Sara Nelson Talks Stadium District Housing, Progressive Revenue, and Involuntary Commitment

[00:00:10] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde, here as always with Erica C. Barnett of Publicola. Hi, Erica. Hello. And political consultant Sandeep Kaushik. Hey, David. Hi, Sandeep. And this week we also have a very special guest with us, City Council President Sarah Nelson. Hello, Sarah Nelson. Hello, everyone. Thanks for having me.

[00:00:31] So why don't we jump in, Council President? First question, right? We all lived through that marathon council meeting on Tuesday, which was the culmination of a really an epic battle between the Port of Seattle and maritime unions on one side and the big coalition of unions and affordable housing advocates and the stadium authorities and the Pioneer Square and CID neighborhood groups on the other.

[00:00:56] And, you know, I know all about this battle because, as I've said before, when we've discussed it on the podcast, I've been working on this issue as a consultant for the stadium authorities for more than six years now. So I've been kind of in the in the middle of this. And I will say that despite having been in the middle of this for this long, I'm honestly still not quite sure why this idea of building a significant but limited amount of affordable housing in the immediate vicinity of the stadiums generated such fierce opposition.

[00:01:24] But it did. And so a lot of things got said and claims got made during that debate, including a lot of what, frankly, I'm just going to say are bullshit claims. And so, Council President, I want to give you an opportunity to kind of set the record straight on some of the some of the stuff that got got thrown out there about the stadium district and what what your legislation did. And so we've talked to previous episodes about the policy issues here.

[00:01:50] And so I want to get a little bit to the politics and opponents of this housing and some of your potential opponents in your reelection race have claimed that you advocated this legislation only because you're in the pocket of billionaire Chris Hansen and who owns the land down there. And so was that what this was really about for you? A big giveaway to Hansen?

[00:02:13] Well, thank you for that lead in, because we heard some of those same arguments in 2023 when we when the rezone was going through council. And I recognize that there are strong emotions and thoughts on both sides of the issue. And there were some crazy accusations of of conspiracy theories that that just don't play out in reality. The fact is, look, this was about Seattle's affordability crisis, pure and simple.

[00:02:43] All right. We've got we've got working class people moving out of Seattle because they can't afford a place to live. And we also have small manufacturing businesses leaving town or closing for the same reason. They can't find affordable workspaces. And and that's what this legislation was about. It was about providing more housing in in an appropriate place in a downtown neighborhood.

[00:03:05] And that would be built on top of of affordable workspaces for for makers, businesses, pure and simple, full stop. That's what my policy goals were. And that's what was driving this. And I will note that the the real the real contingent of the of the coalition that was really, really driving this from the get go was the building trades. And they you know, they were they wanted an amendment in 2023 and didn't work out.

[00:03:34] And so they started talking to council members last year and laying the groundwork for for completing what should have been part of the legislation in 2023. And so that's what this was about. Rich guy, how Hanson, you know, liquefaction zones, all the other things that were thrown at this at this issue, I believe, you know, distracted from the main issue, which is our affordability crisis. People need places to live and places to work.

[00:04:04] And that's what I was trying to do. So if I can jump in, I you know, I want to ask about the housing. One of the objections that I heard from, you know, a lot of urbanist folks was that this is just another way of putting housing on busy, dirty arterial streets, you know, in a polluted industrial area.

[00:04:23] And the council is just once again shoving renters onto, you know, onto First Avenue into this area that is is noisy instead of in single family neighborhoods where it belongs. And so, you know, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that, you know, that concern about the environmental impacts of living on these kinds of streets.

[00:04:46] And, you know, is this a distraction from stuff that's going to happen, you know, later this year in the comp plan where there's going to obviously be there is a continuing battle over housing in those former single family areas? Right. Well, I was I was surprised as anybody else that the urbanists were voting or were pushing against more housing. And that is totally inconsistent with with I think that their mission and what they're going to be arguing for in the comp plan.

[00:05:15] So go figure. I can't answer to that kind of inconsistency or cognitive dissonance. What this was about was about more housing and affordable spaces for small workers. It was about creating brand new union jobs that all of this will be built with 100 percent union labor there that is in there are already signed project labor agreements between the property owner and and the various locals involved here who stand to gain from this.

[00:05:43] So that is what was driving this. And to hear the urbanists talk about liquefaction zones, etc. There are liquefaction zones all over the city. And and but the real point that I want everybody to hear is that in the EIS, geological hazards were were studied and deemed to not be to not rise to the level of concern to not put this in the preferred alternative.

[00:06:10] And that was the deal that was struck. People say we had a deal. Well, the deal was the EIS and the preferred alternative, which recommended residential uses in in the stadium district and other parts that were zoned other parts of the Soto that were zoned urban industrial. And that land use zoning requires that 50 percent of whatever housing is built there must be affordable at 60 to 90 percent area median income.

[00:06:39] It might be the only zone that has affordability requirements. And so that's what this again, that's what this legislation was about. That was my that was my policy goal. And so I can't account for all the accusations to the contrary. You know, conspiracy theory, Chris Hansen, etc. That's what this is about. Seattle has a housing affordability crisis and in a commercial space affordability crisis.

[00:07:07] We need to keep those workers and working class residents in Seattle. And this is one way to do it. There is a weird couple moments in the debate that happened on Tuesday where your colleague Dan Strauss seemed to suggest that there was something going on with the street vacation and Chris Hansen.

[00:07:26] And I couldn't entirely track what he was saying, but it seemed my read was that it had something to do with secretly bringing the Sonics back or something like that through the street vacation that had been discussed. Obviously, in 2016, got voted down to vacate Occidental so that the stadium could go there. So can I just get your response to that or, you know, your take on that accusation?

[00:07:51] Yeah, well, I believe that that was an opportunistic move by Councilmember Strauss to completely derail the legislation by bringing back an old controversy that has been settled long ago. This is about housing, not any kind of street vacation for some some new arena. And how that whole thing came about. I'll tell you how it came about.

[00:08:15] Two council members went on a walking tour with with one with I believe it was Lizanne and I think it was Bill Vipond who is a manager of of some of those properties. And at one point someone said, wow, this is a great this is a great pedestrian environment. The vision for the stadium makers district is that the the housing will face Occidental, which is a very calm and more narrow street.

[00:08:43] And and that will be a more attractive place and a safer place for people to enter and leave their their apartment buildings. OK, and at some point somebody might have said, wouldn't it be great if this were an all pedestrian street? I note that the blocks of Occidental north of the stadium, that's what you see. And it's a it's a really attractive environment.

[00:09:05] There was not a there is no plan to make Occidental a fully pedestrian pedestrian street if that happens, whatever. But the point is the street vacation that was necessary for the stadium is not on the table and certainly must go through another council approval process. And so it's not anywhere near a done deal. And nobody is talking about making another arena down there. Been there, done that.

[00:09:33] Yeah, I will just reinforce that because I've been working on this fucking issue for six years. And the first I heard of that, oh, my God, maybe we're going to bring an arena back down and down there was on Tuesday. You know, when it came up. And so, yeah, just not real. That's just not real. Right. There's still a lot of spaghetti stuck on the wall here. I mean, we heard a lot of things come out. Well, the port wants to buy the property or the port's going to buy the property.

[00:10:01] And so, therefore, how can we build housing there? Here's what I will say to that. The PLAs that are already in place between the property owner and the labor unions will follow the subsequent owner of those properties. And those PLAs will be honored as long as this housing proposal is approved.

[00:10:26] And so, even if it is sold, by the way, Hanson, to my knowledge, hasn't said, yeah, I'm going to sell to the port. But the point is that the validity or the PLAs are contingent upon housing being built there. So there we have it. And I just want to jump in and say PLAs, in case listeners are not familiar with that acronym, is Project Labor Agreements. Right.

[00:10:55] I'll jump in just to quote Sandeep in the beginning saying he didn't quite understand the strong emotion around this issue. Come on. We're talking about, like, future visions of the city of Seattle. Is it going to preserve blue-collar jobs? Are we going to look like San Francisco someday? I mean, that's what's at stake here, even if this particular skirmish is symbolic. And one thing I'll bring up is the original concept here was to allow hotel guests.

[00:11:20] And part of the debate here, as I understand it, was whether or not there's a difference between that and allowing people to live there permanently. Residents, right? And, Sarah, some of your colleagues were saying, well, I don't see the difference between hotel guests and residents. Obviously, there's a difference between those two. I'm sure you must agree with that. And so the question is just how does this bill address that difference other than to deny that there is one? Well, hotels will not solve our affordability crisis.

[00:11:48] Yeah, but I'm talking about the fact that hotel guests aren't going to get organized and complain about toxic fumes and say, oh, my God, this thing stinks. This noise is terrible. Blah, blah, blah. You know, we've got a lot of industrial lands throughout the city that it's wonderful waterfront property where we could add more housing. Same, you know, same debate there as here. And once you I mean, the argument, as I understand, has always been if you allow a little bit of residential there, the residents will be complaining about those industrial uses and they're not compatible.

[00:12:24] Hey, Seattle nice listeners. Seattle politics got you low. We'll get high with Uncle Ikes. Pissed at the mayor? Relax with a dollar joint. Pop a tire in a pothole. Eat a two dollar gummy and chill. Whether you need something to pump you up for Saturday's protest or a mellow strain for your next sit in, Ikes is your best friend. Now is the time to roll up, Seattle.

[00:12:54] Download the Ikes app today or head on over to Ikes dot com. That's Ikes dot com. Well, first of all, let's let's get back to the port and long stores main disagreement or main problem with this, which is the extra vehicles associated with the housing units are going to interrupt freight mobility and port operations. If that is the main argument, hotels are going to add a lot of cars.

[00:13:24] There is a hotel planned in the in the in the northernmost block that the port did not disagree with. And so let's stick to we have to follow the the the the reasons for opposition. The stadiums draw five million visitors a year. There might be a cruise terminal. The port is advocating for lots of cars, etc.

[00:13:45] So so the the notion that the additional vehicles associated with additional housing is going to lead to the demise of our deep water port and longshore jobs just doesn't pass muster to me, especially since the EIS made clear that the that residential uses would not adversely impact port operations. OK, so let's put that on one side. All right. Sure.

[00:14:10] If people are living in this area, they might they might take issue with some of the industrial the industrial like activities that are going in there across the country. There is housing built in or adjacent to industrial uses. Think about the Pearl District and other examples that I don't have my list in front of me.

[00:14:30] But when it comes to the the complaints about noise, etc., there's a long list of conditions that must be met for residential residential uses to be allowed here. Covenants between the eventual land apartment owners and and and saying you can't complain or or you're a requirement to recognize the industrial uses nearby.

[00:14:56] Number one, look at the Florentine and the Gridiron and Nolo and all of these other attractive places to live that people are want to live there and have moved in. It's it's close to the water. And so nobody's complaining about those people suffering from the industrial noise and pollution, etc. All right. Number two. So in other words, you're saying if they do complain, they're not supposed to complain if they agree to live there. That's part of the part of the agreement here.

[00:15:25] Yeah. And I must admit that I am a little bit I'm not clear on how exactly covenant agreements are enforced, but that is one factor. There is also a condition that says that noise has to be mitigated through additional screen, you know, things on windows, etc. So that's another thing. Let's bring up another problem, which was oh, look with the liquefaction.

[00:15:47] The geologic hazards potential were studied in the EIS and deemed to be actually they could be improved with new development built to modern seismic standards. So it's better. And just to jump in, I mean, you know, liquefaction or liquefaction, whatever it's called. If that ground liquefies and, you know, becomes sort of like sand, that is, you know, I mean, that's going to happen all over the city.

[00:16:16] If we have like a, you know, a nine or an eight or nine earthquake, I mean, we're screwed either way. I kind of feel like so. I don't know that the conversation I laughed a little bit about that because I think that we'll have more trouble than just like people out walking their dogs getting swallowed up by the sea. I mean, we're talking about a tsunami destroying Pioneer Square in that instance.

[00:16:38] And I'll be waiting for that argument coming from the urbanists when housing is proposed, you know, in other places that have some geologic instability. Right. I mean, just because Erica, during your blue sky tweet thread that got a lot of attention during the marathon, marathon five hours meeting that happened that we all had to live through. You actually published the liquefaction map of the city that shows like basically all the frickin' downtown.

[00:17:07] It's kind of like, you know, is in a liquid or a lot of downtown is in a serious liquefaction. Well, I mean, if the Seattle fault goes, I mean, you know, where I live, undisclosed location, you know, is going to be gone. You know, I mean, it's just we're going to have a lot more trouble citywide if that happens. And so I think there's just not a real understanding of that. But anyway, that's just Bobby horse of mine.

[00:17:30] OK, but let me remind people that housing was proposed and in the legislation in Georgetown and South Park, two places that have a lower rating. They have a low rating on the city's I think it is the Opportunity Zone Index or something like that.

[00:17:51] And so they have a lower rating than the place that it will where the housing will be built, which is in the Stadium District, which has a moderate grade for opportunity. And that encompasses environmental justice factors. So nobody's complaining about housing being built around Georgetown and and in South Park, which are, you know, that's the Soto Zone.

[00:18:16] But back to what you were saying, David, about if you're not going to live there, you're not going to complain. The additional residents that this housing will bring will not make the business case for a giant grocery store, which is going to make the problem worse. Our public schools are under enrolled.

[00:18:37] The people that are going to be living there that have kids will probably send those kids to schools where residents in Pioneer Square or the CID send their kids. I've heard there's room in those schools. So, again, it's not going to it's not going to end up with a bunch of additional. I don't believe a bunch of additional development that typically accompanies, you know, some kind of suburban subdivision where you're bringing in a bunch of new residents.

[00:19:03] Let me ask this just quick follow up is there really are, though, two different visions for the future of the city. One that kind of is anchored in this vision of blue collar jobs and kind of partly nostalgia for the past, but partly some of those jobs still exist. And another one that says, hey, we've got a huge housing problem. All of this waterfront property that we're sitting on could be housing, affordable housing, luxury housing, all kinds of housing.

[00:19:31] So why doesn't the same logic apply to every piece of maritime industrial land in the city that we're using here where we say, hey, you know, sure, we could put an apartment building in Ballard next to these industrial uses. And, you know, sign some covenants and say that you're not going to complain about the toxic fumes or whatever. And and then maybe one more apartment building and one more and then one more. And then, you know, why not? Why not move in that direction? And eventually the city looks like San Francisco. There is a need for for more affordable housing.

[00:19:59] So I'd like to hear from you or Sandeep or Erica. Like, you know, do you as urbanists all agree with that vision that? Yeah. Yeah. Let's just get rid of all the industrial zoning eventually. David, I don't think anyone is saying that. I think you're setting up a straw man argument. Well, it's the same logic, isn't it? It's the same logic. I mean, I know politically nobody wants to say it, but isn't it the same logic that we're making about this this case here? Right. Why? What's the difference? Well, look, we must honor and preserve Seattle's maritime industrial past and present.

[00:20:29] And future. And so nobody is suggesting a wholesale elimination of manufacturing industrial zones that were, you know, that were codified in the 2023 legislation. I will say, though, that what you're talking about, David, it was did exactly happen in a full block of the Ballard, the Ballard Industrial Zone, the BINMIC, the Ballard Inner Bay Manufacturing Industrial Center.

[00:20:54] A block was taken out of industrial zoning and changed to neighborhood residential. Nobody complained about that. And I have brought that up, that if we're going to be consistent about no net loss of industrial lands, et cetera, et cetera. You know, it's been unevenly applied in this context. But the fact remains that where this housing will go, number one, it was one of this.

[00:21:22] It was one of a few of the urban industrial areas that were that were deemed appropriate for housing. And all of them got housing in the legislation except for the stadium district. And so that is what that is why the building trades and the and housing providers and small businesses that were in this really strong coalition in 2023 felt so betrayed.

[00:21:48] Because they saw the preferred alternative come out and fully expected that housing would be in the stadium district urban industrial zone. And it wasn't. And so that is why this fight was brought to us. And and in the coalition members starting started talking to council members last spring and summer. So this was not a surprise. Right. I want to weigh in, too, on this question, David, that you're you're you're asking a pointed question about whether we just hate the maritime.

[00:22:18] And I will go back to the when I first started working on this six, seven years ago. Right. Our original vision on my side of what we would like to do in the vicinity of the stadiums was a much grander vision. Right. I mean, Chris Hansen at one point talked about kind of creating an entertainment district down there, sort of like L.A. Live down in Los Angeles.

[00:22:40] I mean, I know we thought, you know, that the area could support significantly more housing than was in Council President Nelson's legislation. Right. And so that's what we were originally advocating for. And it was really through the pushback from the port and others saying that would negatively impinge on the maritime industrial economy. We dialed our, you know, our ask way, way back. Right.

[00:23:06] To something that the city then studied and found would create a kind of transitional zone between the actual neighborhoods to the north and the and the east and the industrial areas to the south and the west. And actually kind of fit in with the existing maritime industrial economy in a way that would be compatible. And so, you know, so, yeah, I mean, what what Sarah saying here or Erica said before, nobody's fucking talking about getting rid of the maritime industrial economy. That's not what this is about.

[00:23:37] And what it is about also, let's remember, is adding life to an area just south of Pioneer Square near the CID where there is a lot of there's a lot of crime and serious crime. And that is why those neighborhoods wanted 24-7 activation that housing would bring.

[00:23:58] And let's also remember that the stadium district is one of six of the mayor's designated downtown neighborhoods, downtown neighborhoods. So that is why the housing in this zone in the in the stadium district was deemed desirable and would not impact port operations. And that's why it was in the preferred alternative. That was a published document. And that basically says, hey, this is what the mayor wants.

[00:24:25] And everybody expected it to be to be included in the following legislation that was brought to council in the intervening time between the EIS and the preferred alternative being published. And when the legislation came down to council, there were a lot of, you know, one on one meetings with the stakeholders that that were not open to the public where a where it was agreed to to to not just remove housing.

[00:24:52] But I believe, as Sandeep was just saying, the port had at one point agreed to about 3000 units and then it went down to 1500, etc. Kept getting ratcheted down, I suppose, because of input or pressure from Longshore. So there we have it.

[00:25:09] There was there were changes at the last minute in the legislation that that really that made the coalition, the vast coalition of a lot of different constituents angry. And that is why this issue has lived on. And I believe that this action completes the vision that that was publicly released to back in 2023. Question about the comprehensive plan.

[00:25:38] There's been, I think, six challenges filed to the comp plan proposal committee is still kind of getting briefed and up to speed on the basics right now. And I'm just wondering, you know, can you talk a little bit about where the council is, how far away the council is from actually adopting a comprehensive plan? And, you know, can you tell us a little bit about what's going to be in this interim legislation that's under consideration? Oh, gosh.

[00:26:07] So, first of all, you're right there. So this back up a little bit. This the one Seattle plan landed in last fall. It was it was a change from what had been released in the spring. It landed on the public with a thud in part because there there was deemed to be minimal public outreach. And then there was very little time for for comment. You know, the comment period ended it on December 20th.

[00:26:36] And so there there were some raw feelings. And that is not a recipe for public buy in. And that is why we saw we see six challenges to the to the EIS. Yes, that will take a long time to resolve, depending on whether or not they're dismissed by the hearing examiner right away or they have to go through the whole process. Council cannot act until those challenges are resolved by the hearing examiner. That could take months. And so so we're not really allowed.

[00:27:03] We can't do anything on the com plan itself. What is front and center right now is doing the work to lead up to the vote to implement or vote on the requirements or comply with HB 1110. That is the deadline that we have before us right now. And that's what we're focused on in the next couple meetings. Well, all the meetings through May. And let me just let me just jump in real quick to explain what HB 1110 is.

[00:27:27] That's the legislation from 2023 that requires cities, including Seattle, to have to allow at least four units of housing per lot in areas that used to be single family only. And the city has to do that. They don't have a choice.

[00:27:42] We're going to get in trouble either by the GMA who's going to be mad that we haven't implemented HB 1110 or we're going to or we're going to run afoul of the people that run, you know, that are that make sure that SEPA processes are followed correctly by doing anything that will that will occur during the challenging the challenges being adjudicated.

[00:28:06] And so we're between a rock and a hard spot, but we're doing our work to comply or to set us up for a vote to comply with HB 1110. That is that is and there will be interim controls, which means we're going to do something and then we're going to have to do something later on. I'm a little bit unclear on why that's the case. I mean, if we put a bunch of work into interim controls and maybe they could work going forward.

[00:28:30] But then they do there is a nexus between the controls and where they apply, which that which then gets into the comp plan and and all the boundaries of the neighborhood centers, etc. So it's a mess, frankly. And had the EIS been published earlier, we wouldn't be up against these two dueling timelines. And we're already about a year late on our comp plan update.

[00:28:55] I mean, it seems to me just from watching the comp plan meetings that have been going on, that there are efforts by council members to try to find loopholes in 1110. I don't think that there are particularly any loopholes in 1110. But how open are you as council president? I know you're not head of the comp plan committee, but how open are you to sort of trying to find ways and areas where 1110 would not apply? That is not where I'm at right now.

[00:29:23] And I was I did not pick up on on those arguments to find loopholes. Maybe they were more nuanced, but I do have to. That was last week. And I still have to do more work to talk to my colleagues on this.

[00:29:36] And I will say that as a citywide representative, I am going to be not necessarily relying on but conferring deeply with my district colleagues because they are closer to the to all the different fissures that are fissures of disagreement that are being expressed by by certain neighborhoods.

[00:29:57] And so that is something that that is work that will go into high gear once we complete the once we complete once we vote on the to comply with HB 1110. I do have a question for you, Erica, because I think that in it was either in your brilliant live streaming of that meeting last week. At one point, at one point, you kind of made a quip about here's Sarah, who's usually against housing, proposing housing or something along those lines. That was the spirit of your comment.

[00:30:27] And I am curious, where did you get this idea that I'm I don't know, anti housing, anti growth? Because you'll recall that I, you know, I was on the ground up zoning South Lake Union when Richard Conlon was was land use chair. And that was a huge battle. And we were pushing for more density, more more housing, higher heights, et cetera. Yeah. So I'm just curious where you come up with that.

[00:30:51] Well, so I don't know which tweet or whatever skeet blue post, whatever you're talking about. But but that that that is not my intent. And I will just say, like, I don't that is that was not the intent of my my tweeting or skeeting at all, because in fact, I did go back because I was having an argument with a friend about your record recently. And we were arguing back and forth about it.

[00:31:19] And I looked in my coverage and I looked back in Seattle Times coverage and I was, you know, saying actually to this friend, you know, I don't actually think that Sarah is the NIMBY on this council. You know, I could identify other people that I do think are pretty NIMBY ish. But, you know, but I agree with you. I mean, I don't think your record has been particularly anti housing.

[00:31:39] I do think that when I hear you talking about, you know, district concerns, it makes me flash on Dan Strauss talking about how he met with Magnolians and they have problems with some of the neighborhood centers and the new low rise zones. And I don't know any Magnolians that have met with Dan Strauss. And I don't want particularly to see, you know, small groups of homeowners deciding where density goes.

[00:32:07] And and so when I hear things like that, I do get concerned because I think that when we talk about, you know, hearing the concerns of neighborhoods, those tend to be very limited concerns. I agree. Well, I'm I will be listening to all district reps and and whatever Dan Strauss is doing in his outreach does not does not undermine what I see is my duty to understand what's going on in all the different neighborhood counties.

[00:32:37] And I think that's what's going on in all the different ways of the council. So that is work that, as I said, will accelerate once we're done with this HB 1110 compliance vote. When you first ran for office back in 2021, you said that getting more people access to drug treatment was a top priority. And it's been a priority, I know, for you on the council. But in the last budget, which is an eight billion dollar budget, I think the city only allocated three hundred thousand dollars in new funding for substance use treatment for people experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

[00:33:07] So the question is just why aren't we seeing more money, more new money allocated towards an issue that I know is important to you? Well, thank you for bringing this up because it is of utmost importance to me. But I think you might be confusing the the budget that was in the 2024 budget. So that was an argument that that was an effort. I tried in 2022 to get two million, which went down to one million, which my colleagues rejected for some reason.

[00:33:35] And then I tried again the following year with a smaller amount of money. And after Chair Musqueda trying to give it to the county to do the same old thing that neighborhood clinics have always done. And I thought I clawed it back with the help of Lisa Dugard and some other allies. And I could only really get away with I think I asked for a million or five hundred thousand. I got you know, I was granted three hundred thousand, but I wanted to make sure it went to where I wanted it to go.

[00:34:05] A pot of money at HSD to directly pay treatment facilities when somebody goes through through rehab, for lack of a better word that takes up too much time to say. And that is now happening. People have have gone through it. It took a year to set up. That's too long. But people have entered Lakeside Milam. Lisa Dugard has gotten her caseworkers have gotten folks there. Andrea Suarez has. And it is working.

[00:34:31] These people are coming out and thanking the city for making this possible. And and that is a model that I want to expand. It was a pilot project. I want to expand it because we damn well have to do something more or different than what we've been doing in the past, because it you know, it it's it hasn't been working so well. I agree with harm reduction strategies, medication for opioid use disorder. I disagree with giving out drug paraphernalia beyond needles that stop the threat of the spread of disease.

[00:35:02] We have got to allow for on demand access to a broad range of treatment options, because when somebody decides they want to try to go clean, you get them in. That's it. Has the city been doing enough? No, the city has not been doing enough. And I believe everyone deserves the same chance at recovery that I got. How did I have that chance of recovery?

[00:35:26] Because I had insurance and get myself in the evening that I decided to, you know, to try to go clean. Everybody deserves that. And the city should be trying to facilitate that. The city has said, well, you know, this is public health. It belongs at the county. I don't think the county is doing enough. I stood on the board of health and had to fight to get response to the opioid epidemic on the work plan.

[00:35:49] And what that meant, actually, was a couple briefings, but no new services, no doubling down on the need. This is so important because addiction is inextricably intertwined with our chronic homelessness crisis and our public safety crisis. And we have to focus on that. We're spending a billion dollar levy on housing and plus jumpstart taxes and plus MHA.

[00:36:15] There's a lot of money going into housing, but there is there's a paltry amount going into to the I believe a policy issue that is concomitantly important to housing. So so what about new progressive revenue to pay for those priorities? That is a good question. There are currently a lot of claims on whatever kind of progressive revenue or capital gains tax seems like the most likely thing.

[00:36:41] And people are eyeing that as a pot of money for for various things. I will say right here, I would not automatically be close to that, even though I I fought against it last budget. But this is such an important gap in our spending and in our in our policy playbook that I will not say it's off the table for me because this is it's crucially important. People are dying and we have to do more. Yeah. Yeah. Just a quick follow up on the three hundred thousand.

[00:37:07] You know, I I think was pretty critical of that at the time because. Well, partly because I went to Lakeside Myelon for treatment and I you know, I kind of know some of the problems that I witnessed there. But also, you know, I think when you talk about when you talk about people who are experiencing homelessness going to 28 day treatment, it's really important that that isn't it. And I just maybe this is maybe this is more a comment than a question, Sarah.

[00:37:36] But I talked to lead. You mentioned Lisa Dugard. I talked to lead the organization that is getting some people in there. And I was really interested to learn that they are, you know, following up with case management. And I think that is really the most crucial thing, because just putting people into treatment and letting them go back out into the circumstances they were already in is, you know, a recipe for failure. People overdose. People, you know, go back into old patterns.

[00:38:05] And so I was I was heartened to hear that they were actually, you know, getting intensive case management as soon as they got out, because I do think that that will make that kind of thing more successful as opposed to just kind of giving people $10,000 worth of treatment or $15,000 and letting them back out into their old lives. Right. They're going to they're going to relapse and die in the street. Here's the thing. I have also been fighting for why don't we have more recovery housing?

[00:38:30] You know, in this billion dollar levy, there is nothing designated for recovery housing. And this is a huge gap as well. We can't let people who have gone through detox and treatment go back into a permanent supportive housing facility where people are doing drugs, selling drugs, overdosing from drugs. That's not a healthy environment. And so that also has to be solved for.

[00:38:51] I was I did a walk with We Deliver Care and members of the downtown community council a week or so ago from nine to 10 at night to see what was going on after their We Deliver Care's hours usually end. And they told me about two stories that were heartbreaking to two people that they really fought hard. You know, they got them to case managers, got these people into treatment.

[00:39:18] One of them extended months long treatment and came out and did not have a place to go to continue his recovery journey, ended up on the street and has now kind of fallen off the radar. That's inexcusable. So we have to go from soup. We have to start with outreach and continue to housing and with with ongoing case management and counseling services.

[00:39:42] And I will say that another piece of this puzzle, you're going to love this, David, is involuntary commitment, because this is something that has gained more and more acceptance.

[00:39:56] This I've always been thinking this is a missing piece of the puzzle as well, because people who are so severely impaired through years of addiction are not in a good place to to examine the best the best course for their own personal well-being and also can pose dangers to other people. And so this is a broken piece of our system.

[00:40:46] Again, for our audience, we may not be familiar with Ricky's Law, because I had pretty much the same conversation with with Representative Lauren Davis that that you've had. And she's the author of Ricky's Law, which allowed for severe addiction issues to be a a cause for for an involuntary commitment proceeding to take place.

[00:41:10] And when I talked to her about this a few weeks ago, she told me that, you know, she was pretty blunt with me that Ricky's Law is broken. It's not working that that there are some legal issues around the barriers to sort of getting people to the help they need. But there are also some kind of barriers that you're talking about within the system itself. There just aren't enough crisis responders like right now.

[00:41:33] If you're an emergency room physician and you're seeing somebody in mental health crisis, you cannot initiate an involuntary commitment proceeding. You can't start that process. You have to call these people. There are too few of them. They may not show up. You know, there are all these bottlenecks in the system and structural problems that are keeping people that are too impaired from making rational decisions about their own well-being from getting the help that they need is what she was saying to me. Absolutely agree. Why can't our first responders?

[00:42:00] Why can't our care responders, our care department responders go out? Why can't our firefighters that are administering sublocate after or trying to get someone to accept a dose of sublocate because they've just overdosed? And if they refuse, what are we going to do? Just let them leave them on the street to try again? So, yes, it is a broken system. And I do believe that the changes of who can be a DCR must be solved at the state legislative level.

[00:42:30] But I just want to say that this is part of the package that I want to see implemented. And it's a lot, but we have got to focus on this. And I'll take more than $300,000 in a heartbeat. It's not enough. But, David, this past budget, I did get about $400,000 into the budget for another mobile treatment ban for Evergreen Treatment Services.

[00:42:57] And also about a quarter million for a permanent supportive housing provider to provide more recovery-based services on site because the residents were asking for it. So, I'm trying. Last year's budget process, there was not, I would say, a lot of budget discipline. I think partly because the council just decided to use Jumpstart to pay for all of the deficit that existed.

[00:43:25] And, you know, there was a lot of new spending. Everybody was piling on requests. And it seemed like even requests that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me or much of the public, like Rob Saka's request to get $2 million to remove a curb by his house. Those got through. And I know you're not the budget chair, you're council president. But, you know, what can be improved this next time on last year's process? Oh, I will say also, there's just not a lot of transparency.

[00:43:54] The budget tool that provided some transparency that people online went away. So, what's going to be different this time or what do you want to be different this time? Well, on that budget tool, that was basically only Joseph knew how to do that. Yeah. And I heard about that. And we wanted to contract with him, but then he's in another country. And so we couldn't do that. And so that was not a hide the ball situation. We just could not repeat that. Here's the deal.

[00:44:23] If you listen to this speech that I gave or not the speech, the statement that I gave after the balancing package was revealed, I expressed concern that it that it took about 30 million unspent Jumpstart funds that in the mayor's proposed budget. I mean, he did reallocate the use of Jumpstart funds for a whole bunch of other things. And there was about 30 to 40 million that was left over. And that was used in the chair's balancing package to pay for a bunch of things.

[00:44:50] And I think that would have been a moment of opportunity for some fiscal discipline and just saying no. But but be it as it may, we will have to deal with with severe budget deficit that is only getting worse because and you'll see some forecast in next week in the fall. We will have to deal with the following week on the performance of the Jumpstart tax right now. And so one thing that did happen, which which people will say, blah, blah, blah. It was just it's just a bunch of statements of legislative intent.

[00:45:20] People ask some really hard questions that the departments have to answer. Is this program working? Why this program and not that? And so we will be getting information over the course of this year that will help us make more informed budget decisions and perhaps make more surgical reductions where it matters. All right, Sarah Nelson, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much. That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice. She's Erica C. Barnett. He's Sandeep Kashuk. I'm David Hyde. Our editor is Quinn Waller.

[00:45:49] And thanks, everybody, so much for listening. We'll see you next week.