Earlier this week, CHS posted responses from the leading candidates in the Seattle mayor’s race to a set of questions representing some of the highest priorities for voters across Capitol Hill and the Central District — homelessness, services, housing affordability, and public safety. We hope it was helpful as you sort out your vote in the August 3rd primary election.

Two other crucial battles to lead the city are playing out this summer to determine what two candidates in each race will move through to November. One of these contests for the two citywide positions on the Seattle City Council appears to be a slam dunk with incumbent Teresa Mosqueda lapping the field in polling, fundraising, and endorsements — though the Seattle Times bitterly held back on its support. We’ll have more questions for Mosqueda and her eventual challenger before November.

POSITION 9
Corey Eichner	Nikkita Oliver (CHS coverage)
Xtian Gunther	Brianna Thomas (CHS coverage)
Lindsay McHaffie	Rebecca Williamson
Sara Nelson (CHS coverage)

• CHS Election 2021 coverage
• Five Capitol Hill and Central District questions for the Seattle mayoral candidates
• Seattle City Council Pos. 9 candidates square off in forum over homelessness, the environment, and defunding SPD 

But in the race for Position 9’s citywide seat, the time to challenge the three leading candidates is now. We asked microbrewery business veteran Sara Nelson, attorney and civil rights leader Nikkita Oliver, and Lorena González staffer and city hall wonk Brianna Thomas the same tough five Capitol Hill and Central District questions we asked the candidates for mayor.

Here’s what they said.

---

Question 1) The four highest priorities for CHS readers are homelessness services, mental health services, housing affordability, and public safety and crime. What are three to four specific existing city programs or teams that need increased funding that will address these priorities? What would you do to increase that funding?

NELSON: • First and foremost, Seattle must directly fund mental health and substance abuse treatment to serve our chronically homeless population. Currently, dollars for those services flow through King County and there’s inadequate funding and capacity to serve Seattle’s concentration of people in need. Until and unless the state dramatically increases funding for behavioral health, and until jurisdictions within the King County Homelessness Authority start paying their fair share into the collective resource pool, Seattle must establish its own funding stream and contract directly with providers. One appropriate source of initial funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment services is the Jump Start payroll tax. In the spending plan for the $250 million dollars of revenue Jump Start is anticipated to generate, exactly zero dollars are allocated to meeting this critical need while 9% are allocated for Green New Deal programs. I believe the nexus for funding behavioral health services is stronger and these services are a higher priority. So, in the near term, Jump Start revenues should be reallocated for them.
• The Seattle Fire Department needs increased support. Seattle’s tremendous growth over the past decade has resulted in a sharp increase in the number of emergency responses, but SFD’s staffing has remained relatively static. In fact, SFD has fewer firefighters than in previous years. On top of that, our homelessness crisis has dramatically increased the number and type of SFD’s emergency responses, particularly incidents in encampments and abandoned buildings. And then came the pandemic and SFD stepped up to run the cities COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites. All of this has resulted in severe staffing and resources shortages – in personnel and equipment. The Seattle Fire Department is an overlooked but equally critical component of our public safety network and these first responders need additional resources to perform their duties to the best of their ability. Specifically, I would begin by increasing funding for SFD’s Health One units. Currently there are two Health One units serving all of Seattle (one of which is dedicated to Ballard) and I would fund three to five additional units. Health One has proven to be very effective in responding to members of Seattle’s homeless community who are in medical distress, experiencing a mental health crisis, or who find themselves in a dangerous or vulnerable situation. Because the unit is equipped with a social worker and two fire fighters, it can render support and help on the spot as it circulates throughout the city or is called to respond to a person in crisis. It also tracks the individuals it serves so it can better render assistance in future calls for aide to that person. And because it has regular contact with encampments or chronically homeless individuals, the Health One personnel are familiar with their specific needs and can better help them attain shelter and other services. In addition, I would push for pay increases for paramedics in order to incentivize more fire fighters to go through the additional medical training . This is needed to replace the paramedics we’re losing to retirements and meet the rising demand for Medic One responses. I’d also advocate for expanded mental health resources and healthcare benefits for all firefighters because the performance of their duties subject them to significant health risks and emotional stress. Increased investment in SFD should come from the general fund, as specified in the Seattle Charter. The main job of local government is to deliver basic city services (fire, parks, libraries, police, and transportation) and one of my top priorities is to the get Council re-focused on adequately funding and ensuring effective delivery of them. • To prevent eviction and displacement, Seattle renters on the brink of eviction need direct cash assistance to pay rent so we need to increase the allocation of ARPA funds directed at emergency rent relief. This would also help the small providers of naturally affordable units pay their mortgage and retain their properties instead of selling them to market rate developers.

OLIVER: Homelessness Services: The city needs to expand our long-term supportive hotel shelter programs. In the Seattle Rescue Plan, there are dollars allocated to expand this housing option. We must ensure that this plan includes supportive services. A program connected to the hotel model for shelter is JustCARE. It was developed during the pandemic to respond to the needs of residents without homes experiencing behavioral health conditions. We need to make this program permanent and expand its capacity. We also need to extend the amount of time that residents can remain in hotel-based models of care. In order to do so, we will need to rapidly increase the number of hotels in the program within city-limits and grow the multi-agency partnerships making JustCARE possible. JustCARE is an answer to calls from neighborhood leaders in the Seattle neighborhoods of Chinatown International District (CID) and Pioneer Square, for a real response to problems posed by and in encampments – without law enforcement or displacement. JustCARE is a multi-agency, hotel-based intensive case management program actively responding to COVID conditions for the unhoused in support of individuals with complex behavioral health needs who commonly commit law violations or exhibit problematic behavior related to behavioral health conditions. The hotel-based model of care, developed by the PDA CoLEAD team, uses hotels as a temporary lodging component with intensive case management and residential on-site support. Mental Health Services Health One: Health One is the Seattle Fire Department’s Mobile Integrated Health response unit. Launched in 2019, it is designed to respond to individuals immediately in their moment of need and help them navigate the situation – whether they need medical care, mental health care, shelter or other social services. Health One is a multidisciplinary team, with firefighters and case managers each bringing unique skills and approaches to the scene. The goal of the Health One program is to reduce the impact of non-emergent calls on Seattle Fire’s Operations Division, and to better connect individuals in need with appropriate care and services. Health One is significantly underfunded. They need more Health One teams and until civilianized 911 with a diversity of options/responses when people call in crisis is fully operational, Health One needs its own direct line. In order to manage this line, Health One teams will need more staffing to both answer and respond to calls. We also need to improve and make clear our relationship with King County as it relates to the provision of mental health services within the City of Seattle. Much of what is available to people comes through King County including: Crisis and Commitment Services, Community Mental Treatment (outpatient services), and Program for Assertive Community Treatment. Housing Affordability JumpStart: JumpStart is not a program, it is a tax. However, it does fund key programs! JumpStart is going to be key to us addressing the housing affordability crisis. I propose that we increase the Jump Start tax so that we can generate more progressive revenue to be able quickly build green, social, affordable housing and to more rapidly provide home services support to low-income communities and seniors on fixed incomes such as weatherization (Homewise Weatherization Program) and retrofitting to decrease the amount they are spending on home utilities. A combination of building housing and keeping people in their homes is going to be key to addressing the housing affordability crisis. We also must grow our cash assistance programs for renters as well as continue to expand protections for tenants as we have done with the right to counsel, no school year evictions, right of first refusal and just cause for not renewing a lease, and preventing evictions based on non-payment of rent if due during the City’s COVID-19 civil emergency. Public Safety & Crime Community Safety and Communications Center (CSCC) The Community Safety and Communications Center (CSCC) is a new office in the Executive branch established in 2021 to provide timely, accurate, and vital information to the City’s first responders, city service providers, and to the public. The department is envisioned to provide civilian and community-based services and solutions to community safety challenges. The department includes two units formerly housed in the Seattle Police Department (SPD): 911 Communications Center and Parking Enforcement Officers Unit. We need to continue to expand the City and community-based infrastructure and network of programs to prevent and intervene when crisis occurs. CSCC will play a major role in developing a city-wide integrated system that continues to decrease the use of armed officers with a badge and further develops, grows, and expands our non-police responses and our diversity of options to support residents when in crisis.

THOMAS: We desperately need to enact and expand progressive revenue streams. Fixing our tax system and getting creative about how we fund public services will address the issues Seattleites know need addressing. In terms of homelessness, I am hopeful the hotelling (partnering with Just Care) program can continue to help our houseless neighbors. However, the program is designed to be a stopgap measure, not the overarching solution to homelessness. The answer to homelessness is low barrier access to homes, and that can be done by increasing access to affordable and culturally competent mental health resources, updating our zoning laws to allow for development throughout the city and offer a wide variety of housing options, and making Seattle affordable for everyone. Partnering with the State and County to expand access to voluntary inpatient treatment will help people that find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic maze while pursuing the support they need to overcome the trauma that is experiencing homelessness. I stand by the city’s decision to divert millions of dollars from the SPD budget and invested into community based resources and the investments made to launch an inaugural Participatory Budgeting process. It’s been proven that controlling police budgets help bring accountability to the police. Should I be elected to the Council, I will continue the work of examining our current system for improvements, and lifting up the calls from the community for meaningful and reliable funding for alternatives. I am proud to say that during my time at City Hall, I have led negotiations for Police Accountability legislation, the Surveillance Ordinance in collaboration with ACLU-WA, and the Secure Scheduling Ordinance, providing greater worker protections for employees in restaurants and retail. I worked to establish and stood up the City’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to ensure fairness and integrity in our law enforcement system. I have advanced solutions to our most pressing issues from a place of empathy and in pursuit of justice.

---

Question 2) Do you support the charter amendment proposed by Compassion Seattle, what is your understanding of why supporters are pursuing the campaign, and what is the best way to achieve and pay for their goals?

NELSON: I support the charter amendment’s focus on funding mental health and substance abuse treatment which I believe is the biggest and most urgent missing piece of our homelessness response (see my response to Question 1). Research indicates that addiction is more often the result of, not the cause of homelessness and traps people into a cycle of instability. Our utter failure to provide any drug/alcohol rehabilitation is unacceptable. I’m not wild about the fact that Compassion Seattle’s proposal is an amendment to Seattle’s constitution that expires in 6 years but my biggest concern is its potential impacts to basic services which I’ve noted is one of my top priorities. I wonder if the dedicated 12% of General Fund dollars will cut into funding basic services that have been underfunded by Council for years. All that said, the charter amendment proposal is the product of a broad coalition of service providers and the business community and it’s a concerted effort to do what Council has failed to do so far: effectively house our unsheltered neighbors, provide them with mental health and substance abuse treatment services, and ensure our public spaces are open, safe, and clean for everyone – the foundation of our Commons.

OLIVER: No. This amendment will further criminalize poverty and houselessness, instead of providing a solution that responds to the root causes of those conditions. “Compassion Seattle ” would codify sweeps in our city charter, making them permanent. The provision for 2000 units of “emergency or permanent housing” takes place on a timeline that will not allow for the construction of permanent housing. All 2000 units are required within one year. Again, this means that many of these units will be for emergency shelter and not permanent housing. We are in desperate need of both, but in the long-term more permanent housing is better. The amendment mandates a minimum 12 percent of the city’s general fund go to the Human Services Department to pay for shelter, housing, and supportive services such as counseling and drug treatment. This year, the city will spend 11 percent of its general fund on the Human Services Department. “Compassion Seattle” admits this formula for the 2021 city budget would have produced a fund of $192 million — $16 million more than what was actually budgeted for 2021. Most damningly, “Compassion Seattle” doesn’t propose any new revenue. A 2018 study by McKinsey concluded that King County would need to spend $400 million to $1 billion every year on housing—not temporary shelter—to provide affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, mental health facilities, and public hygiene services to ameliorate King County’s homelessness crisis. We need a real solution, and “Compassion Seattle” isn’t it.

THOMAS: I support the values driving the amendment, but I would like to see more specific language and details around implementation and funding. I believe that as a City, more than ever, we are ready to take meaningful action on homelessness. However, the Compassion Seattle amendment has definitional challenges that the Council will have to address in order to achieve the goals of the amendment. Its current iteration is so open to interpretation that it’s quite difficult to know what the outcomes could include, or whether or not the mandate is focused on the right solutions. Most importantly, I believe that clarity in what the City can actually effectuate should be centered in Compassion Seattle’s messaging and executions. Good policy takes time and expertise to craft, and while we spend time on this ballot measure, we are diverting time and energy away from more long lasting solutions.

---

Question 3) Last month CHS reported on plans to permanently shut down Route 47 serving one of the densest areas of the city after the route was not included in the recently renewed Transportation Benefit District. How should Seattle City Hall push to revive Route 47 and what can the city do in 2022 to quickly grow service in Central Seattle?

NELSON: From what I can tell, Route 47 isn’t dead but it’s definitely in a Metro-induced coma and SDOT and the Seattle Transportation Benefit District should revive it, despite the fact that Metro’s Metro’s 2020 System Evaluation Report shows Route 47 in the bottom 25% in three out of six performance categories, and just above that 25% threshold in the remaining three. To pay for that, and to quickly grow service in Central Seattle, the STBD could put a measure on the ballot to increase the Vehicle License Fee. The 2014 establishment of the STBD was funded by a .10% sales tax increase and a $60 VLF. The 2020 renewal is funded by a .15 % sales tax and no VLF. The authorizing legislation allows up to $100 so there’s an additional $40 left on the table to meet transit and transportation infrastructure needs across the city. Just sayin.

OLIVER: Route 47 connects one of Seattle’s most dense neighborhoods to the downtown area. Though Route 47 is not officially shut down yet, I’ve heard that King County Metro is still in the midst of a decision making process. I think it is important for riders on Route 47 to be consulted about why this route is important, how it supports them efficiently and rapidly being able to travel through the City, and what would be the impacts of this route being permanently shut down. Given that much attention has been paid to this issue by Capitol Hill residents, it is likely that an online survey would receive a considerable amount of engagement and feedback. Once these details have been received the information should be analyzed for two things: 1) how the route can be maintained, 2) if the route is not maintained what are the impacts, 3) how are the impacts of point #2 mitigated or addressed through other services or routes, and 4) a clear, accountable and transparent explanation if there is a change and what are the other options for riders of the 47 OR if the route remains what were the deciding factors and what will be needed to maintain the route in the future. Until the decision is made in a public and accountable fashion Route 47 should be maintained. As a City we need to take rapid, high-capacity, efficient transit and transit service seriously. This will mean making investments in infrastructure in order to grow our transit system, service hours and capacity. We could pay for these transit improvements by implementing a tax on luxury vehicles and/or a tax on large/luxury homes in the city. Some history and recommendations made by the Seattle Transit Blog include: “Route 47: This is a short route connecting the Summit neighborhood to downtown, with a northern loop on Summit and Bellevue avenues, and a southern loop on Pine and Pike streets. This route was formerly part of route 14, but was split off when route 14 was through-routed with route 1. Route 47 was actually eliminated in the 2014 cuts, but restored next June with funding from the Seattle Transportation Benefit District. Its old PDF timetable makes the route look comically short, and while provides a connection downtown that is more useful than looks on its map, nearly all of the routing in Summit is within a couple blocks of better, more frequent service on routes 8, 10, and 49. The most sensible iteration of route 47 might be something like route 3122 in Metro’s long range plan network map. This route would be a local route filling in coverage around Summit, Eastlake, and  , with connections to UW and Seattle Children’s Hospital.”

THOMAS: For one of the most densely populated areas on the West Coast, it’s unreasonable to not have any service connecting this neighborhood to other parts of the city. Accessible transit also means making sure stops are easy to access through improvements to both transit facilities and routes. The number of broken escalators and unreliable elevators in our light rail system is a prime example of an inconsistent investment in accessibility. We also need to move towards more single-seat rides instead of poor connections that force riders to make multiple transfers. While King County Metro has final jurisdiction over transit connections, service hours and route prioritization, we work annually to align the needs of the City with the capacity to provide Metro to provide those services. Being a well informed partner in this process is the responsibility of every Councilmember.

---

Question 4) Given safety concerns of SPD and many in community asking for the facility to be removed, how would you support closure of the East Precinct at 12th Ave and Pine street? If you would not support, what changes would you support to improve the situation for police and for the neighborhood?

NELSON: I do not support closure of the East Precinct because it would increase 911 response times to emergency calls on Capitol Hill and the Central District. Currently, the average response time to Priority 911 calls is 14 minutes which is already too long. In the first half of 2021, there were 230 gun assault cases, including 9 homicides in June alone, concentrated in the Central District and Southeast Seattle. Furthermore, it seems to me that closing the East Precinct would violate Art. VI, Sec. 1 of the Seattle City Charter which states, “There shall be maintained adequate police protection in each district of the City.” Sam Hill, Seattle’s first Black City Councilmember, argued on behalf of the Central District community for including what became the East Precinct in the 1977 bond measure that would fund it. Before the Council vote on July 27, 1977, he said: “The people in the Central community pay the tax that supports the north and the south precinct and I think that they are quite willing to pay the tax to support that third precinct because the whole structure of government is moving towards neighborhood operations. …So the people of the Central community have long been denied, often promised, and it’s time for delivery.” That sentiment continues today among many leaders in the Black community. I’m endorsed by Victoria Beach, Chair of SPD’s African American Advisory Commission and she told me that currently there is not widespread support for closing the East Precinct. I’m also endorsed by Reverend Harriett Walden, Founder of Mothers for Police Accountability which vehemently opposes additional cuts to SPD. Instead of debating the closure of the East Precinct and creating a gap in our public safety network in the neighborhood, we must focus on police reform for the benefit of the whole city. We must reform policing in a manner that keeps communities safe while holding officers accountable for all forms of misconduct — and fund accordingly. Police reform should include: • Strengthening our community policing model which has proven to improve accountability, build trust between the community and law enforcement, and prevent crime. Council’s cuts eliminated the Community Police Teams which worked directly with neighborhood residents, businesses, and people experiencing homelessness. I would also fund the Crisis Intervention Team with is specially trained to intervene in cases involving people at risk of harming themselves or others. The death of Derek Young on the waterfront might have been avoided if that team had responded. • Incentivizing the recruitment of officers from the neighborhoods they will eventually serve. This would reduce language and cultural barriers as well as improve accountability. • Reestablishing Seattle’s police training program. Sworn officers in Washington receive 700 hours of training at the Washington Police Training academy whose curriculum is standardized across all jurisdictions. Seattle used to require de-escalation, anti-bias and less-lethal use of force training that’s more commonly needed in large, urban jurisdictions. That raining was eliminated in the 1990’s and offered today only as stand-alone trainings. • Prioritizing the remaining 32% of the 258 items included in the 2017 Police Accountability ordinance that have not been fully or even partially implemented, many of which are specific to the SPOG contract.

OLIVER: The safety concerns regarding the Seattle Police Department are broader than the East Precinct. We need to continue to divest from a failed system of public safety that is dependent upon an officer with a badge and gun and instead invest in meeting the basic needs of residents and expanding programs that focus on prevention and intervention. These things combined will decrease our dependence on police when crises occur. As described earlier we have already begun the process of moving 911 and Parking Enforcement out of the Seattle Police Department, shrinking both their size and their duties. As we continue to shrink the department we can repurpose the East Precinct to be a place where people can access key services and supports. Additionally, we can address the concerns of residents regarding the East Precinct by ending the use and acquisition all military grade equipment by SPD and preserving the ban on crowd control weapons that were used to cause harm and impede the First Amendment Rights of those protesting in Defense of Black Lives–weapons that filled the Capitol Hill area with hazardous gas in the midst of a global pandemic caused by COVID-19–a virus which impacts the respiratory system.

THOMAS: I do not believe in closing the precinct. With Priority 1 call response times hovering around 14 mins, the need for strategically located precincts remains. However, what we don’t need are militaristic fortresses that exude an outdated culture of intimidation. Repurposing part of the East Precinct to better serve as a facility that is responsive to community needs feels like a step in the right direction. One proven way to put decision-making power in the hands of the community is through participatory budgeting. Meaningful community oversight must be proactive and developed with racial equity at the forefront. If elected, I will build on my experience working in coalition with civil rights organizations, homeless rights advocates, criminal justice reform groups, and grassroots police accountability movements to inform oversight and accountability policies.

---

Question 5) Have the Mandatory Housing Affordability upzones helped neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and the Central District. If so, how? If not, why not?

NELSON: The Mandatory Housing Affordability requirement for new development is a tool to promote density (which is imperative to meet our climate protection goals) and generate revenue for affordable housing. So far, MHA, matched with revenue form the Housing levy and other funds, has enabled the construction of about 700 units of affordable housing citywide. Implementation of the MHA requirement may be imperfect but it has raised $4 million for affordable housing to benefit low-income residents in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

OLIVER: Honestly, MHA has provided very little in the way of affordable housing quickly. More housing, as we can see, does not necessarily equate to more affordable housing. I see luxury apartments popping up all over Capitol Hill and the Central District. And all while the housing shortage has worsened, rents have risen, and displacement has further eroded Black and brown neighborhoods. Homelessness is markedly more prevalent and present than it was in 2014 when the Housing Affordability and Livability Act began. And mostly because HALA as an overarching policy, which includes MHA, was 1) severely compromised; 2) dependent upon the private market; and 3) is not legislated equitably throughout the city. Reality is it falls short of what is painfully necessary to address the housing affordability crisis. In the Central District, we have seen buildings developed by the non-profit Low Income Housing Institute” that provide subsidized housing affordable to seniors and families earning less than 50 to 60 percent of area median income. We’ve also seen the development of the Liberty Bank Building. In theory fees collected through MHA should be used to help fund similar buildings throughout Capitol Hill and the Central District, but is that what is happening in implementation? A major problem of HALA, again as an overarching policy, is its connection to the area median income as a baseline. This year Seattle’s Median Household income soared to 100k in a pandemic. A pandemic that is disproportionately impacting BIPOC communities when compared to white communities in our region. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities are already gravely impacted by the racial wealth gap, a lack of affordable housing, exclusionary zoning, and gentrification. Mandatory Housing Affordability, specifically, has not rapidly provided abundant affordable housing in Capitol Hill and the Central District as promised. What we are experiencing is more inaccessible luxury units that have pushed out mainstays like the Red Apple and replaced them with Amazon Fresh. Mandatory Housing Affordability has become the principle thrust of HALA and in my opinion is failing to deliver. The MHA program is collecting and investing money for affordable housing. However, that is at the whim of the local property development sector. So as a result the Central District and Capitol Hill are not preventing gentrification or displacement, let alone allowing many folks, especially Black folks, to return back to the Central District. In fact, in some instances, we are seeing gentrification and displacement accelerated.Of course there are confounding factors such as the spike of applications before the full legislation went into effect, the COVID recession, and the end of Amazon’s building spree in South Lake Union. According to the Office of Housing report earlier this year, the MHA program has collected $96.1 million in payments, with 21 “performance” units opened up and another 83 “performance” units committed to projects. At the time the final phase of MHA was passed in 2019, the city was predicting that it would generate about 6300 units of affordable housing over ten years: 1000 through developers taking the “performance” option, and the remainder through the city investing MHA payments (expected to be about $472 million). So while there are some targets being hit. It is not nearly enough to provide the requisite affordable housing and prevent displacement. We need to do more, which is why I propose the city build its own green, social, affordable housing and stop waiting on the private market to rectify a crisis (housing shortage) from which it benefits! What this has taught us is: 1) we cannot rely on the private market to rectify what they benefit from, 2) MHA is not going to be enough, 3) Seattle needs to get deeper into building its own housing, and 4) we need more anti-displacement strategies that combat rising rents that push people out of their homes and neighborhoods. Having an abundant supply of housing in our City is going to require a multi-faceted strategy of renters protections, anti-displacement and anti-gentrification strategies, rapidly building social, green, affordable housing, cooperatives and community land trusts, and the continuance of MHA.

THOMAS: The sentiment found in MHA has not resulted in actual housing that is affordable across the City. Instead we see developers opting to “pay the fee” to NOT include affordable units, and instead that housing is being built in communities that are already shouldering the brunt of our density, and have historically been redlined to maintain the boundaries of exclusionary zoning. If we want a City that truly has mixed income communities, that have equitable investments in an improved built environment, then we must consider policies that require accessible affordable housing on every residential block.

---

You can find all CHS Election 2021 coverage here.

PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.