November’s General Election is set to be a referendum on homelessness in Seattle, the top issue for voters in a city where thousands live outside and under-sheltered.
The Seattle City Council Monday approved a procedural vote to clear the way for King County Elections to place the Compassion Seattle initiative on the ballot this fall.
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:
The amendment further proposes a coordinated plan to move people experiencing homelessness into emergency and permanent housing, instead of living in encampments, including enhanced shelters, tiny houses, hotel-motel rooms and other forms of non-congregate emergency or permanent housing. It requires the city to ensure that “city parks, playgrounds, sports fields, public spaces and sidewalks and streets remain open and clear of encampments” once the programs and services required by the amendment are made available.
The Compassion Seattle vote will join a ballot that will also decide Seattle’s next mayor. 68% of polling respondents say fixing homelessness is their highest priority for the city’s new leader.
CHS asked the leading candidates heading into the August primary if they supported Compassion Seattle — only Bruce Harrell and Jessyn Farrell said they 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. M. 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.
ECHOHAWK: No. While I know there are many well intentioned people who I’ve worked with and respect working on this charter amendment, it falls short of what this City needs. It does not scale adequately to the 5,000 people who need to be brought inside, it doesn’t have an adequate funding mechanism, and it’s language does not adequately prevent sweeps. I want to be clear: I will never sweep. Sweeping is cruel, inhumane, and does nothing to solve the underlying problems. It also did not adequately integrate the Lived Experience Coalition into the development process. It’s because of the feedback from the Lived Experience Coalition that I withdrew any support of Compassion Seattle. And the fact is, my plan is better. I’ve already mentioned my 22-point plan to bring everyone indoors within the 14 months after the election. It won’t be easy, but I know I can do it.
FARRELL: I do support the Compassion Seattle amendment, because I believe it creates consensus around the policy proposals we know are necessary to solve this crisis and focuses the conversation on how to adequately fund those solutions. In my analysis of the charter amendment’s text, I do not believe it mandates sweeps and my administration would not engage in them. I was in the state legislature when McCleary constrained our budget, and it’s absolutely unacceptable to force essential services like parks and libraries to compete with the funding we need to solve the homelessness crisis. I’d leverage the popularity of those programs to both work with the City Council to make sure that all city services have the funding they need and also go to the people and get their support at the ballot box for additional progressive revenue that ensures the wealthiest pay their fair share.
GONZALEZ: I oppose Charter Amendment 29 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.
HOUSTON: NO, it is an unfunded mandate and legalizes sweeps. Supporters of the charter amendment are at a loss after years of seeing homeless people stuck outside and view the amendment—whether informed or not—as a chance to do something different and as a hope for change (even though the fine print simply emboldens the status quo of violence against visible poverty).
HARRELL: 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. I will pursue a similar approach – bringing all stakeholders to agree on one plan: massive investment in emergency housing, individualized services, and helping people out of tents and into housing as units come online – with progressive revenue to fund these investments. Homelessness is the major challenge of the day, and regardless of whether Compassion Seattle passes, I know we must urgently invest in thousands of new units of supportive housing and shelter. Hotels, tiny homes, and other stable suitable housing options are the best way to ensure unhoused neighbors actually get the care and support they need to thrive. I am calling for the majority of funds from the second round of American Rescue Plan Act distributions next year – at least $70 million – to go toward homelessness services and support. Those additional dollars – in contrast to the approach taken by the current council – would make an immediate impact when coupled with my new approach and plan. I’ve also called for improved regional solutions, philanthropic and community support, and, most importantly, a clearly defined and accessible plan, available to all, so we can unite our city and rebuild trust that the City of Seattle is headed in the right direction on this issue.
LANGLIE: I do not support Compassion Seattle. I understand and respect the concern of those that do support it and they be assured that many of those plans are included in my plan to address homelessness. I do not believe in that there is an “easy” button on this or that it is good governance to force the public to deal with an emergency level issue that has gone unresolved by those in leadership. City government is about providing services to our residents which includes our homeless population and solving what is surely the greatest crisis of their lifetime. As mentioned in the answer on programs and teams, instead of continuing to throw money at the problem without doing any research to test if our solutions are working, we need to collect quantitative data on which programs the city is paying for work and don’t work. We should cut the funding for the programs that do not work in order to increase funding for programs that are proven to work and resolve this emergency with the urgency it has deserved for a long time.
RANDALL: The charter amendment proposal is an intriguing approach that seeks to increase and mandate the amount of funding the city must invest to address homelessness. My understanding is that supporters believe the city does not invest enough funding to support our houseless neighbors. I think that is a shame a group of concerned citizens had to take this step the force our local government to be more attentive to this issue. I welcome the opportunity for the voters to weigh in on this issue and whether the amendment passes or not it will not impact my plan to address homelessness through my “Dignity Project”. To end City Hall’s neglect of those experiencing homelessness who are sheltering in makeshift tents and RVs on our streets, in public parks and wooded areas; I am proposing a unique plan that I call “The Dignity Project”. This plan is based on the successful model “Hillsborough Hope” Tampa, Florida. All elements of this project will bring about dignity, stability, and opportunity for those who are displaced, as we continue our efforts to develop housing options. With this approach, the city will be able to clean the streets, dispose of trash and debris, remove graffiti, and enforce our local ordinances prohibiting camping on the streets in tents and RV’s. This initiative will start with establishing “Dignity Communities” using surplus city property and leasing private property to create safe places for temporary shelter with service providers on site, amenities to meet basic human needs, support teams and job placement for sustainable earned income. These communities will be places of compassion and support but will have expectations of those being cared for to ensure that needs are met and progress towards recovery is being made.
SIXKILLER: The proposed charter amendment demonstrates that voters are desperate for progress and do not trust their elected leaders to solve problems. I agree that we need to boldly address homelessness. The Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment reflects a desire by a cross-section of Seattle that is laser focused on outcomes. Creating additional temporary shelter units and permanent housing options, each with the wraparound services folks need, is an essential element of my proposal to addressing the homelessness crisis on our streets and in our parks. The charter amendment takes a similar approach but I have proposed a $1 billion property tax levy to build 3,000 new permanent places for folks to call home. This generational investment will more than triple the number of permanent supportive housing units coming online each year, and be in addition to units already funded by the current housing levy and other units being funded by the state and county. Every dollar we spend on shelter is a dollar we are not spending on permanent housing. My approach — and the one outlined in the charter amendment — is to address both ends of the street-to-housing pipeline by ensuring there are safe spaces for folks living outside to come into and permanent places for folks in our shelter system to transition to so we create throughput and improve overall system performance.
The process to get the Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment 29 vote on the ballot could also be a preview of what is to come in another political battle brewing in the city. As the Recall Sawant and Kshama Solidarity campaigns continue to duke it out over the effort to remove the District 3 councilmember, backers can look at the process around Compassion Seattle for an idea of what is to come once gathered signatures are turned in to elections officials. The Seattle Times reports the Compassion Seattle campaign turned in more than 66,000 signatures — double what was needed to qualify for the ballot — but more than 30,000 signatures were thrown out or “challenged” by elections staff. The biggest issue? The “vast majority” of the challenges were because the person was not registered to vote in the city of Seattle, the Times reports.
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.
The tech boom has been a catastrophic disaster for so many. I hear people screaming in pain wandering the streets of Capitol Hill at night while I’m in bed. Someone lit a garbage can on fire next to my house that could have killed me in my sleep. We’re at the crossroads of two global disasters; colonialism and a global pandemic. All we see is absolute desperation among those integrated firmly in the economy to restart the money machine and forget any of this ever happened. The vast majority of us are prisoners in this situation, forced to jump at any carrot dangled in front of us or starve and live on the street. Obviously, the last thing we should be doing is pointing the cops at someone and telling them to get them out of our sight but yet that’s the only solution we can imagine. This fully confirms our predicament. We have no imagination of a world that could be shared by us all, we just want to rush back to our addiction of money and greed. We will languish here for at least the rest of my lifetime and likely many generations to come.
On or about 1776, the Continental Army defeated the British Empire. Ending the status of colony and beginning the status of a sovereign nation. So you can cross colonialism off the list of grievances.
oh dang, boom, checkmate. that is definitely the only thing that the word ‘colonialism’ refers to
*eyeroll*
I’d argue it doesn’t really mean anything it’s just something that teens and 20-somethings say as a buzzword to indicate they are unhappy.
it’s a good thing arguing doesn’t determine truth.
How soon is soon?
Coming to a park near you ;)
Get thee to a nunnery.
Your comment suggests that you are at the mercy of some galvanic forces over which you have no control. Get a grip, straighten your spine, and take control of your own life. Jesus, what is it with the “victims” in this city?
Colonialism?! Did you just get back from a matinee showing of Jungle Cruise or something?
There sure are a lot of white faces on this continent. Can’t imagine how they got here.
Echohawk’s plan is more detailed and specific than anything proposed by the other candidates, and she has the experience to really make it happen: https://www.echohawkforseattle.com/emergencyhousing
Her plan does not have a long term plan for the mentally ill. All it states is that they will connect resources. A vast majority of the homeless are mentally ill and not functional in society but we don’t have the mental hospitals that we used to so those suffering were thrown onto the streets.
A real plan will directly address how specifically they will get mentally ill the resources they need and long term housing/care they will need.
Gotta love capitalism.
The deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients wasn’t exactly driven by capitalism. Decades ago, there was a well-intended belief that many people would benefit from undergoing treatment within their communities. This was the right choice for many, but the resulting changes meant psychiatric facilities closed and individual patients could no longer be compelled to undergo treatments they didn’t agree to. This problem runs way deeper than simply finding resources. :(
I’m certain that humanity (basically all of the seven deadly sins) lead us to our current situation where we have a vastly growing homeless population that cannot pull themselves out of their situations on their own and many that want to do good but either lack the resources and/or the will power to actually make a change.
Like me. I really want to help the homeless but I basically feel powerless to make an real impact that will change someones life. If I invited a homeless person into my home, I would fear for my safety. But that’s just me personally.
We are better than that in our society and there are good people that can take resources and create real change. But there are also opportunists that see a problem and see a way to make a high salary while virtue signaling a solution.
I pray for our nation and our peoples daily. I don’t think my prayers are being heard right now.
I agree! And I would add that a specific plan for the drug & alcohol addicted is critical as well.
I like Echohawk’s plan the most too. Voted for her and will in general election too. She should win.
The unhoused represent less than one percent of the population, yet the Compassion Initiative will dedicate 12% of KC’s budget to the unhoused. In addition to charitable, city, state, and federal resources contributed to the unhoused. This has to stop.
Honestly fine with that level of spend if it solves the problem. If it just continues the current money pit with zero better outcomes, it will be a disaster.
I wish the candidates who are firmly opposed to what they call sweeps would define what they mean more clearly. Are they saying if people set up tents or even some of the more semi-permanent structures that we have seen in public high traffic parks or sidewalks they will never remove them under any circumstances? The charter amendment says if there is housing (temporary or permanent) available and the person refuses it they can be forced to move along. Is that so unreasonable? I have other problems with the charter amendment but I don’t get the outrage over “sweeps”.
They’re saying no sweeps period (until crime starts happening in their NE Seattle neighborhoods of course, or an encampment has multiple murders)
Capitalism at its best! We’re fighting an uphill battle. With the eviction moratorium ending for some states I know that people seeking a better existence will move to cities like Seattle to get opportunities to get out of homelessness.
What my point is, that although we as a city have a responsibility it is also a national responsibility that our American government will not bear the burden of.
In the meantime I’ve seen mentally ill homeless masturbating in public, wandering around naked, accosting citizens, kicking cars, harassing local businesses and pretty much creating chaos in our city.
So in the end our community will need to step in one way or another. I say we take responsibly and fix the problem regardless of where someone comes from:
1) Transitional housing to determine mental wherewithal to be a contributor to Seattle society
A) If mentally ill we get them the resources they need to either become rehabilitated or a facility they live in that is clean, safe and they get the resources they need.
B) If able to contribute to society we get them setup for success. Education, ID, perm housing, and an existence where they help build up our city and be themself authentically.
2) REFORM THE HOMELESS INDUSTRY in Seattle. Setup audit process that identifies abuses like too high executive pay, overstaffing and underdelivering, and general evaluation of services rendered for the amounts brought in from donations and other funding. Ensure that these orgs are held responsible and not part of the problem.
3) Partner with other states to help them build solutions and enact similar structures so we build a long term safety net for people in those cities. Eventually turn this into a national solution.
Our federal gov is too mired in special interest money to address this issue if they ever will. So it will be the state and local governments that will be responsible. Seattle could be a beacon on the hill for other cities if we allowed ourselves to be. Right now we’re the prime example of how the left doesn’t have solutions to solve these problems either.
Hmmm. Not sure if you recall the last time we voted to tax ourselves to fix the homeless issue, what was it—$80,000,000 a year, that there were benchmarks for the funded groups to qualify to continue their funding. Guess what, the City Council decided to fund them anyway, in spite of many of them not reaching their numbers. Accountability.
I also think that it’s a little too easy to blame “Capitalism” for the situation we are in. Capitalism also happens to be the system that created the middle class. Before Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, you pretty much had the feudal lords and then everyone else called serfs. You have to keep an eye on Capitalism, to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand. And that’s what we need to do now. Ripping down the house to build something else that might be worse doesn’t sound really encouraging to me.
Capitalism without constraints lead to the flavor of capitalism we have today. Even Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others are concerned about it even though they benefited from it the most.
I agree with a flavor of capitalism where there are constraints on salaries of the executives, constraints on how much purchase power a corp has of our representatives (give them an official seat at the table if we need to, no more back door deals), and constraints on growth of one specific company that puts them as the only major player in the market.
That would go a long way towards righting a wrong done to the American people. I love America but I also am smart enough to see and say broken system.