I soon learned that it is no accident that Seattle candidates have such diverse backgrounds and values, representing varied communities across the city. Seattle’s democracy voucher program has been around for a decade, allowing residents to give four $25 vouchers to local candidates of their choice. For the yearly property tax price of a latte, we all get the opportunity to invest in community members who will represent our voices. 

This is why it is vital that all of us vote yes on Proposition 1 on our August 5 primary ballots to renew the democracy voucher program for another 10 years. 

The data shows that the program is working. It has increased voter turnout by 5%. It has been shown to engage people of color and young voters, and increase their likelihood of remaining lifelong participants. Since the introduction of democracy vouchers, small donations to campaigns have increased fivefold, and big donations from outside of the city have plummeted.

Even the most well-connected candidates are now incentivized to spend more time talking to voters than calling up outside donors. Vouchers have redirected those candidates’ energy away from the wealthy few and back to the doors, talking to their neighbors.

Democracy vouchers also give first-time and unlikely candidates a path to step forward. If people can only run for office if they have access to high-money networks, that is not a democracy. By turning unlikely donors into key parts of city campaigns, Seattle empowers us to support the candidates we want instead of just focusing on who seems most likely to win. Democracy vouchers have allowed me to support friends who would not have otherwise been able to run, but who I felt really represented my values.

In a moment where we’re seeing our rights eroded, our voting access under attack by Congress, and corporate CEOs openly attempting to buy elections, now more than ever we must continue to invest in proven systems that put people first. Protecting this successful institution of Seattle elections is how we keep our democracy strong.

Connecting with people about democracy vouchers has always been the highlight of my summer. Every time I knock on a door and tell someone new about the program, the light in their eyes is wonderful to see. So, when your ballot arrives, fill out “yes” on Seattle Proposition 1 so we can keep funding this massively beneficial program. And if you haven’t used your democracy vouchers yet, look up who is running for you and your values and send some democracy vouchers their way.

Jazmine Smith is co-chair of The Urbanist Elections Committee, which has also endorsed a ‘yes’ vote on Seattle Proposition 1.

The post Op-Ed: Renew Democracy Vouchers, Vote Yes on Seattle Prop 1 first appeared on The Urbanist.

• Fighting for safe, abundant, affordable housing for all via prudent updates to local Comprehensive Plans and supporting social housing initiatives and upzones to boost homebuilding.
• Advocating for enhanced transit service, including advocating for siting light rail stations to maximize ridership, increasing pedestrianization and bike lanes, increasing county transit funding, and advocating for policies that make riders and drivers safer.
• Seeking a just economy and cities as communities for all by advocating for renter protections and rent stabilization, supporting holistic public safety interventions, advocating raising progressive revenue, and opposing infrastructure designed for the internment and mass deportation of immigrants.

The agenda builds on and updates the 2024 advocacy agenda the board approved last January. Similarly, that agenda backs increasing the region’s housing supply, selecting future light rail stations with an eye towards healthy ridership, and expanding funding for local multimodal transport.

The intent of our annual advocacy agenda is not just to direct our advocacy efforts and events programming but also to guide the editorial direction of the publication. Our news coverage will be sure to hit these topics, and we’ll also be seeking op-ed posts aligned with our espoused agenda. Reach out to our editors if you’re interested.

As our publisher Doug Trumm wrote last year, “Our journalistic coverage will continue to be rigorous and fact-based as always, but we think it’s helpful for readers to know where we stand. We are advocacy journalists, which means that we reject the falsehood that journalists are neutral observers, and instead openly state our preference for the policies that we believe will bring about the vision we seek for our region: abundant housing affordable to all; safe, sustainable, and reliable transportation; and a strong, just, and decarbonized economy.”

In addition to informing our readers, we also want to provide opportunities to get involved. We are in the middle of a February special election and our state’s legislative session, and various bills relevant to our advocacy agenda are being moved through the legislature. Luckily, there are a variety of upcoming events to get involved in.

February 3 – The Urbanist & House Our Neighbors Social

Come join The Urbanist and House Our Neighbors for a social on February 3rd! We’ll have a speaker from House Our Neighbors talk about Prop 1A (which The Urbanist has endorsed) and how you can get involved as the special election draws near. It’s also a good way to meet some fellow urbanists. 

• What: Social Gathering and learning about Prop 1A with House Our Neighbors
• When: Monday February 3rd, 6pm-7:30pm
• Where: TeKu Tavern + Cafe, 552 Denny Way, Seattle, WA 98109
• Transit Stops: Near stops for Routes 4, 5, 8, 28, and 62 or the E Line. 

February 5 – Seattle Complete Communities Coalition Rally

Focused on Seattle’s Comprehensive plan and how it will affect housing? The rally on February 5th is a must-attend. If you can’t go, we urge you to provide public comment online, meet with your councilmembers, or shoot them an email. Luckily, some dedicated folks have made it easy for you to get involved. Sign up below to attend in person, or go to the One Seattle Plan for All website to easily send an email to your councilmember.

• What: Seattle Complete Communities Coalition Rally
• When: 4pm for the rally, with public comment beginning at 5pm and going as long as 7pm.
• Where: Seattle City Hall
• Transit Stops: Near stops for routes 3, 4, 7, 14, 27, 62, the E line, light rail (Pioneer Square Station), and any other routes that stop downtown or in Pioneer Square.
• Sign up to attend in person here.

Washington Bikes Lobby Days in Olympia on February 11th & 12th

Washington Bikes, for those unfamiliar and as their name implies, is a non-profit that advocates for bike-friendly infrastructure, improving access to and safety of riding bikes, and builds a community of cyclists who can advocate for those things. They are having a lobby day in Olympia on February 12th, with training on February 11th. For urbanists interested in pedestrianization and biking infrastructure, this is the place to go.

• What: Washington Bikes Lobby Day
• When: February 11th & 12th.
• Where: Olympia
• Sign up here

Democracy Lobby Day on February 12th

Democracy Lobby Day is Jointly hosted by Free the Vote Washington, People Powered Elections Washington, Washington for Equitable Representation, Washington Voting Justice Coalition, Civil Survival, FairVote WA, Fix Democracy First, Fuse Washington, Northwest Progressive Institute, and Washington Conservation Action. This coalition falls into the “cities for all” bucket, and will generally be focusing on efforts to preserve democracy and ensure all communities have a voice.

Reach out to tony@waconservationaction.org if you have questions as to how to get involved.

• What: Democracy Lobby Day
• When: February 12th
• Where: Olympia
• Sign up here

We hope to see you at some of these events – but if these events don’t work for you, keep an eye out for other advocacy opportunities coming soon. The best way to stay informed of upcoming opportunities is to sign up for our events newsletter, which will become active in the coming weeks as a weekly reminder of upcoming opportunities. 

Finally, to keep growing as a publication and movement, we need your help.

Generous donations from our readers enable us to expand our reporting, grow our team, and bring urbanism further into the public conversation. Whether you give a little or a lot, your monthly support directly boosts our capacity to cover critical stories and host meaningful, exciting events. Together, we can build better cities. Please consider making a monthly contribution to The Urbanist.

State legislation to follow

The Urbanist has recently reported on a handful of bills moving through the state legislature related to housing, transportation, and parking minimums, which deserve supports from urbanists. Now is the time to make your voice heard on these bills to ensure they advance. Below I’ve shared links to the bill pages where you can track progress and submit comments to your legislators.

HB 1175 – Neighborhood cafes and corner stores

As The Urbanist’s Ryan Packer wrote, “After a bill legalizing neighborhood cafes in residential areas across Washington failed to advance last year, the bill’s sponsor Mark Klicker (R-16th, Walla Walla) is back with a new version that goes even further. House Bill 1175 would force local cities and towns to allow both restaurant cafes and corner stores in all residential areas, ending current bans that exist throughout the state on commercial uses in lower density neighborhoods.” Read Packer’s full article for more.

We encourage you to sign in as pro and submit comments to your legislators on the HB 1175 legislation page. You can also sign up to receive email updates on the bill.

HB 1217 – Rent stabilization

House Bill 1217 would cap annual rent increases at 7% and prohibit landlords from raising rent by any amount in the first year of tenancy. “The bill exempts newly constructed apartments for their first 10 years, existing buildings that are less than 11 years old, public housing, and small rental arrangements, such as a homeowner who only rents out their accessory dwelling unit,” Packer wrote of the proposal. “The proposal also caps all move-in fees and/or security deposits at the equivalent of one month’s rent, and limits fees on late rent to 1.5% of monthly rent, and requires six month’s notice on all rent increases over 3%.” Read Packer’s full article for more.

Reach out to your legislators and sign in as pro on the HB 1217 bill page to weigh in. You can also sign up to receive email updates on the bill.

HB 1491 – Transit-oriented development

Cities in Washington who don’t currently allow apartment buildings around their rapid transit stops would be required to change their zoning to allow more housing to be built, under House Bill 1491. Legislators have tried to pass this bill the last two sessions, and hope that the third time is the charm. One big point of contention will be affordability mandates. Read more in The Urbanist’s writeup.

Contact your legislators and sign in as pro via the HB 1491 bill page. You can also sign up to receive email updates on the bill.

SB 5184 – Reducing parking requirements to spur housing

Senator Jessica Bateman (D-22nd, Olympia) introduced Senate Bill 5184, formally capping almost all minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial uses. Additionally, it would block local governments from mandating parking in a wide array of cases, apart from what is required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the bill, no city could require more than one parking stall for every single new house or apartment, nor more than one stall for every 1,000 square feet of commercial space, with the state’s largest cities and counties restricted to one stall for every two housing units. Read more in Ryan Packer’s writeup

We encourage you to reach out legislators to back the bill on the SB 5184 bill page. You can also sign up to receive email updates on the bill.

Check out our full 2025 advocacy agenda for more legislation that we’re tracking.

The post Rolling Out The Urbanist 2025’s Advocacy Agenda and Early Events first appeared on The Urbanist.

Ballots have reached voters for the upcoming April special election, with the off-season, off-year vote focusing on funding districts and services in all corners of the region. The ballots are due April 25 by 8pm.

The useful mnemonic for the ballot measures comes from the school districts who say “bonds are for buildings, levies are for learning.” Bonds pay for capital projects like new schools and parks. Levies pay for operations, like salaries and program expenses. Only the school districts in Pierce County are asking for bonds. The rest of the votes are levies, paying for services from fire, health care, or police.

Pierce County is running four measures on its ballot this spring. DuPont is renewing a six-year, $0.50 per $1000 property tax levy for emergency medical services. University Place is asking for a property tax increase from $0.66 to $1.01 per $1000 of assessed value to fund a levy for police officers and crime prevention. The school districts in Steilacoom and Orting are both seeking to approve general obligation bonds for building construction. Steilacoom School District, currently with six schools total, is asking for $116 million to build a new elementary school, a new stadium, and other facilities. Orting School District, with four schools, is asking for $150 million to build or renovate elementary schools, expand the high school, and other improvements.

In Snohomish County, there are two items on the ballot. Both of the neighboring cities of Brier and Mountlake Terrace are seeking voter approval to annex into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. It is the service the cities currently use, but the realignment will move the agreements from a contractual relationship to a membership with representation on the district board and reduction in the fees. Without annexation, the cost of fire and EMS in both cities is set to increase.

Four items appear on King County’s ballots. Kent School District is seeking $495 million in general obligation bonds for safety, security, repair, and building technology improvements. The district has 39 schools and serves almost 26,000 students. The Vashon-Maury Island Park and Recreation District is asking to impose a $0.45 per $1000 levy to fund regular park operation and maintenance for the next four years. And the King County Hospital District No. 4 is requesting a levy of $0.70 per $1000 to fund the primary, specialty, and emergency care services at Snoqualmie Valley Hospital. The hospital district covers Carnation, Fall City, and all the towns eastbound on I-90 from Preston through Snoqualmie Pass. The hospital is in downtown Snoqualmie.

The region’s headlining ballot measure is the King County crisis care levy, a nine-year $1.25 billion proposal to organize and run five on-demand mental health and addiction facilities in the county. The measure was approved by the county council in October for addition to the ballot, and documents the increased need for emergency behavioral health services in the county. Call volumes at the health crisis line increased 20% over three years, and the number of people receiving community based behavioral health crisis response increased 146% over nine years. Currently, the county only has one facility for voluntarily behavioral health services, the nonprofit Downtown Emergency Service Center. It does not permit walk-in admission, instead requiring first responder or hospital referrals for entry.

The levy would add $0.145 per $1000 of home value to the county’s property tax bills. The funds will stand up five new facilities open 24 hours a day, seven days a week that will be able to screen and triage any person for behavioral health crisis care. Each of the four regions of the county will have one facility, and the fifth will specialize in serving people under 19 years old. The funds will also increase wages for chronically underpaid health service workers, and looks to stem the long-term reduction in mental health beds in the county. 

Ballot can be mailed without postage, but it is recommended that be done by the Friday prior to the election (April 21) to make sure they are postmarked in time. Ballot drop off locations can be found throughout Pierce, Snohomish, and King Counties. Voters can drop off their ballots to these locations by 8pm on April 25.

The post Crisis Care Levies and School Bonds the Subjects of April Special Election first appeared on The Urbanist.

To assist with your voting needs, The Urbanist Election Committee has prepared for you a smorgasbord of endorsements, ranging from the Washington Legislature to King County Prosecutor to Seattle City ballot initiatives. We may have moved past smoke season, but this year’s eye searing and throat clogging start to autumn is a reminder that climate change is here. Vote accordingly.

If you would like an audio version of our endorsements, check out the most recent Urbanist Podcast where you can listen to Hannah Sabio-Howell and Rian Watt school me on the endorsement process and the many intriguing races through the Sound Transit funding area. Subscribe to The Urbanist Podcast on your favorite service, or enjoy the episode here:

Seattle’s Two-Part Ballot Initiative

Just a reminder that Seattle has a ballot initiative to decide the future of voting in the city. The main event will decide between Proposition 1A which is Approval Voting and Proposition 1B which is Ranked Choice Voting. However, there is a preliminary question that asks “Should either of these measures be enacted into law?” Make sure you complete both parts.

The Elections Committee endorses answering “YES” on the first question, and then selecting Proposition 1B – Ranked Choice Voting. As the committee notes, “Ranked-choice voting gives voters the power to voice their actual candidate preferences, rather than just the candidate(s) they’d tolerate.”

Where’d All The Polls Go?

Broadcast television and unprotected YouTube are covered in political advertising, so it doesn’t feel that we are too far from normal in the run up to an election. But there may be a little something missing, and that is independent polls. FiveThirtyEight has an interesting piece about the decrease in polls for smaller races in this off-year election. Their take: the trend in fewer polls is real, is probably because fewer legacy media outlets are commissioning them, and results in a lot of House races having little coverage. In short, the media is spending money on what the analytics say is important, the same analytics that FiveThirtyEight created.

Speaking of legacy media, SurveyUSA polled Washington voter sentiment for The Seattle Times and KING 5 TV in conjunction with the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, and Washington State University’s Murrow College of Communication. The coverage really highlighted how a majority of Republicans said US democracy is “weakening and may collapse” while the majority of Democrats said it was “holding firm but threatened.” This is echoed fairly predictably when broken down by how folks voted in 2020, education, and region. But deep in the cross tabs, it does show that 24% of urban residents think democracy is “strong and resilient”, one of the highest totals in the table. Cities are engines of optimism, plus all the other good stuff like wealth, medicine, and progress.

Your Urbanist Voter Guide

And for anyone who can use a colorful and concise voters guide, here ya go:

The post General Election 2022: Notes, Endorsements, and Get Voting! first appeared on The Urbanist.

This translates to over 3,100 active and organized players in the region, with many more cricketers playing casually and/or unorganized. Growth in the sport is perhaps most pronounced in the youth circuit. “There were no organized youth teams for my sons to play on in 2010. Now there are four youth academies on the eastside with 18 teams,” Aras said.

The expansion of cricket is not just happening for men and boys, but also women and girls teams. There are six womens teams organized in the recreational leagues with a strong pipeline forming with many girls participating in youth leagues and academies. Jivana Aras, Yatin’s daughter, has excelled in the sport, competed on the US’s Under 19 women’s cricket team, and currently plays in the National Women Cricket League.

Despite cricket’s regional rise, Yatin Aras was quick to mention the limited infrastructure to support the cricket community as resulting in “growth [being] severely constrained by the lack of facilities.” Cricket is popular activity in the flourishing South Asian/Desi community of Seattle and the Eastside, thus in the Puget Sound, cricket is an evident parks and racial equity issue.

This dynamic should be a major consideration as some of the largest cities in King County are considering parks levy renewal. Major population centers for the South Asian community like Bellevue and Kirkland are currently working toward new parks levies. A golden goose for parks dollars, Seattle is considering a doubling of their parks levy to $108 million. To keep up with the pace of the cricketing community’s growth, parks levy dollars must follow and flow.

What’s cricket anyways?

Cricket is a bat-and-ball game. If you are new to the game, you can learn more about its rules from the YouTube video below.

Cricket is typically played on an oval field. International Cricket Council standards call for fields with boundaries between 65 and 90 yards from the center of the pitch, so typically over 20,000 square yards in area. Smaller fields, which exist in the region, may range between 11,000 and 13,000 square yards. For comparison, a soccer/football field is somewhere around 12,000 square yards. Depending on the type of cricket, these games last five days, a full day (7 hours), or a half day (3 and a half hours). Typically, full day cricket is played.

Puget Sound’s cricketing community

The sport is predominantly played by commonwealth countries, mostly Britain and past and current territories. Based on a combination of immigration and other demographic dynamics, the Puget Sound’s cricketing community is primarily Indian/Indian American, but other commonwealth nationalities like Australians, other South Asians, and West Indians/Caribbean are represented as well. Those same immigration dynamics are also fueling the growth and importance of youth cricket leagues.

As our immigration system favors skilled workers and Puget Sound’s professional populace has recently boomed, the population of immigrant children and American-born children of migrants from commonwealth countries is relatively new and burgeoning. Building out Puget Sound’s cricket infrastructure is perhaps most critical for this population of youth and their families looking to continue their cultural pastime in their new homes. Not providing them with appropriate cricket facilities would be especially impactful to immigrant children whose social capital and passion is tied up with cricket.

In general, the population of Indian/Indian Americans is expanding quickly in the Puget Sound region. Lumped into the 2020 census with other “Asian” Americans, the Asian American population jumped nearly 50% between 2010 and 2020. This figure was an astonishing 80% for eastside cities, such as Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Sammamish. Kent, and south Snohomish County also saw a major increase.

Now five-year-old data from the 2017 American Community Survey, which breaks down Asian American to a more national level, found major concentrations of Indian/Indian Americans throughout. These populations are especially great in the Eastside with some census tracts having over 30% or even almost 50% of the population be “Asian Indian.” These numbers are likely even greater today with tens of thousands of Desi, or people from the Indian subcontinent counties of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh living in the Puget Sound, at least.

Local cricketers have organized themselves into four leagues. This includes the Seattle Thunderbolts, our local professional team and a professional youth team. A tier below is the amateur league with four divisions, 44 teams, and over 903 registered players. The recreational league is more than twice as big as the amateur league and then there’s the youth league. Further growth is limited by the number of facilities in the region.

Some activity has occurred around the construction of cricket facilities in the Puget Sound. In North Bend’s Tollgate Farm Park, six turf fields recently opened. In 2020, a state-of-the-art facility opened in Bellevue. Recently, the King County Council passed a motion to support construction of a Major League Cricket grounds to replace the facility at Marymoor Park. Of course, not all cricket infrastructure news is evergreen, the North Robinswood Park’s cricket field in Bellevue will be lost to the construction of the Bellevue Big Picture School. The field that Aras played on in the 90s was also lost. Historically, cricket fields were replaced or lost, rarely added. Oftentimes our local cricket community has to use temporary solutions with moveable pitches on fields for other sports. It’s about time Puget Sound cities made significant public investment in this community.

Let’s Fund Cricket

As Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle contemplate future park levies, supporting cricket should be a pronounced priority. The growing population of cricket players and the communities they come from should make this need for investment necessary and pragmatic. Especially for cities that are not Seattle, passage for parks funding is not guaranteed at the ballot box. Savvy city governments should activate the vote of a growing Indian population and other cricketing communities to help their parks levies pass.

It’s also just good urbanism to create spaces for all members of your locality. Investing in cricket demonstrates cultural competency to immigrant communities from commonwealth countries. Moreover, these kinds of investments are fun and exciting. They can produce professional cricketers like Jivana.

“With the possible introduction of cricket in the 2028 Olympics in LA, we know this second most watched sport in the world is only going to get more popular in the coming years,” Yatin Aras said.

Why not jump on the bandwagon and send some of our own to cricket competitors across the world?

If you want cricket funded and sent to the ballot, let your local elected and city governments know. Yatin and Jivana Aras both spoke at a Bellevue council meeting. Be like the Aras family if you want to support cricket, email your city council members, take city surveys, testify at city council meetings, and generally just engage with local government.

The post Elevate Cricket in Incoming Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle Parks Levies first appeared on The Urbanist.

This podcast runs adjacent to the article I published on the subject, so if you are interested in exploring a new way to create permanently affordable, mixed-income, democratically governed, green, labor union built housing in Seattle, I recommend you check out both the article and podcast.

As always, you can find The Urbanist podcast on ITunes, Spotify, and other major platforms. Want to share a question or opinion with us? Reach out to us at podcast@theurbanist.org.

The post The Urbanist Podcast: An Ambitious New Plan to Create Social Housing in Seattle first appeared on The Urbanist.

A three-judge panel from the Washington State Court of Appeals has declined a stay request from the campaign for “Compassion Seattle” City Charter Amendment 29 (CA29) that would have blocked King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer’s order to remove CA29 from the November ballot.

“We have considered Compassion Seattle’s motion and have determined that it should be denied,” the Court of Appeals panel stated succinctly and without providing further explanation for their decision.

“We’re not surprised by the outcome,” said Knoll Lowney, attorney for the plaintiffs in a press release. “State law requires cost-effective and coordinated homelessness policies, which is why the law does not permit an initiative to impose up to a billion dollars in unfunded mandates without expert input or accountability.”

In a sign of palpable relief, House Our Neighbors, a coalition that formed in opposition to CA29 tweeted, “It’s over! Let’s go win housing for all!”

The CA29 campaign has posted a statement on their website expressing they are “deeply disappointed” in the decision, and that the “rejection of our emergency appeal motion means that Seattle voters must change who is in charge if they want a change to the city’s failed approach to addressing the homelessness crisis.”

The campaign also asserts they will “continue to share evidence that our amendment’s approach can make a necessary and noticeable difference for those living unsheltered in our parks and other public spaces.”

Opponents have argued that CA29 would have enshrined the right to sweep homeless encampments in the city charter and resulted in an unfunded mandate that would have undermined regional efforts to address the homelessness crisis.

“We invite those who backed CA 29 to work with us and with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority by committing to secure the resources and housing necessary to achieve real and lasting solutions to homelessness,” said said Alison Eisinger, executive director of the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, which was one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Homelessness policy differences divide candidates

With thousands of people sleeping unsheltered and in vehicles on Seattle’s streets every night, the homelessness crisis will remain an area of critical concern for Seattle voters.

Yesterday Mayoral candidate and former city council president Bruce Harrell spoke in front of a controversial homelessness encampment in Woodland Park near Green Lake and outlined his plan to address homelessness, which bears many similarities to CA29, Publicola‘s Erica C. Barnett reported. Harrell also used a homeless encampment near an elementary school in Bitter Lake as a backdrop for a June press conference in a clear campaign theme that appears aimed at appealing to his base in wealthy single-family zoned neighborhoods.

Harrell, who had backed CA29, has pledged on his campaign website that he would maintain certain policies outlined in the amendment, such as dedicating 12% of the City budget to homelessness services, while stepping up the pace of emergency housing development. CA29’s writers had envisioned the City would create 1,000 units of affordable or emergency shelter within one year of passage, and then an additional 1,000 the subsequent year. He’s also promised to clear parks of encampments, and while he’s avoided using the word “sweeps” he has backed the concept and did again at the Thursday presser.

“I just think that there has to be consequences for that kind of action,” Harrell said, referring to people who don’t accept the services or shelter they’re offered, Barnett reported, “because many people — and I’m very close to the world of people struggling with drug and alcohol treatment — people that have challenges, many of them are in denial. Many of them do not know what they need. They just do not.”

While insinuating homeless sweeps or at least other severe consequences for campers would ramp up under his administration, Harrell also insisted he wasn’t using a “dogwhistle” to appeal to advocates of homeless sweeps.

Going beyond the already optimistic CA29 schedule, Harrell has promised to speed up the timeline to six months for first 1,000 units, with the goal of having the full 2,000 units completed within the first year. One important caveat: instead of stating “emergency and affordable housing” as was written in CA29, Harrell has employed the term, “emergency, supportive housing” in his homelessness plan. Emergency housing typically refers to spaces like congregant shelters, hotels, and tiny house villages. Many homeless advocates had feared the passage of CA29 would result in funding being taken away from permanent affordable housing development in order to fund emergency housing. In order to achieve his ambitious emergency housing targets, Harrell would have to raise an impressive amount of outside revenue in order to avoid taking money away from the creation of permanent affordable housing.

Seattleites have heard similar bold pledges before: Mayor Jenny Durkan ran on a 1,000 tiny homes in her first year pledge to pair with a tough on homelessness and crime platform, criticizing Cary Moon for calling housing a human right, which she deemed expensive and idealistic. Durkan ended up building 73 tiny homes in her first year and still hasn’t met her pledge.

M. Lorena González, current city council president and Harrell’s opponent in the race, had expressed opposition to CA29 calling it deeply flawed, unconstitutional, unfunded mandate. González campaign manager Alex Koren said Harrell’s approach is cruel in a statement reported by KING 5: “Bruce Harrell outlined no serious plan today to pay for the shelter and services that are needed. He refuses to call on the wealthy and big corporations to pay their fair share to solve this problem because they are the ones who are bankrolling his campaign. Without funding, his promises of more shelter and more services are just more of the same empty promises we’ve heard for years.”

The González campaign said Harrell was using homeless people as political props.

“Harrell also cruelly suggested that we punish people for not going to shelter when our shelters are at capacity,” Koren’s campaign statement continued. “Punishing people experiencing homelessness for government’s failure to build adequate and available shelter and housing is wrong, though unsurprising from a candidate who routinely uses our unsheltered neighbors as political props.”

On her campaign website’s section devoted to the homelessness crisis, González has promoted her work as a co-sponsor of the JumpStart Seattle tax, which should raise about $153 million annually for affordable housing development. She also pledges to go further in raising new funding: “We can raise millions of dollars through a wealth tax at the city level, and I will work with our delegation in the state legislature to challenge and correct our upside-down tax laws.” CA29 took a different “no new funding” approach to addressing homelessness, with CA29 mastermind Tim Burgess pointing to Jumpstart (a tax he didn’t support) as a potential funding source for his measure.

These differences are also visible in the city council and city attorney races. In the tight city council race between progressive Nikkita Oliver, who opposed CA29, and centrist Sara Nelson, who approved of the proposed amendment, differing stances on how to address homelessness may sway voters’ support. This will also likely be the case in the starkly-contrasted City Attorney race between abolitionist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy and Republican Ann Davison. Incumbent Teresa Mosqueda, who opposed CA29, is also running against a supporter, Kenneth Wilson, but primary results suggests the race should fall in Mosqueda’s favor.

Even with CA29 out of the picture as a city charter amendment, some of its policies may live on depending on how Seattleites vote in November. And Compassion Seattle will likely live on as an independent expenditure arm of the Harrell and Nelson campaigns.

“The Compassion Seattle campaign cost more than a million dollars, funded mostly by dozens of large donations from a who’s-who of downtown real estate interests, as well as consultant Tim Ceis, who helped draft the measure,” Barnett reported. “Burgess gave just over $1,000 to the campaign.”

The post Appeal Denied: Compassion Seattle’s Charter Amendment is Dead first appeared on The Urbanist.

In a recent mass email calling for donations, campaigners for the Compassion Seattle city charter amendment (CA29) asked supporters to help fund a legal defense against a second lawsuit arguing that CA29 should not appear on the ballot this November. In the email, the campaign used heated language to refute opposition to CA29.

Last week we learned that the same small group of activists who challenged Charter Amendment 29’s ballot title have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court, attempting to block the people’s right to vote on how to address Seattle’s homelessness crisis. 

Their cynical and desperate claims are meant to confuse the public and increase the costs to our campaign to address Seattle’s homelessness crisis through a humane, effective and accountable plan. Our opponents’ efforts are designed to maintain the status quo, which will mean more tents in Seattle parks and more suffering in our community.

Enough is enough.

We intend to respond aggressively to this baseless litigation and are committed to making sure voters get to vote on Charter Amendment 29 in November.

“Frivolous Lawsuit Aims to Derail Charter Amendment 29, Preserve Status Quo,” email sent by Compassion Seattle, August 18, 2021

The email indicates mounting frustration from the CA29 campaign amid worries that a second lawsuit could undermine Seattle voters’ confidence in the proposed city charter amendment, which polled favorably back in early July. In an effort to sway public opinion, backers of CA29 are attempting to rally Seattleites around the idea that challengers to CA29 wish to maintain a status quo that has resulted in thousands of people sleeping unsheltered on the city’s streets and in public spaces. These supporters believe that the plan put forth in charter amendment offers the best option for reducing homelessness the city.

On the other hand, groups such as House Our Neighbors!, a coalition that formed to oppose CA29, assert that the city charter amendment would result in an unfunded mandate that would create an insufficient amount of emergency and permanent affordable housing, lead to more encampment sweeps, and ignore vehicle residents.

How well do the claims put forth by the CA29 campaign stand up to scrutiny? Let’s take a closer look.

Claim #1: The second lawsuit against CA29 is being presented by “the same small group of activists”

Back in May of 2021, Real Change, the Transit Riders’ Union, Be:Seattle, and Nickelsville put forth a lawsuit contesting the ballot title of CA29, alleging that the proposed ballot title was “prejudicial.” On May 25th, King County Superior Court Judge Brian McDonald ruled that the ballot title did need to be adjusted, although only relatively minor edits were made. This decision paved the way for supporters of CA29 to begin collecting signatures, and by late July King County Department of Elections confirmed that CA29 had collected enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.

However, it is important to point out that the second lawsuit against CA29 was brought forth by a different, and larger, group of plaintiffs. On the second lawsuit the Transit Riders Union was joined by the Washington State ACLU and Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, which is comprised of more than 70 member organizations, including some of the largest and notable homelessness service providers in the region. El Centro de la Raza, the Chief Seattle Club, the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), Mary’s Place, FareStart, Plymouth Housing, Downtown Emergency Service Center are all listed among the member organizations, as is Real Change among others.

King County agencies are also represented in the coalition and include: the King County Community Services Division Homeless Housing Programs, King County Housing Authority, and King County Public Health Department Healthcare for the Homeless Network.

Thus to categorize the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as a “small group of activists” rings false.

Claim #2: Opponents are seeking to “block the people’s right to vote on how to address Seattle’s homelessness crisis.”

It is undeniable that the opposition wants to remove CA29 from the ballot; however, is that action tantamount to blocking people’s right to vote on how to address the homelessness crisis in Seattle?

If CA29 appears before voters, it is true that they will be able to express their opinion whether or not they approve of the proposed charter amendment’s approach to tackling the homelessness crisis. Yet in an election where every candidate in Seattle has shared their position on the issue, it may be disingenuous to present CA29 as the only means by which voters can weigh on in. Even if CA29 is left off the ballot, voters will still be able to decide between candidates expressing divergent opinions on topics ranging from encampment removal and funding for emergency shelter and affordable housing.

On the other hand, Washington State does have a long history of putting decisions before voters in the form of referendums, a point which supporters of CA29 raise to legitimize their approach to addressing the homelessness crisis by amending the city charter by popular vote. However, CA29 is not a referendum, and the differences between charter amendments and referendums are significant.

A review of the City’s archive shows that the majority of charter amendments approved by voters address City processes and governance, for example, when voters approved an amendment to the city charter that created the district elections for city council members back in 2013, the last time the city charter was amended. As a city charter amendment, CA29 is unconventional, raising the question of whether or not voters will understand the reach and duration of its impacts. If approved, CA29 will be in effect for six years — the time remaining until the city’s current charter is up for renewal — making it a mandate that will outlast some politicians’ time in office.

Even so, with solving the homelessness crisis arriving at the top of many Seattle voters priorities, there is a case to made for providing voters the chance to voice their opinion on CA29.

Claim #3: Opposition’s claims are “cynical” and “desperate”

Is it fair to categorize the current legal case being made against CA29 as “cynical” and “desperate”? The use of such charged language — not mention “frivolous” and “baseless” as well — might be par for the course when communicating with rank and file supporters, but is there a seed of truth embedded these critiques?

On SCC Insight, Kevin Schofield does a good job of demystifying the second lawsuit by breaking down the complaints made by the plaintiffs and vetting how well he feels they stand up as legal arguments. Schofield presents the lawsuit as embodying three principle arguments, none of which he believes will succeed in court.

• The first is the argument that CA29 violates the Washington State Housing Opportunity Act. Schofield gets into the legal technicalities, but the gist of his critique is that it does not appear that by implementing CA29 the City of Seattle would violate the statewide response to addressing homeless outlined in the legislation, and if it were to, the City could opt out of some grant funding from the state.
• The second argument is that CA29 “circumvents the decision-making authority of the King County Regional Homeless Authority, to which the city is a party.” Schofield identifies two issues with that argument: first, as long as the City of Seattle lives up its obligations set forth by the County, the city is free to take other actions to address homelessness; second, CA29 contains language “explicitly in support of partnering with the RHA to deliver the commitments in the charter amendment.” So once again, in Schofield’s analysis CA29 does not conflict with existing state and county efforts.
• The third argument relates to zoning code. CA29 calls for the City to take measures to speed up the creation of emergency and affordable housing by waiving land use code and regulation requirements to site projects faster, eliminating City permit fees for projects, and expediting the permitting process for eligible projects. The plaintiffs have argued that these changes are impermissible because only the city council has the authority to change zoning code; however, Schofield points out that there are no zoning ordinances would be changed by the amendment. Additionally, the language in the amendment specifies that the changes would only be made “to the full extent permitted by state law.” In other words, the amendment could be saved by its hollowness; it often implies more action than it will actually require or implement.

In addition to Scofield, legal experts have weighed in on the plaintiffs case and arisen at different conclusions. According to an article in the Seattle Times, Hugh Spitzer, a University of Washington law professor, felt that it was likely that the judge would rule against the case based on his previous experience. However, in the same article, Knoll Lowney, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed confidence that the judge would rule in his clients’ favor.

Although it is unknown which side the judge will rule in favor of, labeling the lawsuit against CA29 as “cynical” and “desperate” appears to reach beyond a reasonable critique of the opposition’s case.

Claim #4: Opponents’ efforts are “designed to maintain the status quo, which will mean more tents in Seattle parks and more suffering in our community.”

Visible homelessness has surged during the pandemic in Seattle, and many other U.S. cities, due to a variety of factors laid out well in a recent article by Sydney Brownstone for The Seattle Times. It is true that encampments in public places have become a sort of status quo in Seattle, heartbreaking, but unremarkable because of their prevalence. However, to cast criticism of CA29 as an effort to maintain these circumstances seems unfair to advocates for the homeless who have their own set of solutions for addressing the crisis.

CA29 opponents House Our Neighbors! outlines their approach on the coalition’s FAQ page.

First, we need to defeat this measure to make sure that sweeps are not enshrined in the City Constitution and perpetuated for years to come. Second, City policies on homelessness should be driven by experts and those who are homeless or have experienced homelessness, not big businesses and millionaires alone, most of whom refuse to take any responsibility for the crisis. This includes deeply affordable, permanent housing and interim measures that respect the dignity and autonomy of those experiencing homelessness — including hygiene centers, tiny house villages, and RV safelots. Our coalition is composed of organizations and individuals who have years of experience pushing for structural solutions which address the root causes of homelessness–join us in fighting for true solutions, not the same failed approaches that led us to this crisis and continue to exacerbate it.

House Our Neighbors! “Well, What’s Your Solution?” FAQ , 2021

It’s interesting to observe how House Our Neighbors! puts forth criticism of CA29 that mirrors the accusations the CA29 campaign has issued toward them. Both sides cast each other as upholding the failed policies of the past.

The path forward identified by House Our Neighbors! does lack some of the identifiable indicators that supporters of CA29 present as one of the amendment’s strengths, and the coalition is not calling for a timeline as CA29 does. Yet, without additional funding to create a sufficient quantity and quality of supportive housing and shelter, it seems unlikely that encampment sweeps will lead most homeless people to accept shelter and then finding stable long-term housing to exit the homelessness system. Instead we could see removals chasing encampments from neighborhood to neighborhood and homeless people seeking more remote places to evade authorities, a familiar pattern that was prevalent pre-pandemic. Would such a situation truly be compassionate? And would CA29’s indicators reflect lasting change and break the cycle of homeless or merely make it less visible?

Whether or not CA29 appears on the ballot in November, Seattleites should pay close attention to the debate it has stirred up around how to end homelessness in the city. Exiting the pandemic has provided a rare moment to take stock of where we stand in relation to this serious problem, and also what actions we are willing to undertake as a community to bring more of our neighbors into shelter.

The post Compassion Seattle Fires Back as Charter Amendment Faces Second Lawsuit first appeared on The Urbanist.

Last summer when Councilmember Kshama Sawant stood on the steps of New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Seattle’s Central District, she called on the City to fund 1,000 new affordable housing units over three years for “historic residents and those displaced” from the neighborhood, which for decades was home to the largest Black community in the Pacific Northwest.

At that time Councilmember Sawant and advocates from the community stopped short of explicitly calling for reparations for Black Seattleites, who statistically have largely been left out of the economic growth accompanying the city’s most recent period of population expansion. Now a year later, the demands have shifted. On a sunny Saturday afternoon, Sawant and an expansive coalition of nonprofit organizations, faith-based institutions, and affordable housing providers held a rally for “reparations, unity, and affordable housing” held near the same site. The rally included live music and impassioned speakers.

“We are asking you, we are pleading for you to give reparations back, to give back what’s been stolen and taken,” said Pastor Lawrence Willis of True Vine of Holiness Missionary Baptist Church at a press conference Wednesday promoting the rally and cause.

Reparations, which are defined in the dictionary as “the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged,” have been a sensitive topic in the U.S. ever since the American government failed to pay reparations to freed slaves after the end of the Civil War. The idea to redistribute some 400,000 acres of Confederate land among the 3.9 million newly liberated slaves was developed by a group of twenty Black leaders in Savannah, Georgia, eleven of whom had been born free in slave states and thus would not have benefited from the action — though they faced racism and prejudice throughout their lives. Their petitioning resulted in Special Order #15, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, the act was overturned after Lincoln’s death by Andrew Johnson, setting into motion a pattern of ignoring or breaking promises made to Black Americans and advancing discriminatory policies favoring wealthy, mostly White landowners, some of which like exclusionary zoning and the mortgage interest tax deduction persist to this day.

After decades of stagnation in the Federal government, could cities lead the way for reparations for Black Americans?

As gentrification continues to tighten its grip on Seattle, it is unsurprising that Black residents and allies are stepping up calls for reparations for harms that have been done, but the evolution in rhetoric can also be linked to changes in national discourse around reparations. This spring the U.S. House of Representatives voted out of committee for the first time ever HB 40, a bill requiring the Federal government to study how it could undertake reparations for descendants of enslaved Americans.

At around the same time, Evanston, Illinois attracted national headlines when it passed its Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program granting qualifying households up to $25,000 for housing down payments or home repairs. According to the City of Evanston, in order to be eligible for the program, individuals must have lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 or be a direct descendant of someone harmed by discriminatory housing policies or practices during this time period. People who have lived in Evanston after 1969 and can demonstrate discriminatory housing practices by the City may also be eligible.

Seattle also has a history of discriminatory housing policies harming residents who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). The recently rally for “reparations, unity, and affordable housing” was spurred by an op-ed published in the Seattle Times by Reverend Robert Jeffrey Sr. of New Hope Missionary Baptist Church.

The op-ed makes the accusation that in 1969 the City of Seattle “forcibly took ownership” of two church properties “under the threat eminent domain and condemnation” to create Spruce Mini Park. Other Black property owners sold their land to create the park as well. Rev. Jeffrey is now calling for the City to return the land to the church or pay reparations for what was taken. In addition, he is demanding that City commit to $10.7 million of funding for the New Hope Family Housing Project, an 87 unit affordable housing development planned on land held by the church that is intended to provide housing to former residents of the Central District who has been displaced. Should the city opt not to return the land itself to the church, Jeffrey is currently pursuing an appraisal of the park’s land value for compensation.

“Why shouldn’t we quantify the pain?” Rev. Jeffrey asked. “We are tired of people estimating our pain and then throwing chump change at us.”

Councilmember Sawant has promised to put legislation in front of the City Council naming both of New Hope Missionary Baptist Church’s demands for reparations and additionally committing the City to paying compensation to “others who suffered under the racist urban renewal programs of the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s.”

Like many American cities, Seattle engaged in urban renewal efforts with the financial backing of the Federal government between 1950 and 1966. According to research completed by the University of Richmond’s Renewing Inequality website, approximately $12.4 million was spent by the Federal government on three urban renewal projects in Seattle. These projects resulted in the displacement of 491 families, 73% of whom were people of color. The Yesler-Atlantic urban renewal project was by far the largest, spanning 340 acres in the present day Judkins Park, Mount Baker, and Central District neighborhoods. 416 families were displaced from the Yesler-Atlantic area alone, 84% of whom were people of color. Because of the disproportionate burden it placed on Black Americans, critics of the era referred to the practice of urban renewal as “negro removal,” a moniker that endures today.

Hammering out the details for reparations is not an easy task, yet the moral argument remains strong

Evanston became a pioneer when it created its reparations policy; yet, the city has faced criticism from some residents, with the lone vote against the initiative coming a Black city councilmember who felt that eligible recipients should receive the $25,000 as a cash grant to be used as they see fit instead of for costs related to home ownership. Such thorny debates around eligibility and compensation have always accompanied reparations efforts, but they have not lessened the moral case for making reparations when harm has been done.

Rev. Jeffrey has called for the City to begin by the returning the church’s land. However, it seems unlikely that such an action could be completed in isolation, and even if it were to be, it would incite questions of fairness over why an individual institution should receive reparations while many more BIPOC residents of Seattle have faced discrimination from the City.

It is also important to point out there are some potential weaknesses in their specific claim for reparations. According to Rev. Jeffrey, the case for reparations for the church stems from the fact that by selling the land to the City, the church lost out on the opportunity to acquire wealth as land values rose in the Central District in the decades that followed the sale.

However, records from Seattle’s Municipal Archives show that when the church was compensated $34,000 for the land used to create Spruce Mini Park, it also acquired land on the same block for $11,500 to create the parking lot it desired. In recent years, the church developed townhouses on some of that land which were sold for market value. Additional land held by the church on two parcels on opposite sides the same street (21st Street) are slated for the development of affordable housing according to Seattle in Progress, a website that tracks development activity.

To provide a bit more context, the acquisition of Spruce Mini-Park was financed by the Forward Thrust series of bond initiatives that were approved by voters. According to author, historian, and political activist Shaun Scott’s series of essays on Forward Thrust for The Urbanist, “in the 1968 election, Forward Thrust outperformed among Black Seattleites relative to Seattleites as a whole on every individual measure, and by an overall mean of 8.4%.”

But Forward Thrust’s popularity among Black Seattleites does not mean that their concerns were front and center to what the initiatives entailed. In one of his essays, Scott quotes Dick Page of Forward Thrust’s campaign staff who confessed to Seattle Magazine “our organization never once [asked] ‘what are we going to do for the Negro?’ For every person suggesting we give special preference to the Central District, we had two others claiming that the major problem area was the Green River Valley.” 

It is impossible to create a time capsule to go back and examine all of the circumstances that influenced New Hope Missionary Baptist Church to sell its land to the City in 1969, or to create an alternate timeline in which the church held on to the land and did not purchase the other parcel. However, the claim that this particular institution was shut out from the economic growth of the surrounding neighborhood invites questions.

Yet, when you look at the factors that led to the displacement of BIPOC communities in Seattle, it is undeniable that disturbing patterns appear. From the initial seizure of the land on which Seattle sits from the Duwamish, who are still federally unrecognized as a tribe despite having signed the treaty of Point Elliott in 1855, to the forced removal and internment of Japanese Seattleites during World War II, to the construction of both I-5 and the Kingdome in the International District which displaced homes and businesses, to redlining and racist covenants which restricted Jewish and BIPOC Seattleites from living in much of the city for decades, to the aforementioned urban renewal of the 1950’s and 60’s, and finally to Weed and Seed, the destructive anti-crime initiative of 1990’s that resulted in the asset forfeiture of people’s homes, notably Black Seattleites in the Central District, many examples exist. This list is long, but it is also incomplete.

Some injustices are writ-large, like the case of the Yesler-Atlantic urban renewal project which displaced hundreds of families. Yet, sometimes it is the small examples that bring most vividly to life the hardships people have faced. Take for example, the case of Spruce Mini Park. About half of the park’s land is below street level, serving to help drain rainwater runoff away from the surrounding area, which includes a childcare center that has been in operation since 1963 and is separated from the park by a cement retaining wall. However, although never an ideal spot for buildings, before the land became a park, it was the site of people’s homes. One of the letters of acquisition from the City provides insight into past inhabitants, an “actively engaged” foster family, Richard and Nellie Jackson.

When approached by the City to sell the land, could the Jacksons have felt relieved to receive compensation for land in a low lying area? Or did they feel coerced to give up their home and cheated by the payment they received? Were they able to find another home to continue fostering youth in?

Understanding and quantifying these damages is a tall order. But if Seattle and countless other American cities want to write a new, more socially just chapter of their history, it is work that needs to be done. During a speech, Rev. Jeffrey put it well when he explained why the City needs to invest in paying reparations to Seattle residents that have faced discrimination. “You cannot build a stable future on a crooked foundation,” he said. “Just as we are here today asking to correct the wrongs that happened in 1969, there will be others here, standing in this place, standing in other places, to correct the injustices that are not corrected today.”

The post Sawant, Black Faith Leaders Call for Reparations to Rectify Seattle’s Racist Housing Practices first appeared on The Urbanist.

Marijuana legalization and drug decriminalization took a big leap forward this year. Arrests and prosecution of drug possession and sale has been disproportionate, but decriminalization can go a long way to undoing this paradigm. So far, politicians have not caught up with public opinion, Vox explains.

The post Sunday Video: Marijuana Legalization and Drug Decriminalization Did Well This Year first appeared on The Urbanist.