>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO OUR
EXTRA SPECIAL FINANCE AND
NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE.
THIS IS SEPTEMBER 24th.
IT'S 4 P.M.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ, COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN
FOR JOINING US.
AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON
THE AGENDA WHICH IS OUR REVIEW
AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT CAME DOWN
SEVERAL WEEKS AGO.
AND WE HAD OUR FIRST
CONVERSATION LAST WEEK.
SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION.
>> I'LL JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT
IS.
>> NORMALLY, WE WOULD HAVE
PUBLIC COMMENT AND I SEE THAT
MEDIA IS REALLY OUTRANKING ALL
POTENTIAL PUBLIC COMMENTERS
TODAY SINCE WE HAVE NONE.
WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED RIGHT
ON.
SO I GUESS WE CAN JUST HAVE
ASON, IF YOU WILL READ THIS IN
AND THEN I'M GOING TO INVITED
JEFF SIMMS.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THIS YOU'VE
DONE.
IN THE LAST NUMBER OF WEEKS
YOU'VE PROBABLY LIVE ADD YEAR.
WE'LL HAVE A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD AND
MY HOPE IS TO VOTE THIS OUT OF
THE COMMITTEE AND WE CAN
DISCUSS WHAT'S NEXT.
>>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
THE USE OF EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED
MOTOR VEHICLES; PROHIBITING
PERSONS FROM ALLOWING THE
OCCUPATION OF EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLES; AND
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 11.75 TO
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.
MR.SIMMS, PLEASE PROCEED.
>> THIS IS ALL COMPILED
TOGETHER.
WHAT EACH AMENDMENT WOULD BE OR
WHAT THE CHANGE WOULD
ACCOMPLISH.
I'D LIKE TO START ON PAGE 7 AND
THEN WE'LL MOVE BACK TO THE
FRONT.
ONE OF THE --
>> BEFORE WE DIVE IN, MAYBE YOU
COULD BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT WHERE
WE ARE FROM LAST WEEK AND THEN
DIVE INTO SEVEN.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO LINE BY
LINE.
BUT FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE,
TELL THE WORLD WHERE WE ARE.
>> LAST WEEK WHEN WE HAD A
COMMITTEE MEETING, THERE WAS
ANOTHER SUBSTITUTION DRAFT.
AND IT MADE A VARIETY OF
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION SUCH AS
BOLSTERING THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
CREATING A VICTIMS FUND,
VICTIMS ASSISTANCE FUND.
ALSO CLARIFICATIONS IN OTHER
PLACES AND AFTER WALKING
THROUGH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS,
THAT VERSION WAS ADOPTED AND
IT'S BECOME THE BASE
LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING.
AND WHAT EACH OF YOU HAVE IN
FRONT OF YOU WAS NOT MADE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE YET BUT IT
WILL BE POSTED.
DEADLINES.
DIDN'T WORK OUT WELL.
WHAT WAS ADOPTED LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING AS THE CURRENT VERSION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO GOING TO PAGE 7 THEN, ONE
OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WAS
REQUESTED FOR US TO CONSIDER AT
THIS TIME WAS TO PUT IN
IMPLEMENTATION DATES FOR THE
RULE MAKING WHICH WAS ONE OF
THE THINGS ADOPTED AND MAKING
SURE THAT THE RULE MAKING WOULD
GET ADOPTED BEFORE WE HAVE
PERSONNEL ENFORCING THE
ORDINANCE.
WE NEEDED TO PULL OUT SECTION
1175020 AND PUT IT IN ITS OWN
SECTION.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A NEW
SECTION 3 THAT EXPLAINS THAT
THIS WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL
MARCH FIRST OF NEXT YEAR.
THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING
OTHERWISE BECAUSE THERE'S GOING
TO BE REFERENCES TO THIS
SECTION.
>> JEFF, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
THIS AMENDMENT ON PAGE 7
BETWEEN LINES 11 AND 16 IS IN
SPONSE TO THE NEED FOR THE
DEPARTMENT TO DO SOME RULE
MAKING.
>> CORRECT.
>> SO IT OUTLINES TIMES.
AND IN A SEPARATE PLACE YOU'LL
SEE THAT TIME IS ALLOTTED FOR
HSD TO COMPLETE A RULE MAKING
PROCESS AND APPROXIMATELY 30
DAYS AFTER IT WAS ANTICIPATED
THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED IS WHEN
THE FORCE OF THE REST OF THE
ORDINANCE WOULD TAKE EFFECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO I'LL TURN BACK TO THE
FRONT AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THE
LOGICAL PLACE TO START.
YOU'LL SEE SEVERAL RED LINE
PLACES WHERE RECREATIONAL WAS
INSERTED AND THAT RELATES TO A
CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORD.
IF YOU MOVE FORWARD TO PAGE 3
ONLINE 11 YOU'LL SEE WHERE THAT
IS STRUCK.
PREVIOUSLY AS NOTED, THE
TRANSMITTED ORDINANCE OR
TRANSMITTED BILL WOULD HAVE
APPLIED TO ALL VEHICLES, NOT
JUST RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WILL NARROW
THAT DEFINITION OR NARROW THE
VEHICLES SUGGEST TO BEING
PREDATORY VEHICLE TO VEHICLES
THAT CAN HAVE A PREDATORY
VEHICLE LANDLORD JUST TO
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
WE STILL NEED A LITTLE BIT OF
WORK.
FOR EXAMPLE, I'M INTERESTED IN
MAKING SURE THAT CAMPER VANS
ARE INCLUDED IN THIS.
AND SOMEONE FROM THE LAW
DEPARTMENT TOLD ME THAT CAMPER
VANS ARE DIFFERENT FROM
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IF NOT
TODAY THAT WE CAN BRING THAT
FORWARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT FOR
THE NEXT TIME WE CAN MEET.
I BELIEVE THAT CAMPER VANS
WOULD BE INCLUDED.
THE DEFINITION HERE IS RATHER
EXPANSIVE IN CLARIFYING WHAT IS
A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
A PULL ALONG TRAILER OR A POP-
UP.
THEY DO NOT NEED TO HAVE THEIR
OWN MODE OF POWER TO BE A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.
>> THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I
HEARD EARLIER.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE
THAT SOME OF THE CAMPER VANS
ARE SOME OF THE WORST
OFFENDERS.
THEY LOOK LIKE GARBAGE AND
DON'T HAVE TOILETS IN THEM.
BUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE
ISSUE.
BUT SOME OF THEM THAT ARE SO
BADLY DAMAGED AND HAVE WHAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT UNHEALTHY
CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
SO IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT'S
INCLUDED THAT'S A GOOD THING.
>> I WANT TO REITERATE MY
UNDERSTANDING AT LEAST IS THIS
IS REALLY ABOUT PREDATORY
LANDLORDS AND SO WHILE THERE
ARE LOTS OF VEHICLES THAT LOOK
LIKE THEY ARE IN PRETTY POOR
CONDITION, THIS ONLY APPLIES IF
THERE'S A PREDATORY
RELATIONSHIP.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF VEHICLES
THAT WE WOULD RATHER NOT SEE IN
HOUSING.
BUT THIS WON'T IMPACT THEM
BECAUSE THEY MAY OWN THEM OR
NOT BE IN THE TYPE OF
RELATIONSHIP WE'RE IN.
>> LET'S SPEND A MOMENT TALKING
ABOUT THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, WHY ARE YOU DOING
THIS?
I'M COMING BACK TO THE ISSUE IS
THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO CARE FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE VICTIMS OF
PREDATORY LANDLORDS, WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO TAKE PEOPLE
COMPLETELY OUT OF RVs THAT ARE
SEMI-BETTER THAN AS WE'VE SAID
MANY TIMES BEFORE BETTER THAN
SLEEPING UNDER THE VIADUCT IN A
CARDBOARD BOX.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE
VEHICLES BEING LEASED AND WE
CONSIDER THEM TO BE UNHEALTHY
CONDITIONS, GOING AFTER THE
PREDATORY LANDLORD AND TRYING
TO MINIMIZE TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE THOSE CONDITIONS.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WOULD NOT
BE INCLUDED IN RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES?
>> PROBABLY YOU WOULD THINK OF
NOT HAVING A COMPACT CAR, A
PICKUP TRUCK, A CONVERSION VAN,
A MINIVAN.
THOSE WOULD NOT BE RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.
>> BUT THEORETICALLY, SOMEONE
COULD BE RENTING OUT A MINIVAN?
>> THAT'S POSSIBLE.
>> THE REASONS I'M INTERESTED
IN THE DISTINCTION, THE
PREDATORY RELATIONSHIP COULD
HAPPEN IN A WHOLE HOST OF
THINGS.
IT COULD BE HAPPENING IN TENTS.
PEOPLE STAKE OUT A CERTAIN
SECTION UNDER THE FREEWAY AND
ARE SAYING THIS MY AREA AND YOU
CAN ONLY STAY HERE UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT'S HAPPENING,
I WANT TO PREVENT THAT FROM
HAPPENING.
THE SPECIFICS AROUND HERE, I'M
CONCERNED WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT
TWO OF THE FIVE CRITERIA.
AND INADEQUATE SANITATION WHICH
I READ AS VEHICLES.
IF IT'S A CAMPER THAT DOESN'T
HAVE A WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
THEN THE LACK OF IT WOULDN'T BE
A DISQUALIFYING FACTOR.
>> CORRECT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION?
>> NO.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT
CREATING PROTECTIONS FOR
POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
RENTING IN A CERTAIN SITUATION
VERSUS PEOPLE WHO AREN'T.
I WANT TO FLAG THAT.
IF SOMEONE IS IN A MINIVAN AND
IS IN A PREDATORY SITUATION
THAT'S UNHEALTHY.
AND WE WANT TO GIVE THEM ACCESS
TO THE VICTIMS' FUND, I'M
WORRIED ABOUT THEM NOT BEING
INCLUDED.
>> I APPRECIATE THE POINT
YOU'RE RAISING AND I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD
REALLY LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME
ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER AND
WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
>> AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
TOO, ALLISON.
ANY NEW PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
I'M TRYING TO ENVISION HOW THIS
IS IMPLEMENTED.
AND WHEN I'M FEELING POSSESS
MISS IT CAN.
WE'RE CONCERNE THAT TOOLS THAT
MAY BE ABUSED TO CONFISCATE
VEHICLES AND PROPERTIES BROADLY
IN A SENSE SO PEOPLE ARE ENDING
UP WITHOUT HOUSING.
WHEN I THINK OF THE OTHER WAY,
WHEN IF IT'S NARROWLY TAILORED
AND ONLY BEING USED WHEN
THERE'S A PREDATORY
RELATIONSHIP.
I DON'T WANT THAT RESTRICTED TO
VEHICLES.
THERE THERE SHOULD APPLY TO
EVERYWHERE.
FOR ME, HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY
I'M WILLING TO GIVE LIKE
NARROWLY DEFINING WHICH
VEHICLES QUALIFY PROBABLY
DEPEND ON THE REST OF THE
LEGISLATION AND THE OTHER
PIECES.
IF WE FEEL WE HAVE THE
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE SO THIS
CAN ONLY BE USED IN PREDATORY
RELATIONSHIPS.
I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE SAYING
ANY VEHICLE AS LONG AS WE HAVE
REALLY GOOD PROTECTIONS.
WHEN IT'S A GRAY AREA ON WE
THINK IT'S PREDATORY BUT THE
VEHICLE LOOKS AWFUL AND WE WANT
TO GET RID OF THIS, I WANT TO
BE REALLY STRICT.
>> AND I THINK WE'VE DONE A
PRETTY GOOD JOB OF THIS.
ALLISON, WHY DON'T YOU
INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> ALLISON McLAIN.
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW'S OFFICE.
>> I THINK THE, I THINK FROM A
POLICY MAKER PERSPECTIVE
THERE'S TWO SIDES TO THE COIN.
WE CAN START BROAD AND THEN
FIGURE OUT WHAT THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES ARE IN THE MOMENT
IN REALTIME.
OR WE CAN DECIDE TO DO THIS
ALMOST LIKE A PILOT PROJECT
LENS AND HAVE A VERY NARROW
TARGETED APPROACH IN THE
INITIAL POLICY TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T END UP
HAVING THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE OF UNNECESSARILY
WEAPONNIZING THIS AS SOMETHING
THAT WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY
EVICTIONS OF PEOPLE FROM A
PLACE THAT IS BETTER THAN
SLEEPING UNDER THE VIADUCT IN A
CARDBOARD BOX TO USE THE
CHAIR'S EXAMPLE.
AND SO PERHAPS ONE OF THE WAYS
TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
THOSE TWO EXTREMES IS TO
REQUIRE AS PART OF FOLLOW-UP
WORK AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE
WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO
POTENTIALLY INCLUDE VEHICLES
THAT AREN'T JUST RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES BASED ON AN ASSESSMENT
OF HOW THIS PARTICULAR TOOL HAS
BEEN UTILIZED IN A WAY THAT'S
TRUE TO THE UNDERLYING INTENT.
THAT COULD BE A STUDY FOR
EXAMPLE, AN EVALUATION OF
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE HEARING
FROM PEOPLE LIVING IN NON-
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
ABOUT THEIR LANDLORD, TENANT
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER TYPES
OF VEHICLE LEASERS FOR LACK OF
A BETTER TERM.
THAT COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
THINK MORE CREATIVELY ABOUT HOW
TO EVALUATE ALMOST A PHASE TWO
APPROACH IF THE DATA MERITS
BROADENING THE SCOPE OF THE
APPLICABILITY TO ADDRESS I
THINK THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS
OF NOT WANTING TO CREATE THE
OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
SERVING SOME PEOPLE WHO REALLY
NEED IT AND THEN NOT SERVING
OTHERS BECAUSE WE MADE A CHOICE
AS POLICY MAKERS BASED ON WHERE
THEY ARE CURRENTLY LIVING AS
OPPOSED TO WHAT THEIR NEED
MIGHT BE AND THE NATURE OF THE
ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE
WITH WHOMEVER GAVE THEM ACCESS
TO THE VEHICLE THEY MIGHT BE
LIVING IN.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
>> THAT WAS A LOT OF FOOD.
>> BUFFET.
>> DELICIOUS.
>> ON PAGE 6, AND IT STARTS
ONLINE EIGHT WHERE WE TALK
ABOUT REPORT.
THIS WAS RECOMMENDED I BELIEVE
BY COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
SOMETHING THAT I SALUTED
>> OR MISDEMEANORS.
AND THEN THE NUMBER OF
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED RVs MADE
AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPATION BY
PREDATORY LANDLORDS.
IF THAT'S AN AREA YOU'D LIKE TO
EXPLORE, WE CERTAIN CAN.
C IS THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS
WHO ARE DISPLACED AND THAT'S
THE AREA I'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON
BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT SOMEONE
MOVED INTO WORSE CONDITIONS.
AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THE
GET GO THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO
DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THERE
HAS TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
EITHER.
AND I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA SUGGESTED OTHER
PERMANENT HOUSING OR ENHANCED
SHELTER WHICH IN MY MIND IS
24/7 AND TINY HOME VILLAGES.
AND BASIC SHELTER.
I'M AT THAT POINT WHERE I KNOW
THAT AS YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER
TODAY, A GOOD DEFINITION IS
THAT THIS JUST MAKES PEOPLE
SAFE FOR TONIGHT BUT IT DOESN'T
GIVE THEM ANY STABILIZING
OPPORTUNITY.
YOU'RE OUT BACK OUT ON THE
STREET AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING.
IF THE REPORTING IS SOMETHING
THAT YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON,
GREAT.
IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THINKING
ABOUT WHO IS COVERED BY THIS
AND COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN YOUR
POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
WE WANT TO GET THE SERVICES TO
ANYBODY WHO NEEDS IT AND TO
PROVIDE THEM THAT HELP AND THAT
MEANS INCREASING CAPACITY FOR
SURE.
>> I THINK WHAT I'M SUGGESTING
IS A MIDDLE POINT TO PROBABLY
PERHAPS A MORE MODERATE
APPROACH.
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE
WE AGREE TO BEGIN WITH
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
WE HAVE THIS AMENDATORY
LANGUAGE IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR
OF THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE QUARTERLY
REPORTS FOR US TO DIGEST IN
TERMS OF HOW THIS PARTICULAR
PROGRAM IS WORKING.
AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS I
LIKE THAT LANGUAGE.
I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THAT.
IT WILL HELP US MAKE DATA
DRIVEN DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE
AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
FULFILLING OUR OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITIES TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE TRUE INTENT AND
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
WHICH IS FOCUSED ON THE
LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND THE
TENANT AND THE RV TRANSACTION
TO MAKE SURE THAT IS THE FOCUS
AND NOT JUST THIS IS AN UGLY
VEHICLE AND I DON'T LIKE IT IN
MY NEIGHBORHOOD BUT THEY MIGHT
OWN IT.
THE TENANTS MIGHT OWN IT.
THE PEOPLE LIVING IN IT MIGHT
OWN IT.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS AN
ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT
'5ING ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO
THE REPORT TO INCORPORATE THE
NEED TO TO EVALUATE THROUGH
MORE DATA DRIVEN LENS WHAT THE
SCOPE AND THE BREADTH OF THE
PROBLEM MIGHT BE AS IT RELATES
TO NON-RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
AND THERE'S BEEN SOME
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LACK OF
DATA OR UNDERSTANDING FULL
SCOPE OF THE FULL SCOPE OF ALL
MOTOR VEHICLES.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO CREATE A PATHWAY
TO COLLECT THAT DATA AND
APPROACH IT WITH INTENTIONALITY
AND REQUIRE EACH OF US TO
PRIORITIZE THAT BODY OF WORK.
>> SOUNDS LIKE WHAT IS G IN THE
SECTION YOU'RE POINTING OUT.
AND ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON
CHALLENGES TO ENFORCING THIS.
AND INFORMATION ON THE PRACTICE
OF ACTING AS A PREDATORY
LANDLORD.
THIS PRACTICE WITH OTHER TYPES
OF VEHICLES.
>> HOW DOES THAT SOUND?
>> SOUNDS GREAT TO ME.
>> I HAVE ANOTHER CONCEPT I'D
LIKE TO FLOAT AND I'LL PUTTING
IT OUT FOR FODDER.
WHICH WOULD BE A SUNSET CLAUSE.
I'VE SEEN THE INFORMATION FROM
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF
IDENTIFYING THE FIVE OR SIX
INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY THINK ARE
DOING THIS.
ONE OR TWO ARE ALREADY OUT OF
THE BUSINESS.
THERE'S A COUPLE THAT HAVE MORE
VEHICLES.
IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR.
IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER IT'S EX-
EMPLOYATIVE OR NOT.
AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY ARE ALL
GETTING OUT OF THE BUSINESS.
IF IT TURNS OUT THIS LAW IS NOT
BEING USED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
FINDING THE PREDATORS AND IT'S
JUST A MINOR THING THAT WASN'T
HAPPENING, MY CONCERN IS TO
LEAVE THE LAW ON THE BOOKS, AND
10 YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE USES
IT FOR SOMETHING UNINTENDED.
>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU LIKE TO
GIVE IT?
>> A YEAR OR TWO.
>> WE'VE HAD SIX QUARTERLY
REPORTS AND I WOULD ASSUME THE
COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WOULD SAY
THIS IS, EVERY MONTH WE FIND A
COUPLE OF THESE PEOPLE AND THIS
LAW THE REALLY USEFUL.
IF WE STOPPED GETTING QUARTERLY
REPORTS BECAUSE NO ONE IS DOING
THIS.
I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT MY
COLLEAGUES THINK ABOUT THIS.
THE IDEA OF HAVING A LAW ON THE
BOOKS, IF IT'S NOT BEING USED
FOR IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
PROPOSED THREE YEARS.
IT'S LINE 11 AND THAT'S
BRINGING THE REPORTS BACK FOR
THREE YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1st,
2020.
BUT WE COULD EXTEND THAT TO
JUNE 30 OF 2023.
>> SO THAT'S.
I WAS THINKING THAT THE LAW
WOULD SUNSET.
>> I'M SUGGESTING ATTACH IT TO
THAT.
>> I'M OPEN TO.
I HAVEN'T THOUGHT THIS THROUGH.
I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR NOW OR
LATER.
GOOD IDEA, BAD IDEA FROM A
POLICY PERSPECTIVE.
>> IT'S NOT ATYPICAL FOR US TO
INCLUDE SORT OF A DIFFERENT WAY
OF THINKING OF IT AS OPPOSED TO
SUNSET.
HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO RE-UP
OR RENEW THE LAW.
IF IT'S GOING WELL, THEN
WHOEVER IS SITTING ON THE CITY
COUNCIL WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER
RENEWING THE LAW AND EXTENDING
IT FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF TIME
AS OPPOSED TO A TRUE HARD
SUNSET WHICH IS ON THIS DATE
CERTAIN UNLESS ACTION IS TAKEN.
AND GOES OFF THE BOOKS.
PERHAPS THAT'S GIVEN THE
REPORTING THAT WE'RE EXPECTING
AND THE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
UNDERSTAND AND MAKE SURE THAT
THIS ISN'T GOING TO CONTINUE TO
BUBBLE UP AS A PRACTICE IN THE
FUTURE IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE
TO DO A RENEWAL TYPE OF A
SUNSET STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO
A HARD END.
>> SURE, I'M OPEN TO ALL THOSE
CONCEPTS.
>> AND I THINK THAT'S
CONSISTENT WITH WHERE
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA WAS
GOING TOO.
AND I LIKE YOUR IDEA OF IT WILL
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW IT.
>> BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE
HAVE AVAILABLE TO US ON THE
SUCCESS OR FAILURES OF THE
PROGRAM.
>> CAN WE ADD THAT ON THE LIST
OF MANY THINGS TO DO?
>> GREAT.
>> AND I THINK WE PROMISED WE
WEREN'T GOING TO KEEP LOADING
THINGS ONTO YOU.
>> I HAVE ACTUALLY NOT MADE
THAT PROMISE YET.
I HAVE NOT MADE THAT PROMISE
YET.
>> IT'S A FUTURE JEFF PROBLEM.
LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
>> JUST TRY TO START OVER
AGAIN.
>> WHERE WE LEFT OFF.
>> LET'S GO TO PAGE 2 AT THE
VERY BOTTOM, LINES 21 AND 22.
THIS IS A STIPULATION, REALLY
MORE OF A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE JUNK DEBRIS OR
COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS THAT
WOULD LEAD TO THE DETERMINATION
THAT IT WAS A FIRE, HEALTH, OR
SAFETY HAZARD.
AS WAS PREVIOUSLY MADE, IT CAN
BE DIFFICULT WHEN PEOPLE ARE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND
CARRYING ALL OF THEIR
BELONGINGS WITH THEM.
TO DISCERN WHAT THOSE ARE.
THE NAVIGATION TEAM HAS SIMILAR
LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO
LOOK FOR THE APPARENT UTILITY
AND THEIR PRESENT CONDITION.
SO THAT WAS ADDED TO THE
MATERIALS HERE THAT WOULD BE
EVALUATED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THEY ARE JUNK AND DEBRIS OR
POSSESSIONS.
>> HELP ME OUT WITH THIS.
WHO DECIDES?
ONE OF THE ISSUES I'VE HEARD
FROM OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE
OFTENTIMES OUT TRYING TO ASSIST
INDIVIDUALS WHETHER IT'S A
ORGANIZATION THAT'S BRINGING
SOCKS AND SANDWICHES AND THEY
SEE A SLEEPING BAG OR A TENT
AND OFTENTIMES I WOULD THINK
THAT'S SOMEBODY'S POSSESSION
BUT THE TENT ITSELF IS THE
BATHROOM TENT.
I THINK THAT WOULD, SOMEBODY
MIGHT SAY THAT'S PRETTY
CRITICAL.
THAT'S WHAT WE USE.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE USING AS OUR
PRIVATE PLACE TO GO TO THE
BATHROOM.
BUT I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT
FOR MY HEALTH AND SAFETY
STANDPOINT A GOOD THING TO KEEP
AROUND.
SO WHO DECIDES?
>> THAT'S RELATED BACK TO
AMENDMENTS ADOPTED PREL WHERE
HSC WILL HAVE TO AMENDMENTS.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ONE CASE
MANAGERS OR ASSISTANT
NAVIGATORS SHOULD BE PRESENT
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
AND ALSO OUTLINE WHOSE
RESPONSIBILITIES FALL INTO
WHICH CATEGORIES.
AND THAT WOULD BE PARALLEL WITH
HOW IT WORKS WITH THE
NAVIGATION TEAM AND WHERE THE
FLEXIBILITY IS.
>> ALSO ON PAGE 4, SECTION G,
LINE 17, THERE'S A DISCUSSION
THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ONLY
MOVE FORWARD IF INITIATED BY
THE RESIDENTS.
THEORETICALLY, THE RESIDENT
WOULD NOT INITIAL THE PROCESS
IF THE MATERIALS WAS THEIRS.
>> TRUE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR
ON HOW G READS.
IT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO THINK
OF AS AN OPT OUT RATHER THAN A
GIVE CONSENT.
THE INDIVIDUAL OCCUPYING THE
VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE IS
POSSESSED BY A PREDATORY
VEHICLE LANDLORD.
THE PROCEEDINGS TO IDENTIFY AND
INVESTIGATE AND TAKE ACTION AND
ISSUE THE CITATIONS.
THE OCCUPANT HAS THE OPTION OF
EXPRESSING THAT THEY DO NOT
WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT IN
STOPPING THAT ACTION.
IF THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO
EXPRESS THAT OPPOSITION, THEN
IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SO IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT THEY
CONSENT OR ARE ACTIVELY
REQUESTING IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT?
>> I THINK I'M INTERESTED IN
TALKING MORE ABOUT THE CONSENT
WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL
AROUND POSSESSIONS.
THE ONE THING I WILL SAY IS
THAT HOUSED OR UNHOUSED.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT
ACCUMULATE LOTS OF BELONGINGS
THAT TO MY EYE MIGHT BE JUNK
BUT TO THE BEHOLDER'S EYES THEY
ARE IMPORTANT BELONGINGS.
IT MAY BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
I THINK WENT TO DO IT WITH A
HARM REDUCTION APPROACH AS
OPPOSED TO A SANITATION
APPROACH.
AS I THINK THROUGH THIS
LANGUAGE THAT, STUFF I THINK
EVERYONE IS AWARE OF BUT I WANT
TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT WE'RE NOT
SOMEHOW OPENING THE DOOR TO
TYPES OF THINGS THAT COULD BE
MORE DAMAGING THAN HELPFUL.
>> ONCE AGAIN YOU'VE BROUGHT UP
A GOOD PHRASE FOR US TO
REMEMBER.
AND THAT IS WE'RE FOCUSED ON
HARM REDUCTION.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THINGS
WORSE FOR EVERYBODY.
SO COMING BACK TO THE RULES AND
LOOKING AT HOW THE RULES WILL
BE DRAFTED AND APPLIED.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL
WANT TO SPEND MORE TIME ON.
>> EXCEPT FOR THE PREDATORY
LAND LORDS, WE DEFINITELY WANT
TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM.
>> LET'S MOVE TO PAGE 3, LINES
13 AND 14.
THIS IS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF
A PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORD.
AND BECAUSE OF THE OPT OUT
CLAUSE THAT WE DISCUSSED A
MOMENT AGO, THIS WAS NOT
PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AS AN
AMENDMENT BUT IT HAS BEEN
PRESENTED AT THIS POINT.
IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS INHABITING
THE VEHICLE AND REMEMBER WE'RE
DEFINING A PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORD AS ALLOWING A PERSON
TO STAY WITH THEM.
IF THE PERSON WHO OTHERWISE
WOULD BE A PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORD IS OCCUPYING THE
VEHICLE AS WELL, THEY WOULD NOT
BE COMBINED AS A PREDATORY
VEHICLE LANDLORD.
>> DID WE TAKE OUT SOME
LANGUAGE?
THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION
REQUIRED THAT THE PREDATORY
VEHICLE LANDLORD WAS REQUIRING
SOMETHING.
EITHER PAYMENT, PAYMENT IN CASH
OR SERVICES.
>> THAT WAS CONSIDERED VERY
EARLY ON BUT THE TRANSMITTED
LEGISLATION, THE EXECUTIVE AND
MAYOR'S OFFICE WHEN THEY
PRESENTED THIS THEY SHARED THAT
THEY HAD LOOKED AT THIS.
THE CHALLENGE FACED BY THE
EXECUTIVE WAS HAVING THE
DOCUMENTATION NECESSARY TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT RELATIONSHIP
SEEMED QUESTIONABLE.
AND YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION
WHERE AN ACTION OR SOME KIND OF
ELICIT ACTIVITY AS A
REQUIREMENT TO BE PRESENT.
NOT ACTUAL CASH PAYMENTS LIKE
WE WOULD THINK OF WITH RENT.
>> SO LONG THOSE LINES, MY
SENSE IS THAT A LOT OF THE
PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE
CONDITIONS AS DEPLORABLE AS
THEY MAY BE TO A LOT OF US.
THEY'RE STILL DOING IT
VOLUNTARILY AS THE BEST CHOICE
THEY HAVE.
AND BACK TO THE THEME THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT WHEN THIS FIRST
CAME UP A NUMBER OF WEEKS AGO.
WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS NOT TAKE
AWAY THE BEST OPTION BUT GIVE
THEM BETTER OPTIONS.
AND SO TO ME, THIS LANGUAGE IS
IMPORTANT TO AGAIN MAKE SURE
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE
PEOPLE LIVING THERE WANT TO GET
OUT OF.
MY SURGEON IS THE SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS SOME SORT OF
ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP.
SOMEONE IS TRAFFICKING SOMEONE
OR REQUIRING THEM TO SELL DRUGS
OR BE IN THE SEX TRADE OR
WHATEVER IT IS.
MY ASSUMPTION IS WE HAVE LOTS
OF LAWS ON THE BOOKS IF FOLKS
THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING ON.
THAT'S WHY I'M COMFORTABLE WITH
THIS LANGUAGE.
SEX TRAFFICKING IS ILLEGAL.
AND IF THAT WERE HAPPENING,
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR
ANYTHING.
>> THAT'S MY SENSE.
I'M OPEN TO HEARING FROM THE
POLICE.
AND WE WANT THIS OTHER LAW TO
GET AT THAT THING.
I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HAVING
VAGUE LAWS.
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE
ASKING THAT.
MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT WHEN
THESE EX-EMPLOYATIVE
RELATIONSHIPS ARE HAPPENING.
WE HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS.
AND MY EXPECTATION IS THAT OUR
TEAMS ARE GOING AFTER THAT AND
USING EVERYTHING THEY HAVE.
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THEM SAY
THEY CAN'T.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M COMFORTABLE
WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU'RE LIVING THERE TOGETHER
AND ONE OWNS IT.
AND ONE IS A GUEST, I'M
ASSUMING YOU'RE IN A DECENT
RELATIONSHIP AND THIS PREDATORY
SITUATION DOESN'T APPLY.
>> OKAY.
>> FURTHER DOWN YOU'LL SEE ON
LINES 14 THROUGH 17, 15 THROUGH
17.
THAT'S WHERE I HIGHLIGHTED THAT
WE MOVED, TO THE END.
LINES 19 THROUGH 21.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM WHAT
HAD BEEN ADOPTED AS THE
SUBSTITUTE DRAFT PREVIOUSLY
THROUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR
LAW DEPARTMENT WE IDENTIFIED
SOME INCONSISTENCIES.
MOSTLY TECHNICAL.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE A
CLASS ONE CIVIL INFRACTION THAT
CANNOT, CAN ONLY HAVE A $250
FINE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND
RESTITUTION.
ADDING THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW US
TO HAVE IT AS A CIVIL
INFRACTION.
THE ABILITY TO INCLUDE
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND THEN
ALSO HAVE RESTITUTION STARTED
TO BECOME MORE PROBLEMATIC.
AND AFTER TALKING WITH LAW AND
WITH STAFF, IT WAS DECIDED TO
GO WITH A FBI OF $1,000 FINE OF
$1,000, PARALLEL TO THE AMOUNT
A MISDEMEANOR COULD HAVE AS THE
MAXIMUM PENALTY.
AND THAT WOULD BE AN INCREASE
OVER WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND MORE
ON PAR WITH THE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND THE RESTITUTION
AMOUNTS THAT WERE ENVISIONED AS
WERE ORIGINALLY INCLUDED.
>> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON
THIS ONE TOO.
IN A CASE OF WHAT I'M THINKING
IS TRULY PREDATORY BEHAVIOR I'M
VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
AND THINKING THROUGH SCENARIOS
IN A CASE WHERE THERE'S SOMEONE
THAT OWNS A SECOND RV AND LETS
SOMEONE STAY THERE FOR A FEW
BUCKS AND THE ROOF LEAKS AND
THE TOILET DOESN'T WORK.
AND IF YOU WANT TO ENFORCE
AGAINST YOUR LANDLORD, WE CAN
DO THIS AND THEY SAY YES, DO
IT.
AND IF THERE'S NOTHING
NECESSARILY PREDATORY BUT IT'S
SUBSISTENCE HOUSING.
MAYBE SOMEONE CAN'T AFFORD A
THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE AND NOW
WE HAVEN'T FIXED THE PROBLEM
BUT WE'RE MAKING IT WORSE.
I SEE THE LAST LINE.
WHICH PENALTIES SHALL NOT BE
SUSPENDED OR DEFERRED.
I'M CURIOUS WHAT THAT LANGUAGE
MEANS FROM A LEGAL TERM?
AND IS THERE A WAY TO ALLOW
DISCRETION OR FLEXIBILITY
AROUND THAT IN A SITUATION
WHERE IT'S LIKE I'M HAPPY THAT,
YOU CAN IMPOUND IT, BUT DON'T
FINE ME A THOUSAND DOLLARS, I
CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY IT.
>> THAT LANGUAGE, THAT'S THE
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW
YOU TO CHANGE THE FINE LEVEL.
I WOULD NEED TO CONFER WITH THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ON WHETHER OR
NOT, TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD
COMMIT OR NOT COMMIT.
AND I WOULD NEED TO VERIFY WITH
THEM IF WE'RE MOVING THAT
LANGUAGE.
WE'RE NOT ONLY ALLOWED
DISCRETION ON WHAT THE FINE
LEVEL IS BUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ADJUST THAT AMOUNT BASED ON AN
INDIVIDUAL'S ACTIONS.
LIKE SOME SORT OF PROBATIONARY
PERIOD.
I DISCUSSED THAT PREVIOUSLY AND
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS
ANYTHING RELATED TO A PROBLEM
BAGSERY PERIOD WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT A CIVIL INFRACTION
BECAUSE IT'S COMMIT OR NOT
COMMIT.
WITH MISDEMEANORS YOU WOULD
HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME
TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTION AND IF
THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, THE
PENALTY WOULD CHANGE BUT I CAN
GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
>> THE SCENARIO I'M THINKING
OF, WITH A PARKING FINE, YOU
CAN GO BEFORE A MAGISTRATE AND
PLEAD LIKE I DIDN'T KNOW THIS
AND FIRST TIME OR COME ON, THIS
IS THE 10th TIME.
YOU'RE PAYING THE FULL THING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PROCESS
LINES UP.
AND YOU CAN MAKE YOUR CASE TO
SOMEONE AND THEY CAN WAIVE IT
IF THEY THINK THAT.
>> KIND OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE.
>> IT STRIKES ME WE NEED MORE
WORK ON THIS SECTION AND I'M
GAME TO GIVE IT TIME.
>> THE PRINCIPLE, FOLKS THAT
ARE DOING REALLY AWFUL THINGS
TO OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT LOTS OF TOOLS.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE
THIS BIG PROBLEM IS FRANKLY
BECAUSE OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
AND ADING MORE FINES AND
PENALTIES AND SENTENCES TO
PEOPLE AGAIN THAT ARE ON THE
BUSINESS END OF THIS THING
WHICH I DON'T PICTURE THEM AS
BEING VERY PROFITABLE
BUSINESSES AND I HAVEN'T MET
ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS SO I'M
NOT AWARE OF IT.
I'M CONCERN THAT HAD WE'LL MAKE
THE PROBLEM WORSE, NOT BETTER.
>> YOU'VE GOT SUPPORT WITH OUR
KING COUNTY PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY.
HE WANTS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
AND RECOGNIZES THAT WE NEED
MORE STRATEGIES.
WE NEED MORE TOOLS TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM.
PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL OR
CHARGING THEM MONEY THEY CAN'T
PAY DOESN'T HELP.
ALL OF US AGREE THAT IF WE'VE
GOT SOMEONE PREDATORY, WENT TO
GO AFTER THOSE GUYS AND MAKE
SURE WE HAVE THE TOOLS.
>> MORE WORK TO BE DONE BUT I
THINK IT'S CLEAR.
>> YOU'LL SEE CHANGES MADE ON
PAGE 4, LINES SIX THROUGH NINE.
THAT'S WHERE WE COULD NOT HAVE
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ALONG
WITH A CLASS ONE CIVIL
INFRACTION ON SOME OF THOSE
CHANGES.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS TO
HAVE AN INCREASED FINE AMOUNT
WITHOUT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
THIS SECTION IS STRUCK BECAUSE
IT WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE.
>> JUST CHIME IN ON THAT.
I'M DISAPPOINTED WITH THE
POLICY OUTCOME.
IN A HOUSING SITUATION.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT
LIVE IN HOUSING THAT'S NOT OF
GREAT QUALITY BUT THE MOST
AFFORDABLE THING AND WE HAVE AN
INSPECTION PROGRAM WHERE PEOPLE
GO OUT AND INSPECT.
THERE'S NO MAJOR SAFETY ISSUES
HERE.
AND WHEN THERE ARE SAFETY
ISSUES IT'S LIKE FIX IT.
DON'T TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN.
WENT TO KEEP THE HOUSING UNIT.
AND SIMILARLY, AGAIN IF THERE'S
NOT A PREDATORY RELATIONSHIP OR
WHAT I CONSIDER A PREDATORY
RELATIONSHIP BUT JUST HOUSING
IN POOR CONDITION AND IT
HAPPENS TO BE HOUSING ON
WHEELS.
THE BEST POSITIVE OUTCOME WE
MIGHT GET WOULD BE TO FIX IT.
>> FIX THIS THING.
AND IF WE'RE LEFT WITH IGNORE
IT OR GIVE A THOUSAND DOLLARS
FINE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, I HEAR
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THIS ISN'T TENANT LANDLORD LAW
ALTHOUGH WE'RE USING THAT BODY
OF LAW.
THAT'S SOMETHING I'M STRUGGLING
WITH.
>> YOUR POINT YOU WERE MAKING
IN THE LAST CONVERSATION ON
PAGE 3 AT THE BOTTOM WHICH I'M
LOOKING AT THAT LINE THAT SAYS
WHICH PENALTIES SHALL NOT BE
SUSPENDED OR DEFERRED.
COUGH UP THE THOUSAND DOLLARS,
BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT
TOWARDS FIXING THE PLACE WHERE
YOU'RE LIVING SO THAT YOU HAVE
SOMETHING HABITABLE AS
CONTRASTED INTO PAYING INTO
ANOTHER FUND.
THE FUND IS DESIGNED TO FIX AND
IMPROVE.
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE CAN
CONTINUE THINKING ABOUT THIS.
>> OKAY.
I'M SORRY I'VE INTERRUPTED YOU.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE MEETING IS
FOR.
LINE 11 ON THE SAME PAGE IS
WHERE THE DATE FOR THE HSD TO
PROMULGATE RULES WAS ADDED.
FEBRUARY1st WOULD ALLOW TIME
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY ARE
WORKING THROUGH CONTRACTS THAT
WOULD NEED TO BE RENEWED BY
JANUARY 1st.
AND ALLOWING FOR A PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD.
THAT'S HOW THE DATE WAS
SELECTED.
>> AND HAS THE DEPARTMENT, IS
THIS MORE CENTRAL STAFF
KNOWLEDGE OF WE THINK THEY'LL
BE OKAY.
>> THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
REQUIRED EITHER GOING THROUGH A
DEPARTMENTAL RULE MAKING
PROCESS WHICH AND ALSO JUST
ACTIVITIES CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.
>> IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET
SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE
DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS THEIR LEGISLATION TO
BEGIN WITH.
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET SOME
COMMITMENT THAT YEAH, WE CAN DO
THIS OR IF WE'RE, APRIL.
>> WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE A
DISASTER.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT IS IN AND THE
NAVIGATION TEAM.
LET'S CHECK IN WITH THE VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS.
>> AND RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S
A WORLD IN WHICH THIS WORK IS
BEING DONE IN A DEPARTMENT THAT
DOESN'T EXIST.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BODY OF WORK
THIS WILL FALL INTO.
IT MIGHT BE IN THE MIDST OF A
TRANSITION OF OUR HOMELESS
WORK.
>> I THINK THE NAV TEAM IS
GOING TO STAY WITH THE CITY,
CORRECT.
>> THE NAV TEAM IS STAYING.
OUR MEDIATION TEAM.
>> AS WITH THE NAVIGATION TEAM
OR THE RV REMEDIATION TEAM.
YOU HAVE THAT COME ALONG WITH
THEM TO PROVIDE CASE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS IN
TENTS OR RVs AND NOT ONLY THE
MAJORITY OF THE PERSONNEL BUT
THE SYSTEM NAVIGATORS ARE NOT
PROMISED TO MOVE TO THE ENTITY
ON HOMELESSNESS.
>> HSD WOULD BE DOING THE RULE
MAKING.
AS YOU NOTE IT SAYS HSZ OR
SUCCESSOR AGENCIES.
THERE WOULD NEED TO BE
CLARIFICATION.
>> WE'LL GET CLARITY FROM THEM.
>> LINE 13 IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT
CLARIFYING THAT THE RULES
SHOULD NOT ONLY COVER WHEN TO
PROVIDE OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE
SERVICES BUT WHEN AN
INVESTIGATION BEGINS AS WELL AS
DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
I'LL SKIP TO THE NEXT FEW ARE
JUST RECREATIONAL OR
MOTORCYCLE.
THAT'S AN AMENDMENT I ALREADY
COVERED.
AND NEXT WE GO TO PAGE 5. AND
EVERYTHING FROM LINES THREE TO
LINE 20, THOSE ARE PLACES WHERE
WE HAD INCLUDED SOMETHING ABOUT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE OR
RESTITUTION THAT NEEDED TO BE
STRUCK.
WHETHER THAT WAS FOLLOW-UP
RULES ON HOW TO IMPOSE FINES IF
THE RESTITUTION HADN'T BEEN
PAID OR ANYTHING ON THOSE
LINES.
THOSE ARE CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE'VE
NOT INCLUDED RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE.
AND THEN ON SECTION, THAT SAME
PAGE, LINE 21 AND ONTO THE NEXT
PAGE, THIS IS THE HIGHLIGHTED
LAST TIME THERE WAS
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR LAW
DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW BEST TO
STRUCTURE THIS SO IT WAS
IMPLEMENTABLE.
THIS IS SECTION THAT AS WE HAD
HIGHLIGHTED BY THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS AFRAID TO
LEAVE THEIR RV BECAUSE OF FEAR
THAT THE LANDLORD WILL MOVE THE
VEHICLE AND TAKE THEIR
POSITIONS.
THE MOMENT THEY LEAVE OR JUST
MORE BROADLY.
AND THIS CLARIFIES THAT NOT
MAKING SURE THAT THE OCCUPANT
OF THE VEHICLE HAS ACCESS TO
THEIR POSSESSIONS WITHIN THREE
DAYS, IT WOULD ALSO BE AN
INFRACTION, IT CARRIES A $250
PENALTY.
THAT'S A LEVEL THAT ALLOWS
RESTITUTION TO BE ASSIGNED BY A
MUNICIPAL JUDGE AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS
NEEDING OXYGEN OR SOMETHING.
THEY CAN HAVE THAT REPLACED IF
THEY WEREN'T GIVEN THEIR
POSSESSIONS BACK.
THE ENTIRETY OF THE SECTION.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IN GOOD
DETAIL 111-17-5060 WHICH IS THE
REPORT BEING REQUESTED.
AND THAT COVERS ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT.
>> THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT MORE
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON
THIS.
WE ALSO ARE RECOGNIZING WE'RE
GOING INTO BUDGET.
WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND AND
WITH YOUR APPROVAL IS THAT WE
GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS OUT WITH
THE AMENDMENT, RECOGNIZING THAT
THERE'S A LOT MORE TO DO.
BUT IT GIVES THE DEPARTMENTS
TIME TO COME BACK TO US WITH
ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
I AM NOT GOING TO PUT A DATE ON
THIS OF WHEN WE VOTE IT OUT OF
FULL COUNCIL.
SO WE PASS IT OUT OF HERE.
AND WE'LL DECIDE WHEN IT'S
READY AND IF WE ARE READY TO
PUT IT FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL
IT MIGHT BE AFTER BUDGET.
BUT I WANT TO HEAR WHETHER AND
HOW YOU WOULD FEEL ABOUT DOING
THAT?
>> I THINK THERE'S ONE MORE I
WANT TO FLAG BEFORE IT GETS TO
THAT.
I THINK THAT CONCEPT MAKES A
TON OF SENSE.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE WORK TO BE
DONE IS BY JEFF AND OTHER FOLKS
ON THE CENTRAL STAFF WHO MAY
NOT HAVE A LOT OF CAPACITY TO
DO THE WORK IN THE NEXT FEW
WEEKS.
THE ONE OTHER AREA I WANT TO
FLAG WAS JUST THE, IT'S ON PAGE
4, LINE 17-G WHERE IT TALKS
ABOUT WHO INITIATES THIS AND IS
IT AN OPT IN OR OPT OUT?
AND IN MY VISION OF THE WORLD
WORKING REALLY WELL VERSE THIS
NOT WORKING WELL AT ALL.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT
TO GET CLARITY ON.
THIS LANGUAGE WORKS IN A VISION
WHERE THERE'S A CASEWORKER
COMING OUT.
AND THEY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP
WITH SOMEONE IN THE VAN.
THE POLICE WILL BE THERE AND
THEY'LL EXPLAIN THEIR RIGHTS.
IF YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO.
BUT IF SOMEONE IS EXPLOITING
YOU.
WENT TO HELP YOU GET IN A
BETTER SITUATION.
IF THERE'S A UNIFORMED POLICE
OFFICER SAYING WE NEED TO MOVE
THIS.
AND SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT
THEIR RIGHTS ARE.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY
TO SAY NO.
THEY MAY BE NERVOUS HOW TO
ENACT THAT.
I WANT TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT
HOW THIS WORKS.
EVEN IF I MIGHT THINK THIS
RELATIONSHIP IS NOT A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP BUT THE PERSON
LIVING THERE FEELS I AM SCARED
TO GIVE THIS UP.
AS BAD AS IT IS.
IT'S THE BEST THING I HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
CLEAR TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND
CONTRACTORS THAT THEY'RE NOT TO
BE FORCING PEOPLE OUT OF THAT.
SOME OF THAT CAN BE IN THE RULE
MAKING PROCESS.
BUT IF THE PROCESS.
I WANT TO THINK ABOUT LANGUAGE
TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR WHETHER
IT'S WE CAN'T PROCEED UNLESS
THERE'S A SIGNED DOCUMENT FROM
A TENANT THAT SAYS I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO PROCEED AND THEN THEY
CAN REVOKE THAT AT ANY TIME OR
SOMETHING JUST SO THAT IF
THEY'RE GOING TO FIGHT AND THEY
WANT TO COME BACK, THEY CAN DO
THAT.
I WANT TO THINK THROUGH WHAT
THAT LOOKS LIKE.
AND I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING
FROM OUR FOLKS ON THE GROUND.
THERE'S SOME BAD SITUATIONS
THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF.
I WOULD LIKE TOE HEAR HOW TO
MANAGE THIS SO IT DOESN'T GET
ABUSED BUT SOME OF THE
FLEXIBILITY.
>> AND ONCE AGAIN THIS COMES
BACK TO THE HARM REDUCTION THAT
YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
FOCUSED ON THE PREDATORY
RELATIONSHIP.
AND WE WANT TO STOP THAT.
IF THEY SAY I DON'T WANT TO
LIVE HERE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO OFFER ME A
TINY HOME, A PLACE WHERE I CAN
GO, LOCK MY DOOR, IT'S BETTER
THAN THIS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE
INCREASE THE CAPACITY AND WE
CALL IT A SUCCESS.
>> YEAH.
>> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED VERSION.
I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT
THE AMENDMENT NUMBER WHATEVER
IT IS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER D 2A.
>> I'M SORRY.
JUST TO CLARIFY.
I FAILED TO UPDATE 2A.
THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE
SUBSTITUTE DRAFT NUMBER 4.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE
ADOPT SUBSTITUTE DRAFT NUMBER
4.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THIS IS JUST ADOPTING THE
SUBSTITUTE DRAFT NUMBER 4. ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NONE OPPOSED NO ABSTENTIONS.
AND NOW WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE
DRAFT IN FRONT OF US,
SUBSTITUTE AS AMENDED AN
ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO
ASK FOR EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AND I'LL PROBABLY ABSTAIN
BUT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE
CONCEPT AND WANT TO WORK WITH
YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE THE
ORDINANCE AS AMENDED.
>> SECOND.
>> THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> AYE.
>> ANY ABSTENTIONS.
>> ABSTAIN.
AND NO, NOS.
IT'S MOVING OUT OF COMMITTEE
AND NOT REFERRED TO FULL
COUNCIL YET.
SO WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT A LOT
MORE FROM THE EXECUTIVE BASED
UPON THE COMMENTS WE'VE HAD
TODAY.
AND WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN AS TO
WHEN WE BRING IT BACK.
AND IF AND WHEN WE'RE READY.
>> AND COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW
THAT'S WHAT I SEE AS THE PATH
THAT WILL HELP DEFINE THE
TIMELINE IS NOT SO MUCH TIME
JEFF HAS.
AND HOPEFULLY
>>> THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> TWO MINUTES BEFORE 5:00!