Hello.
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
What's next in Seattle's push to pass a law
on public drug use and drug possession?
How would a new plan for a city based capital gains tax impact our economy?
Plus, is it time to require an impact fee
from developers to pay for transportation projects?
Council member Alex Peterson is with me to answer these questions
and the ones you're sending into next on Council Edition.
having the state law adopted, but not having it in
our Seattle municipal code is is like having a car without keys.
It's a bus without a driver, train without tracks.
All that and more coming up next on City Inside-Out
Council Edition.
And here he is.
Councilmember Alex Peterson from District four,
also chair of the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee.
Councilmember Peterson, really good to have you here.
Thank you very much.
Nice to see you.
Let's jump right into it here.
An issue the city has been working on this month
to craft a policy on public drug use and drug possession.
Just a quick backstory here, folks.
Councilmember Peterson co-sponsored an ordinance with Councilmember Nelson
in May,
working with city attorney and Davisson to prohibit these kinds of drug activities
so that they could be charged when deemed necessary by the city attorney.
Now, the council voted that plan down very recently, 5 to 4.
But Mayor Harrell has now assembled a workgroup to hammer out a city statute
on drug use and possession.
Here's one of his comments from a recent press conference.
We're going to get this ordinance across the finish line.
We're going to get our ordinance against the finish line.
We're going to give our officers the clarity they need.
We're going to align ourselves with the city wants,
which is a safe Seattle, a healthy Seattle.
If you want to add some more backstory to this, please do.
But I would like to look ahead as well.
I know you're
not a formal member of this workgroup, but the council is definitely
going to be involved in this.
So how do you want to guide this policy
discussion when it comes to what's next for our drug laws in Seattle?
Well, I think we all agree that we want our streets as safe as possible.
We have public health challenges in Seattle.
We want to help people who are suffering on our streets, who are living unhoused.
And we need a comprehensive approach.
We need to have programs which we have to help those most in need.
And we also need to be consistent with state law.
So when the state legislature, led by our Democratic governor, Democratic
representatives, they crafted a compromise on drug use and possession.
And we should have adopted that in Seattle.
I know a lot of people were disappointed
that the council could not get it over the finish line themselves.
So we do appreciate the mayor stepping in and look forward to it getting adopted
as soon as possible because the state legislature acted a while ago.
Yeah, And I want to talk about the services piece with you, because one
complicating factor here, I guess, is that Seattle no longer has a community court.
It had been in place the last two plus years
to divert people from criminal charges, potentially get them into social services.
It didn't deal specifically with drug cases, however, which is important.
City attorney Ann Davison in May ended the officers involvement in community court.
She was saying it's not working.
Only 22% of participants,
she said, actually engaged with diversion services through the court.
But the mayor was very clear the court is going to be a partner
in those social services will be part of the solution, too.
We've got one of our viewers saying in an email about this,
are we working with some medical group where people can get counseling
and assistance? Jailing is a poor solution.
Allowing people to do drugs anywhere isn't working either.
I just wanted to tackle this question.
What do you think the role of the municipal court should be?
What services are needed?
Take me to that part of it, please. Sure.
So the Seattle Women's Court deals with misdemeanors, Right.
And we need our city attorney
to be empowered to take those cases to Seattle Municipal Court.
That's why it's so important that we adopt that state law
so we don't have a patchwork of problems throughout the city.
But these other programs are there are some programs
in place, diversion programs, treatment programs.
We do want to scale those up.
We will scale those up.
And I think it's again, it's a comprehensive approach
to deal with the safety and public health issues in Seattle.
We need everything working together.
Yeah, and I wanted to ask specifically on this,
when we talk about a state law that's going into effect,
there are other state laws out there.
You can't murder somebody on the streets in Seattle.
The Seattle Police Department will come and arrest you, etc..
This case is a little bit different.
I'd like for you to explain
why this additional piece was needed to adopt the state law as a city law.
Help me with that, please.
Well, the crimes of drug use and possession used to be a felony, right?
But then there was a court decision to change that.
The state legislature had a temporary law.
Then they then they finally passed a permanent law, the Blake bill.
Right. Right.
And so every year we adopt the criminal code
passed on from the state government, and we should have done it
just a few weeks ago.
But but the majority of city council failed to do that.
So the key is that misdemeanors,
because that's the charge now are handled by the city.
City Attorney, Seattle Municipal Court.
Yeah.
The King County prosecutor has said that she
she's not going to be handling these cases.
So it really does fall to us.
The ball is squarely in our court and so we need to act.
Does that court piece need to be in place, though?
Can the council act on this
before that whole court and potential diversion system is set up?
Well, I think that they're they can be acted upon separately.
That's why we had the bill. We did. Okay.
So I'm you know, the councilmembers who voted no can change their vote
at any time.
We can get it across the finish line at any time.
I would be ready to vote on it tomorrow.
Okay. Thank you for that.
I want to tackle one more piece of this, because this misdemeanor law we're talking
about from the state for drug possession goes into effect on July 1st.
And I'm trying to figure out what that means in Seattle
and I want you to think about this
and also consider a quote from Purpose Dignity Action, a community nonprofit
that was part of the mayor's press release on this plan.
PDR wrote this in our haste to do something,
it is easy to actually make the situation worse and create
new barriers to recovery, even with the best of intentions.
What we do as a community now needs to be informed by what actually works.
So I want to make sure that we're speaking to the urgency that's needed here.
But also there are some voices of caution, too.
Can the city
get all the stakeholders on board by July 1st to make something happen here?
Two things have to happen by July 1st.
Help me with what this July 1st deadline really means.
Sure.
Well, having the state law adopted, but not having it in our Seattle
municipal code is is like having a car without keys.
It's a bus without a driver, train without tracks.
I mean, you have to have both because the city attorney needs to be empowered
to prosecute those cases on an as needed basis.
We do have diversion programs.
We do have treatment programs.
We're going to scale those up.
But without it on the municipal books here, it's it's really
decriminalization at this point.
Yeah. And what I guess
what's the holdup in terms of getting people into these programs?
Can you help me with an idea about that?
Because I know we always talk about programs
and we need more and we need to ramp those up.
Why are people not connecting with those programs now?
Well, I think during the I think during the COVID pandemic, there was a problem
where people weren't meeting in person as as well as they could.
And it was hard to track down people who had been accused of a crime.
And we're trying to get them into programs instead of jail.
So but now post-pandemic things should work more effectively.
Okay. All right.
Looking forward to seeing what happens there.
I want to switch gears with you and talk about your recent proposal
for a 2% capital gains tax on assets like stocks and bonds.
And this is essentially a local extension of what the state has in place
already, would not affect real estate or retirement savings.
This is a tax reform measure as well, because it's important to point out here.
You're also proposing to remove what you've called
a regressive tax on our water utility bills.
I want to show people every everyone out there
a clip from your recent press conference
about this idea of not simply piling on and increasing Seattle's tax burden.
it's important to have this part of the discussion.
And if you're going to do a progressive tax,
let's try to remove some regressive taxes as well as just adding on to it.
So I think this this approach of having revenue neutral
could help to alleviate those concerns.
So explain to us what you're trying to do with this capital gains tax proposal.
Sure.
I think we can all agree that Washington state has the most regressive tax system
in the nation, and that negatively impacts low income families here in Seattle.
They're paying a greater portion of their household income for things
like utility taxes, sales tax, even property tax.
And so if we're going to make the system more fair,
we need to remove those harmful regressive taxes.
The fact that we have a tax on your drinking water
is something that should be eliminated and we want to build
trust with the general public about this.
A recent survey shows two
thirds of people do not trust City Hall to manage their money well.
Of vast majority have indicated they feel overtaxed.
So we want to remove the water tax.
I think that's the real headline here is that for the first time ever,
we would proactively repeal a regressive tax.
Now, to be fiscally responsible and to make up the funding that we would
no longer receive the capital gains excise tax, which, as you said,
does not include retirement accounts or real estate transactions.
It's now a tested and successful revenue source from the state government.
And we would just add a 2% here in Seattle.
Got it.
And I wanted to make sure I went down this path with you
a little bit further because the state of Washington
has brought in much higher revenue than expected with a capital gains tax,
which speaks to its possibilities, but also possibly to its volatility.
And I know a city based capital gains tax does have a few critics.
We've heard from the Washington Policy Center on this,
making some points like this one.
We have seen individuals
move their businesses out of the state over the capital gains tax.
Imagine how much easier it is for individuals to move cities.
I want to make sure I brought up this critique
because it happens a lot when we start talking about taxes like these.
What impact do you think a measure like this would have on our local economy?
Would businesses leave Seattle if the council passed something like this?
No, I don't think so.
It affects such a small portion of the population
and those earning more than $250,000 in capital gains in a single year.
But the good news is nobody would have to pay the water tax.
And I think that's the reason it's so important that we remove a regressive
tax is to earn that trust from
from those who are concerned about new taxes.
And it's really not a new tax. It's a state government.
It's already been imposed.
So Supreme Court upheld it in March. That's right.
Tried and true.
And we would to remove the water tax.
We would just have this instead.
Thank you.
And I want to keep going down the path with the water tax here
and what happens if we get rid of it.
So let me try to throw this past you. I understand
capital gains could potentially bring in some more dollars here.
But then I think about big businesses, for example,
who might be keeping a close eye on their water usage.
Would eliminating this tax somehow create that perverse
incentive for them to waste water and not worry so much about it?
I'm just trying to figure out
what impact does this have on Seattle Public Utilities potentially?
Sure.
Well, we already charge for the cost of providing water
and we manage that well so that people use water efficiently.
What this taxes is on top of that.
It's a it's a tax at city hall.
Just charges to Seattle public utilities to extract more revenue from ratepayers.
Yeah so it's not necessary and it's it's
it doesn't affect the water efficiency
and smart use of that scarce resource.
Got it.
I did want to ask, though, with the dollars
that are coming in potentially if this capital gains tax goes through,
would they be devoted to Seattle Public Utilities or.
I know that's always a big deal,
trying to make sure that these funds are earmarked for for certain purposes.
So the the capital gains revenue that that would come in to replace the revenue
from the water tax that will repeal that goes into the general fund.
Okay. Yes.
And we do you know, that's for city operations.
That's for programs serving
those most most in need, which is why we want to replenish it.
I see.
And in terms of the timeline for this, I know you're working to work it
through your committee, which includes public utilities, it sounds like.
And what's the timeline? I was trying to figure that out.
Sure.
It'll probably actually
go to the Finance and Budget Committee since it's revenue based.
And the timeline is that we want to pass it this year.
We have to pass it this year because we need all of 2024
to quantify the capital gains.
And then at the end of 2024, we would repeal the water tax.
But I introduced legislation to do that.
Now it just has an effective date of the end of next year.
I see. I see.
So there's there's a lot ahead with this, something that's going to be happening
over the next couple of months, because you only have
that many months left in office, it sounds like.
That's right.
We've got well, we've got seven more months.
We're going to work hard for our constituents
and I'm looking forward to it.
Okay.
Let's keep talking
taxes here, because you're also working on a transportation impact fee
that developers would potentially pay if they had a condo that sold for 800,000.
The fee could be 8000, for example,
with money going towards bridges or other infrastructure.
And there's Paul you talked about earlier, asked a lot of different questions
back in May, 42% of the respondents strongly supported
it, 33% somewhat supported it, supported it.
So basically three out of four people were in favor of something like this.
And I should point out, the state allows for impact fees.
I think that's a very important part of this.
And many other cities around us have implemented them.
Seattle certainly has some needs when it comes to transportation infrastructure.
So why is Seattle not doing this?
What's going on?
Yeah, I, I agree that
people are really frustrated with the conditions of their roads.
They want to see more robust transit.
We have bridges that need repair.
So we're going to have to get some funding to do that.
Right now, we just go after the property tax every year and people it's
city hall is a one trick pony.
We just keep doubling or tripling that portion of the property tax.
Real estate developer impact fees are a source that are in 70 other cities.
Seattle's a great place to be
to build, and so it's time for them to pay their fair share.
We'll use that toward transportation infrastructure.
Everybody benefits from.
I think it hasn't been in Seattle, partly because we're such a big city
and real estate developers
are very involved in and civically and city hall.
And so of course they would not want to pay a tax if asked.
Yeah, but this fee will go toward good things that benefit
the whole city and enable us to reduce property taxes.
So we have that tax reform.
And I think that's an important part of this because
if you're able to pass a fee like this for developers,
you could potentially reduce the amount of property tax
that the move Seattle Transportation levy is going to be seeking next year.
Can you help me do some of that math, please?
That's right.
So it seems like every six months Seattle voters are asked to approve
some sort of tax increase on themselves for good causes.
And next year, 2024,
this nine year measure expires.
And because we have poor road conditions, we need to fix our bridges,
we need more transit.
We need to find a source of funding for that.
Why not diversify our funding sources?
So if we get a real estate developer impact fee here in Seattle,
that's similar to the seven other cities in Washington state.
Then next year, City Hall will be set up well to lower the property
tax that's used for those transportation investments.
Okay.
And I want to talk about where this money would potentially go, because
we've got organizations like the Downtown Seattle Association,
the Urbanist, some other developer groups, and we've talked about them.
They say it's not clear how money from this fee would be used.
They say it's not the right time.
I want to make sure that you respond to that, please.
Oh, sure. It is definitely the right time.
In fact, we're actually a little bit late to to do this.
Councilmembers have been looking at this fee since 2014.
And really, I'm just carrying on the work.
I mean, Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, Sally Bagshaw
and then currently Lisa Herbold and others support this revenue source.
And so would
go to those projects that a lot of those organizations
are hoping to have so that we improve transit, for example.
Yeah, and I know this issue of making sure we have money
for bridges and other infrastructure.
You've been talking about this for a while, too.
I believe this was was this a budget measure
that you were working on last year, a bond measure of some sort?
Help me out that part, please. Yeah.
So when the West Seattle Bridge cracked and closed,
we did an audit of our bridges confirmed that they were in bad condition.
We need to invest more in bridges.
We've provided a couple of options for the Seattle Department of Transportation.
They have not been ready to invest to take those funds and invest them,
which shows that bridges have not been prioritized.
So we would expect bridges
to be prioritized in the next infrastructure package.
Okay. All right. I'm looking forward to that, too.
I want to talk about another transportation issue,
the Seattle Streetcar Connector, which would potentially link up
First Hill on South Lake Union.
This project has certainly had its troubles over the past decade.
It ran way over budget.
The size of the cars and tracks weren't in sync at one point.
But now we're hearing from the mayor and the new stock director, Greg
Spotts, saying, let's finish this work, turn this into a cultural connector
as they're seeing it with nightlife around it, etc..
It sounds like you're not totally buying in on this idea.
And I want to lay this out there.
I think we do have a challenge in Seattle with priorities.
I think that
when we ask people what their priority is, it's to fix road conditions.
It's to improve regional transit that moves thousands of people
throughout the area.
It's to fix our bridges.
So doing investing money in an expensive project
that's already had cost overruns and trouble
on one
street downtown doesn't seem to be a good priority to me.
It's a mobile money pit, is it?
I know that.
And talking with director spots about this, he really seems to think that
some more federal dollars can come in.
But I know this project was chastised
by the federal government when it came to federal dollars.
I'm trying to figure out if indeed it was paid for.
Do you have some questions about that?
Maybe it's the best way to put it.
Yeah, I think that you're right.
The federal it was under federal scrutiny, so I'm not sure why
we would think that federal money would be would come into that.
And I'm not really sure that we would want to go to the federal government
and say that this is a priority for Seattle.
We are trying to implement sound transit three throughout the region
to connect West Seattle into the downtown Ballard to downtown and to the region.
We there's going to be a lot of work to do to get those stations built.
The city may have to contribute money to help with that.
So I really to focus on the priorities.
Let's move as many people as we can throughout the region
in an environmentally friendly way, and that's through actual public mass transit.
Okay. Thank you for that.
Before we leave that, talk about topic, had another question
come in from a viewer about transportation.
Eric writes this We had 445 people at the U.
District Street Fair vote that their top transportation priority
was improving the 45th Street Bridge over I-5 for cyclists and pedestrians.
When will that project first promise and levy to move Seattle finally get on track?
Some thoughts for Eric out there.
Yeah, I'm excited about this project to connect Wallingford to the U.
District and the new light rail station.
And you're right, that was a promise made to voters in 2015.
Several councilmembers have joined me
in getting funding to start the Seattle Department of Transportation.
It's been a little bit of a delay since the Washington State
Department of Transportation owns that overpass.
But it's it's great to see so many people support that project.
We want to make it easy for safe for pedestrians to get across that connection.
Yeah cyclist to Eric thank you very much for that email there.
I wanted to touch on 911 response times and police recruiting.
I really appreciate the breadth of the subjects here.
Councilmember Peterson, because you've been talking about a lot of these things.
You serve on the Public Safety Committee, which heard a report on this back in May.
911 response.
Times are not where the city wants them to be,
especially in Spd's North Precinct, which includes your district here.
You said during the committee meeting on this back in May this is unacceptable
response times of more than 9 minutes for these top priority calls in 2023.
It's the longest for any part of the city.
Plus, it also seems like the council in the money that it set aside
for police recruiting those dollars aren't getting spent either.
Talk to me about this.
We've got the recruiting issues and the 911 response issues, too. Yes.
So everybody wants to feel safe.
They want to be able to call 911, have people respond quickly.
We don't have that situation in Seattle with these 911
one response times being unacceptably high.
Unfortunately, this is a lingering consequence of the 50%
defund movement in Seattle, where we lost 500 officers.
I did not support the defund movement, but a majority of city council did.
Officers in their exit interviews cited city council as a reason for leaving.
So but but we need to get beyond that.
We need to hurry up and hire more officers so we can replenish those who left.
And the mayor has a recruitment plan.
We would like
to see the money invested faster
in the first three months of this year, which is 25% of the year.
On 6% of that money was out the door.
So I think all of my colleagues share the concern, like
we want to increase that recruitment and we would expect to see the next report
from the Seattle Police Department
in the mayor's office to show better results for recruitment.
What's the hold up? Do you know what's going on there?
Why weren't they able to get get this recruitment piece off the ground?
Well, I think they're being very methodical
about it, taking sort of an assembly line approach instead of multi tracking
how to get the advertisements and marketing out to the people.
I think we may need to look at
whether we need more financial incentives to encourage people.
We also need to let officers know that we want them here in Seattle.
That city hall actually does want
a mix of public safety tools
that includes having a adequately staffed police department.
Absolutely. So we'll see what happens there, too.
I want to talk about the tree protection ordinance with you,
Councilmember Peterson.
You were the lone councilmember to vote against this back in May.
And this was legislation I know you were working on
with Councilmember Strauss for several years.
If you want to talk to you about your no vote, certainly do.
But I do want to touch on where you want
this ordinance to go
because it sounds like the door is still open,
at least a little bit to make some adjustments to this law to ensure
that it reaches this goal of increasing our tree canopy
and allowing for more housing as well.
Talk about this issue and I guess where it's gone over the over the years.
You've tracked this for a long time. Sure.
I've been a champion of trying to protect our tree canopy throughout Seattle.
It's important to remember that trees provide so many environmental
and public health benefits, sequestering carbon, helping
prevent stormwater problems providing shade and cooling.
This is really important to prevent the heat dome effect
and disadvantage neighborhoods during a crisis of climate change.
So I was really disappointed when the legislation
did not accept the recommendations from our Urban Forestry Commission,
from the leadership of the Green New Deal Oversight Board.
And the legislation really fell short and it's really questionable
whether this tree legislation will actually protect trees.
It regulates more trees, it defines them, but it doesn't actually protect them.
So I expect to see the tree canopy decrease
in the wrong direction because of this legislation.
Is there a way that you can help guide it?
I know what's been passed, but it did sound like
there might be some more iteration going on to to change this law a little bit.
Some thoughts about that.
I've seen no activity to rectify the situation
since this law was adopted and put into effect.
I think what will have to happen is the next round of council members.
Hopefully there's a majority who really are focused on
tree protections.
We also want to see our Office of Sustainability and Environment
take up more of this work.
It's really unfair to expect our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection
to to do the bulk of this regulation because they're really their clients
are real estate developers and builders, and it's hard for them at the same time.
Protect trees. Got it. Thanks.
I need to wrap up with you here.
And I haven't had you on the show in a little while,
but I wanted to make sure I touched on this.
You're not running again for city council, and you've been very busy
over the past couple of months, so I know you're still working ahead here.
Talk to me about what you're hoping to accomplish your last year in office
and maybe reflect on the on the years before that, too, please.
Sure.
Well, it's been an honor to serve 100,000 people in northeast Seattle.
And I'm just not a career politician,
so I was never meant to be here forever and keep running for office.
That's just not how I'm made up.
Also, my family's eager to have me back.
You know, the last four years we've had, it feels like decades
of activity in terms of over a 100 year pandemic,
a generational racial reckoning, economic turmoil.
So it's been an action packed term.
And but look forward to getting back to spend more time with the family.
And but with the seven months left, there's a lot that we want to get done.
And just in listening to my constituents and what they're looking for
in terms of trying to reduce homelessness, increase public safety,
have more fairness about how people are taxed in the city
trying to improve our transportation systems.
There's a lot to get done. Okay.
Thank you very much, Councilmember Alex Peterson.
Appreciate you being here.
We will see you next time on Council Edition.
the number one
priority I hear from my constituents is reduce homelessness.
And it's a regional problem that requires a regional solution.
I still support the regional King
County Homelessness Authority.
There have been some things lately where the five year plan
was originally unrealistic and we haven't seen enough fast action
in terms of reducing homelessness, people living unsheltered suffering outside.
It seems like there's a lot of bureaucracy in the way of that.
Meanwhile, we're funding it a lot.
So I think we need to you know, it's
now out of its startup phase and we need a
profession administrator who is focused on the basics of administering
the contracts, tracking outcomes and reducing visible homelessness
so that people who are living in the worst conditions outside are brought inside
as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much. That's Councilmember Alex Peterson.
He's discussing drug laws.
He's discussing
capital gains tax and a whole lot more right here on Council Edition.
I'm Brian Callahan.
Check out the full show at Seattle Channel Talk.