefore, I was trying to remove risk to the city.
-I see.
Rather than make it too prescriptive,
allow officers to make the decision,
which can include this idea of diversion treatment, et cetera.
-Absolutely.
We -- I think there is widespread agreement that --
that...
an officer intervention,
the goal is to allow for stopping
potentially negative behavior right in the moment,
and then helping steward
that person into a diversion program.
-Thank you for that.
And I want to talk about those programs just a little bit,
because the mayor has certainly been calling for
more treatment options, diversion services,
to help deal with our drug crisis.
I know the challenge is how you pay for them.
Councilmember Mosqueda brought up
this concern at a recent meeting,
pointing out that two major services
the city refers people to --
LEAD, Let Everyone Advance with Dignity,
and PDA, Purpose, Dignity, and Action --
have been operating with one-time funding
for the past several years.
-If we don't fill this funding gap, it will harm
LEAD and PDA's ability to accept referrals,
which are the centerpiece of what supposedly makes this bill
different from previously -- previous iterations.
-Councilmember Nelson,
I just want to get your thoughts about funding
for these diversion and treatment programs.
How do you fund them now and into the future?
This is a very important part of this.
-I appreciate that question.
The fact is that every other municipality in the state
of Washington has confirmed, by now, to state law.
And I'm sure that they -- many of them
are cash-strapped to pay for diversion,
which is called for and encouraged in the state law.
So, um, so all cities are in the same position.
But it seems as though only in Seattle
is this producing a barrier
to actually conforming to state law.
So I do want to put that on the table.
-Okay.
-And what I will say is that we -- you know,
there will never be enough money to --
to probably, um,
meet all the needs of the people in our city.
-That's fair.
-And so, right now, the -- the LEAD and co-LEAD --
the 2023 budget is 29-- $29 Million.
-Yes.
-The mayor's -- And most of that comes from --
from the city of Seattle.
The mayor's legislation calls for $27 Million.
There's 51--
There are $51 million in the state bill
that will go to local jurisdictions.
What matters to me is -- is that money is being spent
to help people put their lives back together,
and -- and hopefully attain treatment that will help them
potentially with multiple drug -- substance use disorders.
And so, I don't feel that we should be holding hostage
the potential of helping people right now if we're...
in a --- in a -- in a debate over
exactly how much is -- is necessary.
People are dying right now.
Right now.
And the longer we dither, the more people will die.
And we have got to -- we've got to get something on the books
so that we can provide another incentive
for people to get into treatment.
-Thank you.
And I guess that's been the point.
I mean, the services and the fact that they're underfunded,
that's been an issue long before the Blake case
even came to light.
Is that kind of where you're going with this?
-That's where I'm going with it.
And it is not trivial. It is not trivial at all.
I am not saying that.
I am just saying that we can --
if we can go down a rabbit hole of debate
over how much is enough before we'll do this,
or we can do it right now,
and address soaring overdose fatalities and -- and --
and a lot of the crime that's associated with the drug trade.
-Yeah.
Let's talk about that criminal piece,
and how these cases might get prosecuted
if criminal charges are warranted here.
I know the city attorney pulled out of the agreement
the city had with the municipal court
for the community court system back in June.
Is there something else in place,
a drug court or something along those lines,
where these possession and use cases could be heard?
Do you know what's going on there?
-Well, I do because I am a member
of that subgroup of the mayor's Fentanyl Systems task force.
-Right.
-And so, it met two or three times over the past --
well, since it was announced early in June.
-Right.
-And those conversations are continuing.
What will replace community court.
So, I do have to note, however,
that -- that that issue is not directly related
to the the prosecution of possession and public use.
Drug crimes in and of themselves
did not go through community court.
The -- The -- The city attorney's announcement
that that program would end occurred at the same time
when we were talking about this, the first piece of legislation.
-Yeah. In April. Right.
-April or so. Yes.
So, the issues became conflated in --
in the public consciousness.
And -- And there was a lot of emotion about community court.
But unfortunately, the two -- the two are separate.
-Okay.
I guess what -- what is going to come out of it?
What would you like to see come out of it,
in terms of a court system that deals with something
that might represent more like a drug court,
some diversion possibilities there?
What do you want to see come out?
What kind of system?
-What I learned in these discussions --
and there were -- there were judges and staff
from the city attorney's office,
another council member, Lisa Dugard.
There were a lot of people
that knew a lot more about community court.
What I learned was that that was
the third iteration of community court.
-I see.
-So, um, so, clearly, each iteration
had some issues, and needed to be improved.
And so, I am not in a position, with all humility,
to say what should come from that.
I do believe that a form of drug court is --
would be really great, because that directly --
that directly addresses substance use disorder.
However, what I've been told in those meetings
is that that is extremely expensive
because there has to be some kind of contracting
or relationship with providers.
-I see.
-So I will let the people that know more
make the final say in what comes from that.
-Right. And this work is ongoing.
And I just wanted to talk about this
to wrap up this conversation --
in terms of putting this together,
I think you're right in saying that not all these pieces
have to be in place -- like drug court, et cetera --
before law is passed,
but it does make for some uncertainty, I guess, out there.
It's like, "Well, what happens with the court?
Well, wait, how are we going to pay for it?"
And I guess, in wrapping up this conversation,
Councilmember Nelson, what do you --
what do you hope comes out of the passage of this law?
Where are we going to go from here?
What's our drug crisis going to look like a year from now?
And what type of an effect will this law have on that?
-What I hope will come out
is that the overdose fatality numbers will go down,
that -- that -- that people feel safer going to and from work,
and circulating downtown,
and -- and that we -- we finally address head-on
what has been lurking and growing in -- in --
in this region for a long time, which is our fentanyl crisis.
Washington state had the highest number of overdoses in 2022
than any other state in the nation.
So, it is high time that we actually do something different.
We have to do something in addition to
what we have been doing in order to reverse those trends.
-Thank you very much.
I'm gonna move on to some other work
that the council has been doing --
actually some work on a new
Seattle tourism improvement area,
trying to ramp up tourism in the city with a new
2.3% fee applied to hotels in this area.
Basically, we're talking about an area that goes from
Galer Street to Royal Brougham,
and the Waterfront up to 12th Avenue.
I thought that there were two slides
that the council saw from Visit Seattle on this topic
that made for a very compelling story.
One of them -- projected bookings
for Seattle's new convention center
aren't looking great over the next couple of years.
Two, looking at how other major cities invest in tourism,
Seattle is not tops on that list.
You're aware of this. I wanted to talk about this.
What's going to change with this new version
of the STIA, as it's called?
-Okay, let me give --
thank you very much for your interest,
because, yes, last week in my committee was a big week
for business improvement areas.
-Yes.
-And the STIA --
the Seattle Tourism Improvement Area,
is one of many BIAs.
And the way it works is that it --
71 hotels charge their guests a fee,
and that fee goes into a pot,
so that Visit Seattle can spend that money
not just to -- not to promote those hotels,
not to just to promote downtown, Visit Seattle promotes Seattle
and business districts across the city.
-Right.
-And so, last year, we renewed SCIA's fee.
It went from $2 per night per guest...
-Yes.
-...which it had been for 10 years.
-Right. -To $4.
-Okay.
-That was a big improvement, okay?
But at the same time,
it became clear that the -- that we now have
this brand-new, gorgeous convention center,
and the budget for promoting the convention center was --
had suffered losses.
And so, they -- they needed help.
The convention center needed some funding
not just to promote itself,
but also to pay staff to make those bookings.
We can't have a convention center
if people aren't using it.
And -- And the money that -- that those hotels generated
could only be used to promote leisure travel.
-Right. Right. -Not business travel.
-And convention stuff. Right. Right.
-Yeah.
And so, this legislation allowed for the use of that money
to be -- to be spent also
to help fill the -- the convention center
and the hotels that serve the guests there.
And I'll tell you, it doesn't really matter
who is paying the check at a small business downtown,
whether or not they're on vacation or on business travel,
that helps our small businesses downtown
and throughout the city.
-Right.
And I should point out, this STIA, the members of it,
they agreed to assess themselves these fees,
and these sort of things, to improve the tourism there.
And it sounds like a lot of the people in that area said,
"Yes, we do want to do this
because of what's going on here."
-70%. -Yeah.
That -- That's a big deal. That's a big deal.
And I wanted to make sure I pointed that out.
But in terms of the impact you're hoping this would have,
talk to me about this.
Is this going to improve those booking numbers
for the convention center, let's say?
Is this going to mean a bigger investment into tourism
for the city of Seattle?
And then, maybe, if you could add on to that,
what's gonna happen with jobs?
Because I know that's been a bit of an issue, too,
trying to build back that tourism industry
and the jobs that are really important with it.
I mean, a $7.4 billion a year type of industry here,
this is a big deal for King County.
-Absolutely.
And people can look back at this summer, and say,
"Hey, tourism is great in Seattle."
That's a great time to visit Seattle.
-Right.
-But we are also talking about the need
to promote conventions throughout the year.
And people book conventions years in advance.
Okay, so we are talking jobs
and we're talking the promotion of Seattle.
And I don't know if I got to this point,
but so it had been $4.
-Yes.
-And with passage of this legislation,
the fee will go to 2.3%
-You mentioned that earlier.
-Right. -Yes.
And so, that allows -- so that means
that the fee is is proportionate to the cost of the stay.
-And grow over time, et cetera.
-Right.
And it's not regressive,
so that a guest who's staying in a more expensive hotel
pays more than somebody who's staying in
a less expensive hotel.
This is what Portland does.
-Yeah.
And we're competing against Portland for the --
that business travel.
And so, I am hoping that this will make
Seattle more competitive and provide more money
at the same time for our --
to promote our businesses and to grow our job base.
-Got it.
Can you touch briefly on what's happening
with the Ballard improvement area?
Because I know that one was approved recently,
too, in committee.
What's that going to do for that neighborhood?
Because I know they've --
they've been through a lot, there,
and they're certainly looking for some support.
Talk to me about Ballard, and what's happening in that area.
-Sure.
So, again, Ballard is -- the Ballard Alliance
is another one of the city's business improvement areas.
-Right.
-And just so your folks know,
these ratepayers agreed to charge themselves.
-Right. Mm-hmm.
-So -- And that money goes into a pot of money that,
in most cases, is used to beautify the neighborhood,
pick up trash, remove graffiti,
put lights in the trees at holiday time,
promote the local businesses,
put on festivals, all of those things.
That's not just good for the businesses that are --
or the property owners that are paying that money,
it's good for the neighborhood as a whole.
-Sure.
-And -- And it's good for Seattle in general.
So...
so we owe a debt of gratitude to all of our --
all of our BIAs and the ratepayers that --
that agree to pay this, which benefits all of us.
And we saw that there was really strong support
for the renewal of the Mid downtown, as well.
-Right, right. Another example.
-Yeah.
So, -- So, essentially, with the Ballard BIA,
I believe that it -- it had started in 2011.
-Yes.
-And there is no change to the assessment.
-Okay.
-However, there is some slight modification
to the boundary of the -- of the BIA itself.
-Okay. Okay.
So, those benefits will still keep coming in.
Thank you very much for that.
I wanted to talk about an interesting issue
before the council recently --
how we vote to put council members like you in office.
The council is talking about staggering
those terms, such that we would vote
for four members in one year, five the next,
so we don't have all seven district seats up at once
like we have this year, for example.
This would be a charter amendment,
so it would require a public vote.
Why are you considering this?
-You will have to ask the proponents.
-Okay. Okay.
-This has not been referred yet.
It has been discussed once
in the Finance and Housing Committee.
-Okay.
Do you think it's a good idea, is what I was putting out?
No. -Oh, okay.
-I do not.
First, and primarily based on the principle
that our current system, our seven districts
and our two citywide positions, and when they are on the ballot,
that was the product of a citizens initiative in 2013.
-Okay.
-And here we're about to --
one council member is saying that we should change it,
with very little public discussion,
and without really articulating
what is the problem that this will solve,
and what is the evidence of that problem.
That's what I take into any -- really any policy discussion,
but especially when it comes to elections.
-Yeah.
-And even especially especially when that election system
was a product of -- of a people's initiative.
Okay? So...So that is the thing
I did talk to Eugene Wasserman,
who was the chair of the Seattle District Now Committee
that put that on the ballot.
And I -- And in fact, there were some good reasons
why it was set up the way it was.
And the four citywide positions, to council members,
mayor, and city attorney
we're -- we're not on the ballot at the same time on purpose.
And I can go into the reasons for that.
But there was a well-reasoned, um, set --
rationale for the way that it was set up.
And I think just going in and -- and moving things around
without really talking about what will be the pros and cons,
it does a disservice to our democratic system right now.
-It would be a public vote.
I mean, the public would have
the chance to decide on something like this.
And I guess the idea -- just for a little Devil's Advocate, here,
I think the idea is to try to avoid
as much institutional turnover in case,
let's say, all seven positions are up and different.
We have new people in office. That's great.
But at the same time,
there's a certain learning curve, as you know,
with City Hall, in terms of getting council members
up to speed on how to pass legislation and stuff.
Your thoughts on that piece of it.
I guess the other side of the argument.
-Well, first of all, I'll say -- Devil's Advocate.
-Okay.
-If people want to throw out all seven, they have that right.
-That's right. -All right?
And so -- But at the same time...
I have not heard any complaints...
-Okay.
-...from counc-- from my constituents,
that have said that they didn't feel that
they could fully participate in the electoral process.
-Okay. Okay.
-And yes, there is always the potential for disruption.
But again, it was set up this way for a reason.
-Okay.
-And yes, this -- the voters will decide,
but council will be put in the position of saying --
we have to -- by -- by putting it on the ballot,
We are saying there is a problem right now.
-I see.
-And -- And that -- that case has to be made to me.
-Okay.
-The -- The -- I will -- I do want to mention
that this does contain -- the legislation contains
a ballot title that includes a call for a change,
if the state gives permission, to even-year elections
for local -- for local governments.
-Right. Right.
-That is extremely concerning to me.
Why?
Because our races, our elections,
are every other year.
And people -- you know, local government isn't sexy,
but the decisions made by those people,
by the -- by officeholders affect people's lives
every single day, from public safety to potholes.
And if those races have to compete on a ballot
with state and federal and potentially presidential race,
I am concerned that --
that people will not get the information,
because you won't be reading headlines
about the candidate forum with, you know...
-Sure.
-...with all the mayoral candidates,
or with the city council candidates.
-It'd make for a crowded ballot.
I see what you're saying. -Right.
A crowded ballot in a shrinking news landscape.
So, I think that the quality of public information
is -- is very important when it comes to local elections.
-Okay.
Thank you for your feedback on that.
I wanted to talk about another plan
you have in the works to expand
the number of electric vehicle chargers in the city of Seattle.
As I understand it, City Light
would potentially lease out city property
to a private company to run a station
or City Light might rent out a space
from private property owners to make this happen.
What's the goal here? What's happening?
-The goal here is to make it easier
to charge an electric vehicle.
Brian, the good news is that 25% --
close to 25% of new vehicles purchased in Seattle
are electric vehicles.
That's great.
We tend to be an early adopter city.
The bad news is that our, um -- our network of chargers
of -- of electric vehicle charging stations has not grown.
So, unless you have a charger in your --
in your -- in your home, or apartment complex,
or at your workplace, it's very difficult --
especially, and what about for visitors that come.
And so, City Light has installed electric chargers
on city property.
You know, perhaps that's not very convenient.
So, we have to get creative.
And this is -- This is allowing for the flexibility
to partner with a vendor that could put it on public property
or to partner with the owner of, say,
a parking lot surrounded by small businesses,
where people can charge their car
while they patronize one of those businesses.
So, there is an economic development component --
of course I'm always going to say.
-That -- You're the head of that committee.
-We have to -- We have to get more creative,
because -- because we need to fulfill our climate goals
and also implement the City Light
transportation, electrification plan.
-Right.
The state saying by 2035
we're not supposed to have any new vehicles
that are not electrically charged.
So, thank you for that. Mailbag time, here.
A quick land-use question for you, here.
Anson writes in this --
"I want to know what's happening with the proposed affordable
housing development in Fort Lawton.
The city's own website hasn't been updated since 2019,
and the inaction seems, well, irresponsible.
Is this how we deal with the housing crisis?"
A big question on Fort Lawton.
I know it's been an issue for years.
Any thoughts on this one?
-Can I claim I'll get back to you?
-Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.
I know this has just been a big issue for so long.
Maybe we can talk about affordable housing
writ large a little bit,
'cause I know that's an issue for you, too.
Any thoughts on that bigger issue?
-My -- My position is that...
anything that we can do to remove barriers
to -- to expanding housing options we should do.
-Okay.
-And so, I don't know what the holdup is at Fort Lawton,
but what I would say is that
we do have a housing affordability crisis,
and there are many ways we can tackle it.
We will have the housing levy on the ballot.
That will be great.
We also have a lot of --
there are projects in the pipeline
to build affordable housing.
We've got the multi-family tax exemption program,
which -- which puts affordable units in --
in private developments.
And -- my favorite -- we can make it easier
and less expensive to produce new units.
And that has to do with permitting,
cutting some red tape.
So, it's all hands on deck,
and we need to do all of the above.
-Thank you.
I appreciate you working with me on that.
Maybe one last question to wrap up --
budget priorities for the fall.
Can you talk to me about that?
I know this is a big issue coming up every fall.
Your thoughts about where your budget priorities are.
big picture.
-Well, we have already endorsed the 2024 budget,
and so there will be very little room
for changes, and council members
will have to, if they propose an addition to the budget,
they have got to identify a cut.
So, I don't know what my other colleagues are planning,
but I -- in my committee, we passed a resolution
that endorsed the the Office of Economic Development's
Future of Seattle Economy Investment agenda.
-Right.
-Which is -- Which --
And this was the culmination of a community-driven process
where stakeholders identified different investment areas
that would help build generational wealth.
-Sure.
-And so, what I am going to be focused on
is making sure that the -- the investment agenda,
whatever those particular budget items,
that I'm going to try to protect those items,
because that is the -- that is the department that I oversee.
And I think that economic development is --
is -- we have got to do everything we possibly can
to promote economic development,
especially in neighborhoods where people are being displaced
and opportunities are far fewer.
-Okay. Thank you very much for that.
I know a lot is still ahead, and for next year, too,
with a budget gap to talk about, as well.
Thank you very much, Councilmember Nelson.
Thanks for everybody who's watching out there.
We'll see you next time on "Council Edition."
♪♪