(Image: Andrew Jacob Media / @meadedawg with permission to CHS)
Now is the time for Seattle residents to take action who say they support the Black Lives Matter movement but couldn’t get behind CHOP, the protests, or property destruction.
King County Equity Now, the coalition of Black-led organizations including the Central District’s Africatown that has been calling on Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and the city to meet a roster of goals including creating a $1 billion “anti-gentrification, land acquisition fund” and halving the Seattle Police budget to pay for social and services and community programs, is asking for support and advocacy as the Seattle City Council prepares its final rebalancing of the city’s 2020 budget and prepares for a major vote on the plan Monday. UPDATE: The final vote is being delayed a week and will now be held Monday, August 10th.
Public comment: https://t.co/6s8SurTXbj
Email/phone zap: https://t.co/6Fw2DK8Sud
Script: https://t.co/hoZnkSl232
Rally RSVP: https://t.co/SVJGDtFc6c— King County Equity Now Coalition (Official) (@KCEquityNow) July 27, 2020
Don’t wait to speak up.
Wednesday, the council will renew its debate on addressing #defundSPD goals as its budget committee holds its final meeting before Monday August 10th’s big vote on rebalancing the city’s spending plan for 2020.
Although a Seattle City Council majority has committed to the long-term goals of defunding SPD by 50%, the path to getting there will be set this week and in Monday’s vote. You should add your voice.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
I like the idea of an “anti-gentrification, land acquisition fund” if it includes all communities K. Wyking Garrett mentioned earlier this month – Indigenous, Pan-Asian and Black (and Hispanic) communities. Affordability is a huge issue in Seattle and I hate the idea of pricing families out of neighborhoods they call home. I’ve lived in the CD for over 25 years and have seen the changes, both good and bad. I suspect this boils down to affordable housing, but there may be subtleties I’m missing…
I’m not sure if police funding (or lack thereof) should be link to this though. SPD savings might get you to $1B by 2100, so what is the plan for the other 90% of the funds?
No, it would only take 5 years. The police have over a 400million dollar budget.
This is kinda backwards wording considering Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County revoked their endorsements of BLMKCEN after leaders made transphobic and homophobic comments.
KC Equity Now can’t be bothered to get verified on Twitter?
Perhaps start with smaller stuff like the affordable internet for kids schooling mentioned 3 posts back. Or is that just too easy?
Doing a 50% defunding first, and then adding social programs seems like like you’d end up with one of 1) identical amounts of crime, and same amount of police in high crime areas, less police in lower crime areas, so people will say it’s unfair 2) not enough police to protect people in high crime areas, and people saying it’s unfair again, 3) less arrests since there’s less enforcement, but the same amount of crime, so I guess people that would be prevented from offending would more common I guess?
It’s hard to see the scenario where 50% less police means less crime, unless you’re saying the police really are causing crimes… which seems like saying chocolate causes Nobel Prizes (https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+causes+chocolate). Something gradual would make sense, if you see crime go down and police are over staffed, then lower the budget.
Where was this picture taken?
There’s an update that says the vote is moved to the 10th. I don’t see that elsewhere– can you link to a source?
The tone of this article displays a shift from the more objective journalism that CHS has used in the past to clear advocacy. Not saying that’s bad or good, but wondering if this is a conscious shift of your journalistic paradigm? Would you care to discuss? Thanks.