Seattle Forward

Bruce Harrell's Vision for Seattle's Future

Yesterday, Mayor Bruce Harrell addressed the people of Seattle and shared his vision for the future of our city. I've provided links below for you to read or watch his speech.

 

I have returned to City Hall at the Mayor's invitation to help him with strategic initiatives, and I'm delighted. It just feels good to be back and fully engaged working to advance Mayor Harrell's agenda.

 

As the Mayor highlighted in his remarks today, there is a lot to do, no shortage of challenges right out of the gate: homelessness, restoration of parks and public spaces, public safety, the longstanding inequities we see in education, economic opportunity, and criminal justice, to name just a few.

 

You can read the Mayor's address here or watch a video of his swearing-in and speech here. I believe you'll like what he has to say and the vision he casts for Seattle.

 

The Urgent and Critical Importance of Preschool For All

If we set our minds to it, Washington State could make high-quality, universal, voluntary preschool available for all of our three- and four-year-old children. And, we could do it in just ten years.

 

Should we set out on this journey? That's the key question.

We have nearly 60 years of research documenting the value of preschool for our youngest learners. High-quality preschool is certainly not a panacea, but over 60 years of research shows us it can have dramatic, life-changing benefits for our children. (Click on the image to the left or here to read and download the PDF.)

 

Preschool done right produces huge benefits, including a very strong economic return-on-investment for society at large. Frankly, the decades of research paint a very clear "why wouldn't we do this?" picture.

 

Former State Representative Ruth Kagi — Washington's decades-long champion for children — and I, along with several academics, published a detailed policy paper yesterday on the value of universal preschool. We believe high-quality preschool is essential for our state's three- and four-year-old children if we are to successfully address the inequities we see in education, economic opportunity, criminal legal system involvement, and adult earning power and health.

 

Our state already provides limited preschool services through the Early Childhood Education Assistant Program (ECEAP) and the federal government's Head Start program. But these combined programs only reach about 30% of our children statewide.

 

Here are a few key facts to keep in mind as you consider our proposal for universal preschool in Washington.

• Washington ranks 38th among all states in preschool enrollment for 4-year-olds and 17th for 3-year-olds. We have failed, so far, to provide all of our state's children with the strong and fair start they need and certainly deserve as they begin their journey to adulthood.
  
  
• Approximately two-thirds of the public preschool classrooms in Washington are only part-day. This fact represents a vast, harmful barrier for working families who need full-day services to keep working.
• Because of opportunity gaps, nearly 50% — one-half — of Washington's five-year-old children arrive at Kindergarten already behind on six age-specific measures of learning preparedness. These children face a steep climb as they attempt to catch up. Think about this for a moment. Due to lack of opportunity, one-half of Washington's five-year-old children enter Kindergarten already behind. This is a red-flag warning to the political leadership of Washington that our systems, policies, and practices are creating life-long harm to children and our society.
  
  
• Today, public preschool tuition subsidies are provided to families with incomes below $37,100 per year. There is almost no assistance for families earning more which means families with moderate-to-low incomes are left on their own, unable to afford quality preschool services for their children. 
  
  
• There is a severe shortage of qualified preschool educators and facilities in Washington. This is why our proposal for Washington Preschool for All is designed to be phased in over ten years; we need time to do it right. 

Implementing Washington Preschool for All is good for children and families, and it's good for our long-term economic growth and sustainability. High-quality preschool is a public good we should diligently pursue.

 

There is another compelling reason these recommendations are essential right now. President Biden has proposed universal preschool for America's children as part of his American Families Plan and the Build Back Better legislation. It's being considered by Congress now. If adopted, the framework we recommend in our policy brief will set Washington up to fully implement universal preschool and take full advantage of the federal dollars that will flow to the state.

 

I've written a lot about preschool, including the Seattle Preschool Program. You can review all of these earlier musings here.

What Yesterday's Election Means for Seattle's Future

There are still votes to count but it is clear from last night's results that the pragmatic, rational progressive candidates came out on top. Finally!

 

Congratulations to Mayor-elect Bruce Harrell, Councilmember-elect Sara Nelson, and City Attorney-elect Ann Davison. Each of you campaigned hard, shared your vision for our city, and achieved stunning victories. Well done.

 

This is very good news for Seattle's future, something I wrote about last January 5 in my Seattle Forward column. I'm repeating it here because it's more important than ever as our newly elected officials take office and begin the process of governing.

 

Here's what I wrote last January. I'm very confident our new leaders can make this vision even better and work to achieve it.

 

Seattle needs a vision reset.

 

The mayor is not seeking re-election. The school superintendent has resigned. The police chief was pushed aside by the city council. The coronavirus pandemic has left us isolated. Downtown is desolate. Where and how we work is being transformed. Many essential workers are struggling mightily to keep up and pay the bills. Our infrastructure systems are inadequately maintained. First responders are overloaded and stretched thin. Campers have taken over many of our parks, green spaces, and sidewalks, preventing others from accessing them safely. Ideological and political divides are pushing us further and further into our dogmatic corners. Herein, opportunity presents itself. 

 

The urban theorist Richard Florida argues cities and surrounding regions will thrive as we move beyond the pandemic, just as they have following previous calamities: “Covid-19 is a once-in-a-century catastrophe, but it also hands us a once-in-a-century opportunity to rebuild communities to be more equitable and more inclusive, as well as more livable.”

 

America has lifted itself from calamity before and, unexpectedly, created a more equitable and inclusive society. Robert Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett document these sweeping recoveries in their new book, The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again. They propose a return to a “we” approach to public policy, business practices, and community affairs, a new communitarian mindset, if you will, instead of the intense “I” focus that permeates American society today.

 

Religious leaders are making the same plea. Pope Francis, in his latest book, Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, encourages new approaches to bridge our divides, focused on making the world safer, fairer, and healthier for everyone. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times traces today’s crises to the loss of a strong, broadly shared moral code and the elevation of self-interest over the common good.

 

From Ideological Extremes to Common Purpose

 

So, while Seattle’s city government is adrift, consumed by the tyranny of the urgent and ideological extremes, and, in my opinion, lacking a broadly shared overall vision for where the city is headed, let’s grab this opportunity to cast a new vision of the city we want to build for an equitable and inclusive future for everyone.

 

I would guess most Seattleites desire an economically and culturally vibrant city built on a foundation of excellent schools, clean energy, efficient and diverse transportation options, affordable housing, and robust arts and sports entertainment. I also believe we sincerely want to tackle two of the most persistent challenges we face – racial inequity and how best to help those living unsheltered.

 

So, here’s some vision casting for your consideration; hopefully, it stimulates further discussion.

 

Confessing Original Sins

 

Let’s start by being a city that openly acknowledges our nation’s original sins of slavery and the vicious slaughter and horrible treatment of Native Americans, and the persistent racism these sins birthed — real estate redlining, mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, police violence, banking discrimination, public education that leaves so many behind, to name just a few. These racist practices and policies became woven into the fabric of our daily lives, crushing in their consequences. If we committed to honestly wrestle with this history, we would be guided by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s warning, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We would give voice to those most affected by these wrongs, work to mend the damage, and make economic investments designed to build opportunity and wealth within the affected communities, a form of 21^st Century reparations if you will. We would be a city that reaches high toward racial equity and justice for all.

 

Focus on Children

 

How about a city that so loves, nourishes, and invests in all of our children that they soar and push the limits of their potential. If this were our vision, we would follow the science of early child development in the all-important birth-to-five window of opportunity, making sure every child gets the strong and fair start they deserve. We’d do that by making high-quality, affordable, and accessible childcare available to working parents, so no family pays more than 7% of their household income for the childcare they need. We would provide free, high-quality, universal preschool to our three- and four-year-olds so every child enters kindergarten ready to learn, erasing the kindergarten-readiness gap that today sees one-third of all Seattle children and one-half of children of color start school already behind. Tragically, kids who start behind often stay behind, which is why it is so crucial to invest early in what works best to prepare kids for kindergarten.

 

And, we would erase the racial inequity that has existed in our public K-12 schools for far too long, a dysfunctional system that every year leaves behind about a quarter of our children of color when they fail to graduate from high school. Done right, these efforts would buttress the work of parents and — as the evidence clearly shows — would achieve measurable and wonderful outcomes for our kids: higher education achievement, fewer teen pregnancies, less involvement in the criminal legal system, better health, and higher earning power as adults. These steps alone would transform lives and be a major step toward racial equity and lasting economic prosperity.

 

Shared Prosperity

 

How about a city that continues to pursue public policies designed to strengthen economic opportunity, like we did with the higher minimum wage and paid sick-and-safe leave, while also, and importantly, honoring our small and large businesses and applauding their job creation. A city that nourishes a win-win compact between employers and employees — businesses thrive and acknowledge their employees as their most valued asset and treat them as such with excellent wages, strong benefits, and long-term retention and development plans. Too idealistic? Take a look at those local companies that have already created exemplary win-win work environments — Costco, Dick’s Drive-In Restaurants, Expedia, Nordstrom, Zillow, Alaska Air, Redfin, PCC Community Markets, to name just a few.

 

Justice for All

 

How about a city that has a criminal legal system that values the dignity and worth of every person, those engaged in criminal behavior and their victims. If this were our vision, we would be a city where our police officers worked diligently as true partners with the natural guardians who live, work, study, and play in our neighborhoods. This would be a city where law enforcement focused primarily on those offenders causing the most harm, especially crimes of violence and crimes directed against our most vulnerable residents — children, the elderly and disabled, immigrants, those experiencing homeless, and those living in poverty. A city where everyone respected and valued our police officers because of their exemplary behavior of dignity and fairness toward everyone. A city where we first and foremost sought reconciliation and restorative justice, but also held offenders accountable to protect the health and safety of all.

 

How about a city that recognized the oppressive harms of untreated substance abuse disorder and mental health crises and offered truly on-demand, medically-based treatment services instead of leaving people to fend for themselves wandering our streets, living unsheltered, some preying on others, and causing further harms. This would be a city that stopped waiting, hoping some other level of government would step in with a solution. We would step up and act to solve this very obvious problem by providing the evidence-based help needed, starting with safe off-the-street housing, like tiny houses, rented hotel rooms, and more enhanced, 24-hour shelter. At the same time, and very importantly, we would stop ignoring, excusing, or allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by the harmful criminal acts some of these same individuals commit, a tolerance that has created chaos in parts of the city and caused many to lose confidence in the city government’s ability to keep our neighborhoods safe.

 

Paying Attention to Basics

 

How about a city that carefully tended its environment and infrastructure — increasing our tree canopy, preserving open space and parks for all to enjoy, maintaining in good order our bridges, roadways, bike, and pedestrian pathways, community centers and sports fields, sewer and storm systems, electrical grid, and our Tolt and Cedar clean watersheds. A city with a maintenance and repair plan rigorously followed and funded, a far less expensive approach in the long run than emergency repairs.

 

Moving Taxation into the 21^st Century

 

Thinking even more boldly, how about a city that champions across the state a fair and equitable tax system to modernize Washington’s unjust, inadequate, and antiquated system that extracts a higher percentage of household income from our poorest families than it does from our wealthiest. As our local economist and nationally-recognized state tax expert Dick Conway has said, “If you want to address income inequity, adopt a state income tax and eliminate all other state and local taxes.” A tax system created in the early 1900s can’t adequately, nor equitably, serve our needs today. We would be a city known for advocating tax modernization based on fairness and sensitivity to our current economic systems and practices.

 

Lifting Up the Common Good

 

How about a city that unites around the common good, works to understand different opinions, and practices the politics of inclusion and compromise without the divisive rancor and personal attacks so common today. A city that restores the “we” spirit Putnam and Garrett describe, and that Pope Francis and Rabbi Sacks have prayed for. A city where people come together to achieve shared goals, just like we’ve done in the past with the cleanup of Lake Washington in the late 1950s which stopped the discharge of 20 million gallons of raw sewage into the lake every day, the adoption of Forward Thrust in 1968 that created community centers, fire stations, swimming pools and expanded parks across the city, the Sound Transit light rail system being built now, voter approval in 2018 of the Seattle Promise free community college benefit, and the remodeling of our libraries and fire stations in recent years.

 

How about a city with elected officials who cared more about the effective and efficient delivery of city services — about governing — than about advancing their own political careers or scoring points with the radical fringes of our political landscape. A city where people viewed city government as consistently and effectively getting good things done for everyone. A city where we valued the common good above all else. Imagine what we could do and what it would mean.

 

Just imagine. A child born in Seattle immediately cared for not just by her parents, family, and neighbors, but by an economy that gives her parents time off to nurture her and quality childcare and prekindergarten services that foster her development and allows her parents to continue working. As she grows, she attends an excellent public school that works equally well for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. She enjoys parks and playgrounds as a healthy way to meet friends and stay active. She witnesses the most vulnerable among us protected and cared for. She knows the police officers and firefighters in her neighborhood, and they know her and understand her family and their community values. As she enters the workforce as an adult, she finds many well-paying jobs to choose from at iconic Seattle businesses. Is that too hard to imagine?  I don’t believe so.

 

Yes, sometimes Seattle’s government and political environment can feel like it’s locked in a hamster wheel, constantly moving, yet not progressing. We — you and I — can change that with a compelling vision for the future, a future based on shared values, and an unwavering commitment to the evidence of what works to strengthen the common good.

 

This is my vision for Seattle. What’s yours?

Time to Vote: My Recommendations

Your mail-back election ballot will arrive today or tomorrow, so here are my voting recommendations for your consideration.

 

Help set the future course of our city by returning your ballot no later than Tuesday, November 2.

 

Some candidates on the ballot have advocated extreme and destructively radical positions on homelessness, police services, and relations with our job-producing businesses. If you think our city is on the right track and you like and trust the current approaches at City Hall, then vote for these candidates.

 

On the other hand, if you believe the city is headed in the wrong direction, then vote for candidates who take more reasonable, pragmatic approaches. Leaders who want to govern effectively, who will recenter City government on implementing thoughtful solutions, not those hung up on ideological purity tests. Leaders who listen carefully, follow the evidence of what works to solve problems, welcome accountability, spend taxpayer dollars wisely, and exude a humility worthy of public servants. Leaders who aren’t afraid of compromise and focus on the vital services our city government is responsible for delivering every day.

 

With that in mind, here are my voting recommendations for some select positions, followed by additional comments.

___________________________________________________________

 

King County Executive: Dow Constantine

 

Seattle Mayor: Bruce Harrell

 

Seattle City Attorney: Ann Davison

 

Seattle City Council Position No. 9: Sara Nelson

 

Seattle School District No 4: Vivian Song Maritz

 

Seattle School District No 5: Michelle Sarju

 

Seattle School District No 7: Brandon Hersey

___________________________________________________________

 

The best choice for Seattle’s next Mayor is evident in the policy positions the two candidates have taken. I wrote about their differences a few weeks ago. Bruce Harrell is the best choice, in my opinion.

 

Bruce and his opponent, Lorena Gonzalez, are committed to public service. They are bright and engaged. They value our city and its people. But Bruce’s solutions for the challenges the city faces are more pragmatic, more data and research-based, and will address current and long-term problems more holistically. Bruce has a better chance of bringing people together to serve the common good and effectively govern, unifying city government employees (all 11,000+ of them), and making progress on the long-term inequities we see all around us. Vote for Bruce Harrell.

 

The Office of City Attorney is crucial to the effective operations of the city government. The City Attorney has a staff of about 200 and is responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor crimes in the city; these crimes include domestic violence assault, DUI, firearm violations, theft, menacing and harassment, and many others. The City Attorney also advises the Mayor, City Council, and city departments on legal matters and represents the city in court. As this article points out, the City Attorney plays a crucial role in coordinating the city government’s overall response to crime, everything from policing strategies to diversion programs and social services.

 

Here’s another piece that was written by three respected former Seattle police chiefs and published earlier today. These experienced police leaders make the case for electing a rational, pragmatic leader who can reform police services and keep our neighborhoods safe.

 

I will be very blunt, we dare not elect Nicole Thomas-Kennedy who has pledged to eliminate prosecution of most misdemeanor crimes and wants to abolish the police, both reckless and dangerous positions. The Seattle Times explained how unqualified Thomas-Kennedy is for this office because of her demeaning hostility and a rabid hatred of the police, her repeated encouragement of violence during protests, and her belief that property destruction is a “moral imperative.” In defending her position on dropping misdemeanor crimes, Thomas-Kennedy dismisses these crimes as minor and asserts that people are routinely being arrested and prosecuted for stealing a sandwich because they are hungry or a jacket because they are cold; those prosecutions rarely occur, and if they do, there is almost always other criminal behavior involved.

 

On her outrageous comments justifying violence, disparaging the police, or damaging property as a "moral imperative," Thomas-Kennedy now says she was joking or communicating sarcasm, and that she wasn't a candidate for public office when she made those statements. That's an interesting attempted makeover. Why doesn't she instead retract those comments and explain what she really meant? She refuses to do so.

 

Ann Davison is the other candidate for City Attorney. She describes herself as a moderate and has won the endorsement of The Seattle Times and former Seattle Mayors. She is supported by former Washington governors Gary Locke, Chris Gregoire, and Dan Evans, 30 retired judges, and a host of community leaders. Vote for Ann Davison.

 

Our public schools need our support and a firm commitment to eliminating the racial inequities existing for decades in Seattle. To do this, we need strong school board directors who will set specific goals and effective policies. We need board directors who understand their role to establish budgets, set policy, and ensure the day-to-day management of our schools is done effectively through the superintendent. As has been the case for far too long, we don’t need board members micro-managing district operations, leading to a revolving door of superintendents. Vote for three incredibly prepared, effective leaders: Vivian Song Maritz, Michelle Sarju, and Brandon Hersey.

 

Remember to return your ballot before Tuesday, November 2. You can mail it back postage-free or place it in a ballot dropbox. Click here for ballot box locations. You can also track your ballot to make sure it is received by King County Elections and counted. 

Seattle Mayor: An Incredibly Clear Choice

Voters will soon choose a new mayor to lead our city. The choice could not be more clear-cut.

 

One option is the current City Council president, M. Lorena Gonzalez, who grew up in eastern Washington, is a lawyer, and was first elected to the Council in 2015. Lorena's legal career focused on representing workers and victims of discrimination and police brutality.

 

The other option is Bruce Harrell, an attorney who has represented nonprofit organizations, telecommunications companies, and people who have experienced blatant discrimination. Bruce spent twelve years on the City Council before retiring in 2019.

 

Both candidates are intelligent, committed to public service, and care deeply about our city and its people. Both are political progressives who want to create more opportunities, especially for those on the margins. Both want a city where everyone prospers.

 

However, their visions for Seattle's future are incredibly different, most significantly regarding homelessness, policing, and their perspective of our job-creating businesses.

 

Gonzalez envisions a city with a dramatically reduced police force that pursues only the most serious crimes, leaving many misdemeanors, including property crime, unchecked. She has no real plan to bring those living unsheltered inside or stem the proliferation of tent encampments in our parks and on our sidewalks and says if elected she will continue the current approaches of the City Council. She's actively hostile to the downtown businesses that pay the bulk of taxes that fund city services. She promises to abolish all single-family neighborhoods, an astonishingly blunt action that will only create years of legal and political squabbling.

 

Sound incredible? Consider the evidence.

 

As president of the City Council, last year Gonzalez recklessly pledged to slash the police budget by 50%, even though that would necessarily lead to the loss of hundreds of dedicated police officers who ensure neighborhood safety, favoring instead shifting money to undefined, untested, and nonexistent alternatives to police protection. She allowed the debate over policing to become so antagonistic, so disrespectful of the women and men who serve our city, that the police chief — the first Black woman to lead our officers — resigned in protest.

 

Over the past 18 months, nearly 300 officers have left the department, many in total dismay and disgust over the City Council's approach to policing. This reduction in our police service is staggering and unprecedented; it represents about 22% of the total number of officers. These departures led the current police chief to recently inform the Council that he cannot deploy enough officers for each shift, leading to dramatically slower response times to 911 emergency calls.

 

Last summer, Gonzalez was a lead sponsor of a measure to defund the police recruitment and retention office that could have possibly staunched the flood of resignations; the Mayor rejected it, but a Council majority led by Gonzalez overrode the Mayor's veto. Two months ago, Gonzalez reinforced her "defund the police" advocacy when she answered a direct question on whether she would cut the police budget by "50% or more," she answered "maybe." Just last week, James Robart, the federal judge overseeing reform of our police department, said, "I have seen too much knee-jerk reaction and not enough forethought . . . there is an essential requirement for public safety." No kidding.

 

The Gonzalez approach to policing creates unnecessary risk at a time when violent crime has surged to the highest it's been in the past ten years, a documented increase comparing the January-July period each year between 2012 and 2021. 

 

On the other hand, Bruce Harrell seeks reform without risking public safety or demonizing the many officers who serve our city with professionalism and integrity, treating all people with dignity. Harrell understands safe neighborhoods are essential for shared prosperity. He appreciates the vital work of our police officers and isn't afraid to say so. He will rebuild our police service so that we all can have trust and confidence in our officers.

 

Harrell's record demonstrates that he has been a leader for effective reform. Seattle police officers wear body cameras today because of his insistence. He wrote and won passage of the first-ever anti-bias policing ordinance. He helped to repeal a reform-blocking, innovation-impairing 1970s law that prohibited hiring police commanders from outside our police department, arguing successfully that the police chief should be able to hire the best candidate wherever they come from.

 

The choice is glaring when it comes to homelessness as well.

 

Despite the homelessness crisis we can all see across our city, Gonzalez was the only City Council member to vote against the formation of the new Regional Homelessness Authority designed to chart a new, more strategic, and more outcome-focused approach. She voted to eliminate the extraordinary social workers and specially trained police officers who visited tent encampments to encourage people to accept emergency housing and services. And, Gonzalez opposes Compassion Seattle's Charter Amendment 29, a measure on the November ballot written by a group of homeless service providers, neighborhood and business leaders that will compel the city government to take a fresh approach based on the successes achieved in other cities.

 

In July, less than a month before the primary election, The Seattle Times wrote a story detailing the mayoral candidates' positions on homelessness. In that story, the paper reported, astonishingly, that Gonzalez did not seem to be prioritizing the issue and did not see any need for a change of direction on homelessness policy. “González has relied on her record [on homelessness] rather than promising a change in direction,” the Times wrote. “Her website didn’t mention the word ‘homelessness’ until Thursday, after The Seattle Times asked for more specifics about her plans.” 

 

On the other hand, Harrell supports the formation of the Regional Homelessness Authority and sees it as an opportunity to reset our approach and address the crisis as a truly regional problem. He supports Charter Amendment 29 because it will create an action plan to expand behavioral health services — mental health and substance use disorder treatment — and create 2,000 new emergency housing units within twelve months so those living outside can be brought inside. Harrell believes we can do better on homelessness and is not satisfied with the status quo.

 

As for the business community, as president of the City Council, Gonzalez routinely denigrates our city's business leaders — the very people who create jobs and ensure our prosperity. During this campaign, she even refused to complete the Downtown Seattle Association’s standard candidate questionnaire to which all the other leading candidates responded. You'd think the City Council president would want to attract new businesses and nurture the ones we have.

 

On the other hand, Harrell understands the value of companies of all sizes to the people of Seattle. These businesses are our job creators, and they make downtown and our neighborhood business areas vibrant, attractive places to work, live, and play. Through the business tax, the property tax, and the sales tax, these enterprises pay over half of the city's total tax revenues, which are used to fund essential city services. And unlike Lorena, Bruce fundamentally believes that the mayor of Seattle should be willing to talk to every major constituency, including those he may disagree with, in the effort to find common ground and shared purpose.

 

As for housing, on primary election night, Gonzalez said she would abolish all single-family zoning in Seattle. Consider the implications if you live in Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, West Seattle, Lake City, Greenwood, Ballard, Wallingford, or Fremont. Gonzalez would rezone all these neighborhoods — and many more — to allow large multi-family apartment buildings, triplexes, duplexes, and condominiums. Her primary election night statement was consistent with the answer she gave The Seattle Times in late June; when asked if she would eliminate all single-family zoning, she answered "yes."

 

Harrell understands the significance and complexity of Seattle's housing supply shortage yet doesn't believe the answer is to completely wipe out single-family neighborhoods. He favors increased density where it makes sense, for example, along major transit corridors and arterials, including those in single-family zones.

 

As for leadership style, Gonzalez has allowed the politics of exclusion to dominate, the "us versus them" approach of confrontation and denigration of opponents. It's an approach largely responsible for the City Council's paralysis and dysfunctionality on so many issues and the public's appallingly poor perception of the Council. 

 

On the other hand, Harrell favors the politics of inclusion, compromise, and getting things done. He values inviting everyone to the civic table for honest, rational discussion and effective governance. He believes in seeking counsel from subject-matter experts, studying best practices, investing in initiatives that create real solutions, spending taxpayer dollars carefully, and avoiding loud rhetoric, division, and continual one-upmanship.

 

Bruce Harrell is the Mayor Seattle needs.

 

If you agree, here are two things you can do right now.

 

First, you can support Harrell with your endorsement and your financial contribution. You can do that at the Harrell for Mayor website. Contributions are limited to $550 per person.

 

Second, look at the independent expenditure political action committee Bruce Harrell for Seattle's Future, a diverse group of individual Seattleites who have come together to help elect Harrell. This committee is separate from Bruce's campaign but shares the goal of electing him as our next Mayor.

 

I urge you to join me in supporting Bruce Harrell for Seattle's Future. If able, please support this effort financially. There is no limit on the amount you can contribute; donations have ranged from $25 to $25,000. (Corporate contributions are not accepted.)

 

Your financial support will be used to communicate with Seattle voters exactly why Bruce Harrell is our best choice for Mayor.

Finally, an Opportunity to Create a Compassionate, Person-Centered Plan of Action on Homelessness and Tent Encampments

It's time to establish a plan of action to address the continuing crisis of unsheltered homelessness and tent encampments in Seattle. Charter Amendment 29 does exactly this and you can help it qualify for the November election.

 

Nearly six years ago the city and county governments declared homelessness an emergency, yet the crisis rages on with approximately 3,700 people living outside in parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and on sidewalks and streets. What’s more, there is no plan in place to eliminate the need for people to sleep outside; the encampments have essentially become permanent. Charter Amendment 29 establishes a compassionate, person-centered plan to bring people indoors by expanding access to urgently needed behavioral health treatment services for mental health and substance use disorders and creating new emergency housing units.

 

Charter Amendment 29 petitions are now available for registered Seattle voters’ signature. We need 33,060 valid signatures by June 25th to qualify for the November ballot. You can help us reach this goal.

Build More Tiny Homes

The most recent estimate of the number of people living unsheltered in Seattle was 3,738. These are homeless individuals, many with health or substance use challenges, that need a better, warmer and safer place to stay.

 

Last week a friend invited me to visit a warehouse in Seattle’s SODO neighborhood where an assembly line is constructing tiny homes to provide safer and more secure housing for homeless individuals.

 

Here’s what I found amazing about this operation.

 

Sound Foundations NW runs the assembly line with just one paid employee, Barb Oliver, director of operations. All of the construction workers are volunteers from community and church groups, service clubs, and individuals who show up to help.

 

The tiny homes are about 100 square feet in size, have a lockable front door, two windows, heavy-duty insulation, and electricity. They are small, for sure, but so much better than living in a tent in a park, on a sidewalk, or in a vehicle.

 

Because all construction labor is by volunteers — you don’t need specialized skills, they have tasks for everyone — the cost of a tiny home is only about $3,800 for materials and they’re built to last 20 years. (More volunteer builders are needed; click here to sign up. You can see how the tiny homes are built for yourself by clicking here.)

 

Tiny homes are effective in transitioning people out of homelessness. A recent report showed that 34% of tiny home residents eventually moved to permanent housing. That’s a success rate better than more expensive forms of emergency shelter (23%).

 

I was so impressed by the tiny home assembly line I quickly made a donation to support the work. You can, too. It’s a way to become directly involved in addressing the crisis of homelessness in Seattle.

 

Sound Foundations NW accepts donations through the Low Income Housing Institute, one of the organizations which uses the tiny homes and provides case management services to their residents. You can donate here. Be sure to select Sound Foundations NW in the drop-down donation category/designation menu.

 

All donations go toward building materials and supplies — 100%. Here are some examples of how your dollars can do good work:

 

$135 pays for tiny home flooring materials.

 

$180 buys a 5-gallon bucket of paint.

 

$215 buys the two windows.

 

$300 buys insulation.

 

$665 buys the lumber for the frame.

 

$3,800 pays for one complete tiny home. Any donation amount will be greatly appreciated.

 

Tiny homes are not a permanent solution to homelessness, but they are a safe, secure and warm alternative to living outside.

 

Let’s do our part to provide the materials the volunteers will put to excellent use. It’s a step in addressing the encampments that have disrupted our parks, sidewalks and other public spaces.

 

I hope you will join me in supporting Sound Foundations Northwest. Let me know if you do.

Learning by Doing

I want to tell you about a young kid in Seattle.

 

His family was poor. Conflict in his home occasionally turned violent. There was sexual assault by an outsider to his family. He didn’t do very well in school because of his at the time undiagnosed dyslexia and attention deficit disorder.

 

As a student in Seattle Public Schools, this young man was labeled “not college bound.” In his senior year of high school, he was rejected for admission to the University of Washington.

 

Then something very special happened. His high school journalism teacher in his senior year pulled him aside and said,

Should Seattle's City Council Cut Police Services Even More?

Seattle’s City Council will tomorrow morning consider cutting more funding — approximately $5.4 million — from police services; it's part of their plan to shrink the size of the police department. This new reduction would come on the heels of the approximate 20% cut the Council imposed last fall through direct budget cuts and by moving some functions, such as parking enforcement and 911 services, elsewhere in the city budget.

 

See below for how you can share your opinion on this important subject directly with the City Council.

 

If adopted, these additional cuts would have significant negative consequences, including degradation of response times to 911 calls for help. If you think this is just some overdue belt tightening or a direct response to the crucial racial reckoning underway in our country, please read on.

Tent Encampments Are Here to Stay Unless . . .

The tents, dilapidated vehicles, and piles of trash you see in almost every Seattle neighborhood have become an enduring fixture. So has the human suffering.

We should quickly prioritize addressing these tent encampments and follow the lead of other cities that have successfully tackled this issue. Since 2015, when the mayor declared a homelessness emergency, we have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars — and there are success stories to tell — but, tragically, there is no comprehensive plan to remove these illegal encampments or to help those living in them. Not now. Not any time this year or next. Not in five years. They are essentially permanent.

That’s because the City Council’s preferred approach has been one of tolerance and accommodation, evidenced by their elimination last fall, despite Mayor Jenny Durkan’s strong objection, of the Navigation Teams — outreach workers paired with police officers — that successfully nudged people in encampments to accept shelter and social services.

The City Council’s laissez faire approach furthers the terrible damage of substance abuse and mental health disorders for the majority of encampment dwellers. It’s also an approach that denies the public access to