Post navigation

Prev: (08/15/21) | Next: (08/16/21)

ACLU sues to keep ‘Compassion Seattle’ off ballot

A lawsuit from the ACLU of Washington could keep Charter Amendment 29 off Seattle’s November ballot.

The organization is joined by the Transit Riders Union and the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness in the lawsuit announced last week against Compassion Seattle, the ballot initiative to change the city charter to require Seattle to provide new housing units and guarantee 12% of the city’s general fund for homelessness and human services while forcing the city to crack down on encampments by requiring sweeps and clearances of public spaces once the housing efforts and services are in place.

Coupled with the city’s vote on a new mayor, the Compassion Seattle political battle could mark a major inflection point for how the city approaches the ongoing crisis conditions around affordability, addiction, mental health, and homelessness.

In the suit, lawyers representing the ACLU and the advocacy groups say the initiative should not appear on the ballot, arguing that the proposed amendment to the city charter “is an illegal use of a local ballot initiative and violates state laws that mandate how local governments make and carry out plans for addressing homelessness” that “goes beyond the scope of Seattle’s initiative powers.”

“CA-29 ignores well-established limits to the local initiative process,” Breanne Schuster, ACLU of Washington staff attorney, said in a statement. “State law provides multiple avenues for constituents to influence homelessness policies and practices, but the initiative process at the city level is not one of them. CA-29 violates both our state’s local initiative laws and the proper function of our democratic systems.”

The lawsuit claims CA-29 would “establish policy for Seattle alone, abandoning an agreement reached in 2019 between Seattle and King County to plan and fund a regional homelessness response.”

The Compassion Seattle campaign says it is prepared to defend the proposed amendment.

“This group has dictated City of Seattle policy on homelessness for the last decade, with no accountability, all while the crisis has only gotten worse,” the Compassion Seattle campaign said in a statement. “These same activist groups have had their opportunity to address this crisis for years. It’s time for voters to have their say.”

CHS reported on the formation of the initiative in April as business and community groups led by former councilmember and mayor Tim Burgess and the Downtown Seattle Association backed the plan.

If approved, the initiative would change the city charter through at least 2027 in a five-year burst requiring Seattle to provide 2,000 housing units within one year, ease regulations for creating new housing, and guarantee 12% of the city’s general fund for homelessness and human services. It would also force the city to crack down on encampments by requiring sweeps and clearances of public spaces once the housing efforts and services are in place.

CHS asked the leading mayoral candidates heading into the August primary if they supported Compassion Seattle. Bruce Harrell said he backed the initiative. “In Compassion Seattle, I’m pleased to see broad agreement between leading human service providers, advocates for the unsheltered, and local business leaders on a path forward,” Harrell told CHS. Lorena González said she opposes the charter amendment because “it is an unfunded mandate that does not identify a sustainable progressive revenue source.” “I oppose cuts to essential city services and support progressive revenue measures to build more housing,” González said.

Ballots for the November 2nd election will begin to be mailed out in mid-September.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Micah
Micah
2 years ago

Of course they did. LOL.

Russ
Russ
2 years ago

The local ACLU chapter has been captured by people who don’t care about the mission of defending the first amendment and are just interested in using the ACLU’s resources and brand for progressive causes. Hard to imagine the ACLU of the past filing a lawsuit to kill a petition that should be protected by the first amendment (anyone remember that the first amendment includes the right to petition the government for redress of issues?)

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
2 years ago
Reply to  Russ

ACLU doesn’t exist to solely defend First Amendment rights. It exists to defend all the rights of people in this country. In fact their mission statement is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States”. They’ve even fought along side the NRA for Second Amendment rights.

I would think a charter amendment that serves only to harass homeless people without actually solving anything is right in their wheelhouse.

So yeah, either you’re grossly mistaken in understanding what the ACLU or you’re some right wing shill purposefully slinging false narratives to discredit an organization that’s fighting for all of our rights. And we know that nothing agitates right wing nut jobs more than people they don’t like having equal rights.

Moving Soon
Moving Soon
2 years ago

Anti-homeless capitalists need to follow the rules and stop trying to tread on everyone using their blood money and clout to illegally place absurd legislation onto our public ballots.

Ted
Ted
2 years ago

Yes, because letting homeless addicts wallow in mud, misery, and filth and impact the surrounding neighborhood (our laundry room was broken into and a crow bar taken to the washers for the change) is clearly more “compassionate.”

TentsAreNotShelter
TentsAreNotShelter
2 years ago

ACLU lawsuits in the 1970s helped to create the right-to-shelter laws across the east coast that keep people off the streets and drive system effectiveness.

What a huge and depressing come-down for the ACLU and the people experiencing homelessness they are attempting to advocate on behalf of.

Scrap SPD Entirely
Scrap SPD Entirely
2 years ago

I will only vote for a mayor that bans sweeps. It’s ridiculous that Portland keeps handling this better than we do.

Bob
Bob
2 years ago

Been to Portland lately?

Defund SPD Now
Defund SPD Now
2 years ago
Reply to  Bob

Yeah tents don’t bother me because I am not scared of them and see them as a big boogieman.

Amanda Hugginkiss
Amanda Hugginkiss
2 years ago
Reply to  Defund SPD Now

Tents don’t scare anyone. What does scare folks are the absurd about of spent needles and piles of human sh*t scattered all around every green space in the city that came from the folks inside of those tents. Not to mention the completely unpredictable people who now roam the neighborhoods (take Woodland Park, for example) at all hours of the day/night stealing anything and everything they can, breaking into vehicles, garages, and homes. Because that is compassion, right? Allowing people to make the worst choices possible and then looking the other way while the rest of us literally pay out of pocket to allow it to happen. Neat. Real neat.

district13tribute
district13tribute
2 years ago
Reply to  Defund SPD Now

Tents don’t bother anyone. It’s when the inhabitants of those tents destroy their environment, endanger public safety and engage in criminal activity to feed their habit that people tend to get tired of being chastised by people like you for not having enough compassion. Initiatives like this is what happens when people no longer have faith in the government to effectively manage the problem.

Rosswellian
Rosswellian
2 years ago

Sorry, tents do bother some of us. Yes they are the tip of the iceberg, but tents in parks, sidewalks, etc. —yes they bother many of us.

BCPHLS
BCPHLS
2 years ago

capitalist liberals love a bit of compassionate authoritarianism

C Doom
C Doom
2 years ago
Reply to  BCPHLS

The standard Progressive go-to appears — the ad-hominem on any position deemed “Liberal” or “Capitalist.”

Successful politics in Seattle is not a bare-knuckle brawl, much as your side tries to make it into one, Greater Seattle would rather solve problems, not hurl insults.

R U Serious?
R U Serious?
2 years ago

Someone’s trying to do something to change the status quo? Can’t have that, can we.

CKathes
CKathes
2 years ago

There are aspects of this amendment that admittedly sound good, but the total omission of any new funding strikes me as a colossal missed opportunity at best — and at worst it leads me to suspect this measure is basically a ruse aimed at juicing turnout for reflexively anti-tax, pro-police, big-business-friendly candidates rather than either housing the homeless or clearing the parks and sidewalks. Perhaps the ACLU is engaging in a bit of mission creep here, but they’re correct that this kind of empty subterfuge doesn’t belong in the city charter. Come back next year with some serious new money for housing in the mix, and I’ll very likely feel differently. (To be clear: I’m not against telling lifestyle campers to please move on to another city if they turn down safe, non-congregate housing options.) But on this amendment as it stands now, count me a definite no.

TentsAreNotShelter
TentsAreNotShelter
2 years ago
Reply to  CKathes

It dedicates 12% of general fund revenues and requires production of 2000 housing and shelter units within a year.

Where are you getting your info?

CKathes
CKathes
2 years ago

The figure you cite is 12% of current revenue — none of it is new money. That’s very close to what’s being spent now. Hence my suspicion this amendment isn’t really about housing — it’s a device for motivating the type of voter who is ideologically inclined to support Harrell, Nelson and Davison but who also wants to think of themself as compassionate toward the homeless. (Very clever, I must say.)

Greg Kirkos
Greg Kirkos
2 years ago
Reply to  CKathes

What is wrong with anti-tax, pro-police, and business friendly? Inform me.

Greg Kirkos
Greg Kirkos
2 years ago
Reply to  Greg Kirkos

To elaborate, I’ve voted for every levy, levy lid lift, etc. to support more homeless services, and I see the problem get worse every year. Also – businesses are a HUGE part of the tax revenue for Seattle, so not supporting them results in less money for the problems you would like addressed. I don’t think these positions are inherently anti-homeless. Whether big businesses ‘pay their fair share’ – I agree that is up for debate.

Reallocation of available funds, however, seems appropriate.

I signed the petition for this to be put on the ballot because it motivates the city to CHANGE their approach. It’s obvious that the current policies are not working.

Chop refugee
Chop refugee
2 years ago

Sounds like the aclu is participating in voter suppression to me.

RWK
RWK
2 years ago

It would be very anti-democratic if a few activist groups are successful with this lawsuit and keep the proposal off the ballot. Let the voters decide, dammit!

Hillbill
Hillbill
2 years ago

I oppose cuts to essential city services …” Are you KIDDING me, CM Gonzales? does no one else see the self serving hypocrisy of this statement?

Italocentric
Italocentric
2 years ago

It’s sad that we have to bypass the city council for what should be legislation around our homeless response and spending.

This is done as a charter amendment because our council just wants to continue diverting funds into Homeless, Inc., supporting the same organizations year after year who are not solving the problem.

Sheryl
Sheryl
2 years ago

I will no longer donate to the ACLU. Its defense of the first amendment was why I donated. Even though some of its first amendment cases didn’t always sit well with me, I knew they were coming from the right place. The first amendment is the basis for all else in our society; for the ACLU to lose sight of it and to take on other causes is a travesty for the country. And that is regardless of how you feel about this initiative – maybe it should not be on the ballot per the initiative law, but that should be someone else’s fight.