-Hello, I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
The Seattle City Council is sending a measure to voters
that could mean major changes to the city's
business and occupation taxing system.
Why are the council and mayor pushing for this?
And why are several business organizations pushing back?
Plus, who should be on the Seattle Renters' Commission?
And will a new expanded surveillance system help
with a spike in gun violence in the city?
Council members Alexis Mercedes Rinck and Rob Saka
join me to answer these questions
and the ones you're sending in, too,
next on "City Inside Out: Council Edition."
-We need to have a space where we're just talking to renters,
and I think there are a number of spaces
where we do hear from landlords and property managers.
-CCTV, when responsibly deployed,
can be a part of the broader solution.
-All that and more coming up next
on "City Inside Out: Council Edition."
♪♪
Welcome, once again, to "Council Edition"
here on the Seattle Channel.
I'm Brian Callanan and with me for this episode I have
Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck,
citywide position eight.
Great to have you here. -Thanks for having me here.
-Also with us, Councilmember Rob Saka from district one,
which represents the area from South Park and West Seattle
all the way up to SoDo. Thank you for being here, too.
-Brian, thanks for having me. Excited to be here.
-Thank you, and full disclosure, folks,
I invited new and former council member Debora Juarez
to be on the show.
She was sworn in just a few weeks ago.
She said she couldn't make it.
Looking forward to seeing her soon.
But I did want to jump into
a question with you, Councilmember Rinck.
And first off, congrats on moving ahead
to the general election coming up in November here.
Looking forward to hosting
you and your opponent, Rachael Savage,
when we have that moment a few weeks from now.
I promise we'll talk about it then.
But let's move on to some of the issues
the council is doing right now.
I want to talk about Seattle Shield.
So, this is a measure
that you were really spearheading with the mayor.
The council recently approved this
go before voters in November.
This would raise the business and occupation tax exemption,
so the B&O tax exemption,
from $100,000 to $2 million in gross revenues,
meaning most Seattle businesses would no longer pay this tax.
It would also increase the tax rate for businesses
with revenues above $2 million,
and potentially bring in about $90 million a year to the city.
I know we're going to have a full debate on this issue, too,
here on the Seattle Channel,
so if you could please limit your comments to why.
Why did you and Mayor Harrell propose this in the first place?
-I think important context to this discussion
are the federal cuts that our community is facing.
My office hears every day from organizations
that are losing federal grants,
and we're seeing the ramifications of this,
as I call it, the big betrayal bill
that was passed by our Republican Congress,
which includes a myriad of cuts from SNAP,
to also, these Medicaid cuts.
And so, we're trying to actually take proactive measures,
and the Seattle Shield initiative, I think,
offers that opportunity for us to be able to back-fill
for some of these really devastating cuts
that could be facing our community.
And now, we're proud to put it, and now it'll be the voters
who will decide if this moves forward.
-Okay. Got it. Councilmember Saka,
you know, and I think everybody's heard on council,
there's been some pushback on this
from the Downtown Seattle Association,
some local independent grocers, too,
who wrote this in an op-ed in the Seattle Times.
Again, this is a measure that voters would have to approve,
but what do you say to these grocers
and maybe other critics out there
who would say a plan like this might hurt their businesses,
and customers, who would likely see costs passed on to them?
-Yeah, no, it's a perspective
that I totally understand and am mindful of.
And that's why, as part of this Seattle Shield initiative,
we specifically included an analysis piece
where we have to come back and revisit the current structure,
is it meeting intended goals,
achieving intended outcomes, et cetera.
And so, it's possible,
you know, we might have,
in the rush and the urgency to get this done
and do it as best as we can,
and I think we did a good job on that,
we might have missed some things.
So, that's why we're going to continue
to ongoing kind of revisit
and look for opportunities to make adjustments
to address some of these same concerns.
But bottom line,
as Councilmember Rinck aptly noted,
we need this primarily because to guard ourselves
against the Trump administration,
which is running amok in DC, and you know,
their wild, outrageous, and unlawful policies
are showing up, manifesting themselves across the country,
and so we need to protect against that.
And also, bottom line,
we have, current law, $240 million budget deficit.
We're starting to see better results
for the spending that we do have,
but we also need to make sure we're able
to provide essential city services.
-Thank you. And I know there's going to be a debate over this
over the next couple of months, so I appreciate you...
-But it's in voters' hands. -That's what I'm saying.
That's the most important part of this, I think.
I do want to stick to the budget and revenue issues here.
Councilmember Saka, let me go back to you.
A question from Alexandra,
who is concerned about the budget deficit
the city is facing, she writes this.
I think Alexandra wants to know what's going to get cut and why.
This is always the question you face.
-Yes, sir. So, I want to thank Alexandra
for taking the time to ask that question.
Very thoughtful one.
Brian and Alexandra,
I've been entirely consistent and clear about my values
and my approach for this budget session.
It's not materially different
from how I approached last budget session
with one exception.
We need to close this $240 million and growing gap.
We have some options with the B&O tax
that is now in voters' hands.
But we need to approach it in a smart way,
in a balanced way, one that recognizes,
you know, streamlining various programs
and even consolidating programs
and overlapping lines of business,
potentially cuts,
but more importantly,
now more than ever, given the Trump administration,
and that we're starting to see some results,
on our existing expenditures --
take crime data, for example, homelessness,
police hiring, all those things
trending positively in the right direction.
Progressive revenue and new revenue
is a part of a more balanced, comprehensive approach,
and that is the approach that I'll continue to champion
as we approach budget this year.
-Thank you, and can I ask you a question
specifically about revenue?
I want to dive in on one point here specifically
because there's this possible 0.1% sales tax hike.
This was approved by the state legislature.
Cities can do this without voter approval.
The money has to go towards public safety.
I know the council passed a resolution unanimously
a couple of weeks ago saying
if the city does end up enacting this tax,
25% of the money would go towards addiction treatment.
Council President Nelson was talking about this,
and I know we're still waiting for the mayor's budget proposal,
but does Seattle need this tax?
I know we talk about progressive revenue.
This is not progressive. This is regressive.
And I wanted to make sure I got some thoughts on that.
-Yeah. Thank you for raising that point, Brian.
Sales tax is regressive.
And Washington State has the second most regressive
tax code in the country.
The only state in the country
that has a more regressive tax code than us
is Florida, and we're not Florida.
I think we hold very different values.
We have different structures and different kind of economy.
And I think it's also, to be clear with voters
or with any of the listening public,
when we say "regressive,"
we're talking about an upside-down tax code
that's putting disproportionate burden
on working and poor folks.
They're paying more of their own personal income
and taxes into our system.
So, just to break that down.
Sales tax is not my favorite option.
We know that the county also, actually,
took it up and implemented the sales tax.
If Seattle decides to implement this sales tax,
we would actually have the highest sales tax
in the country.
I think that's hard to stomach for a number of folks
in this budget environment,
and there's an opportunity for us to be able
to fund some really important services using this funding.
And I know we passed a resolution,
and I have stated this publicly,
if we are to go in this direction,
I'd like to see us use all of those funds that would come in
going toward some of the things
that were outlined in that resolution.
So, our substance use disorder treatment
and really stabilizing our behavioral health system,
I think we can all agree our behavioral health system
is very undernourished.
It's not meeting the needs of our community.
So, if we are to go in this direction,
I would push for all of that funding
should go toward stabilizing those services.
-Councilmember Saka, some thoughts on this possible 0.1%
public safety sales tax hike? What do you think about it?
-Yeah, so it will definitely be part
of the broader conversation.
And I think we need to look at this potential proposal
in the context of the broader budget conversation.
-We're waiting for so many things with the mayor.
-Part of that involves, yeah,
waiting on the mayor's proposed budget,
what's in there, and potential gap opportunities.
I, as you noted, as Councilmember Rinck noted,
we do have one of the most regressive tax structures
in the entire country.
And I am proud, personally, of the work that went into --
so, I want to thank Councilmember Rinck
and the mayor for proposing it,
and my colleagues at the Council for --
and myself -- for making it even better...
-Thank you for standing with us.
-Because we have such an upside-down tax structure,
that helps to rightsize the tax structure.
because under that proposal, 90% of businesses
will see either no...
or actually see their tax burden go down.
So, that is a very progressive revenue.
On the other hand, you know, what you asked about before us
is the potential for the sales tax.
That is one option that the state legislature
empowered municipalities, including Seattle, with.
And so, we will have to thoughtfully consider that,
you know, as part of the broader budget conversations.
-Looking forward to that.
Councilmember Saka, I want to jump back to you
and talk about the comprehensive plan.
So, this is the road map to urban growth
in the city for the next 20 years.
We've been talking about this for some time.
The council is looking closely at this.
More than 100 amendments have been added to this plan
by the council over the last couple of weeks.
There's another public hearing coming up on September 12th.
Watch out for that.
So, here's a question for you, Councilmember Saka, from Steve.
He's raising some concerns about some of your amendments
to add a transit security policy to the plan, a pothole policy,
a workforce development policy, among others.
Steve is asking this.
Little bit of pepper on that one.
How do you respond to that?
-Yeah, no, I appreciate Steve's feedback there.
And I think, for clarity, what he's talking about
are some of my specific amendments.
I had 19 total, plus four or five other ones, ancillary,
that are better fit in the companion resolution.
But I think he's talking about some of my amendments
to the transportation element. -Yes.
-And as transportation chair,
I take my responsibility and duty
to go through, with a fine tooth comb,
the mayor's entire proposal, end to end,
and especially paying close attention
to the transportation element as transportation chair.
And so, I think the proposals, I would respectfully disagree
that they would add burden and onus.
I think that they are mostly in line with existing policy.
I'm talking about improving accessibility for all.
I'm talking about increased mobility --
micro-mobility options.
Electrifying, not just personal vehicles,
but buses, transit, wheelchairs, and bicycles and the like.
So, I would respectfully
disagree on that characterization.
I think this, my proposals
put our city in line with our city's values
and don't impose unnecessary burden or strain on anyone,
and are going to best position us to build more housing.
-Thank you for responding to that.
And Steve, thank you for the question, too.
Councilmember Rinck, how about another perspective here?
A question on the comp plan to you.
Catherine writes this.
A lot packed in there.
We're talking about concern over trees,
concern over this favoring developers.
How do you respond to that? -Absolutely.
No, well, appreciate the question.
I think what's clear from our 100-plus amendments
that my colleagues have put together, I think I have 21.
-But who's counting? -Yeah.
-Oh, come on. [ All laugh ]
It's not a race, it's not a race. Yeah, right.
-But I bring these points up to say,
it's clear that we're listening
and we're trying to be reflective
of what we're hearing from our residents.
And this is an emotional and big topic.
We're talking about the future of our city.
We're talking about who's going to be able to live in the city,
and what the quite literal
landscape of this city will look like.
And so, I understand that for many folks,
they may be feeling concerns
about how their neighborhoods will change.
I think, for our office, what we've been prioritizing
has been the matter of affordability
and knowing that we have a housing shortage in this city.
I mean, we just had 20,000 new neighbors
come in in the past year.
And I think it's a wonderful thing
that we have a city that so many folks want to live in,
and also, candidly, so many folks are fleeing to,
whether it be due to climate emergency,
or just for the protection of their own, um,
their own civil rights.
We know that Seattle is a refuge for the LGBTQ community.
We're a state that is protecting access
to gender affirming care and access to an abortion.
So, there's a lot for us to be proud of as a city
and recognizing that we're going to have a lot of new neighbors,
and we want to make sure that
our new neighbors have a place to be,
and our existing neighbors are also able
stay in this community.
And more housing is a key part of that.
And actually, in our transportation committee meeting
just last week...
What's time? Last week? -Yeah, right.
Again, who's counting? Right, yeah.
-Our...so, thank you, Chair Saka, for hosting
Puget Sound Regional Council's executive director.
And we were talking about, you know,
Puget Sound Regional Council's work is connected
to our city's work on the comp plan.
We're a part of a larger regional effort
in growth management planning.
And in talking about some of the regional transit work
that they're taking up,
you know, one of the questions we were talking about
was the climate element.
And the first thing that the executive director
of Puget Sound Regional Council said
as it relates to our climate element
and how cities can be taking up climate action
is by building more housing more densely in cities.
The more we're able to keep folks nearby
where they go to work, where they go to school,
where they're going for fun,
the more we can reduce urban sprawl,
minimize our emissions, and so on.
And so, that's a big reason why,
and I'll conclude on this point,
my office put forward an amendment
that would bring back
eight of the initially studied neighborhood centers
from the previous version.
And these include Alki, Dawson, Roanoke Park,
South Wedgewood, Gas Works, Broadview,
Loyal Heights, and Nickerson.
We wanted to bring those back up for discussion.
And just this past weekend,
my team was out biking around
each of those neighborhood centers
to meet with neighbors and small business owners
to talk through,
what do you want the future of this neighborhood to look like?
And talking through those pain points, like,
what would it mean to build some more housing?
What does that realistically mean?
You know, talking about things from the width of the street
to also, what kind of neighborhood stores do you want?
And I'll tell you this, Brian.
Everyone wants to be able to walk to a grocery store.
-Can I throw tha-- please, yeah. -Can I build on...
-Because I heard Alki in there, too,
and that's in your district.
-Well, sure. But I just want to build upon...
So, there are 104 or whatever amendments.
And who's counting?
And then, you know, Councilmember Rinck has 21.
I have 18, 19...who knows?
I think that's reflective of how much we all care,
how much we are all doing our level best
try and bring to life the community feedback
that we're hearing from so many different channels.
And so, we definitely understand
it engenders a lot of intense passion,
and emotions, and feelings for some.
Change is hard, it can be hard for some.
You know, regardless of the pace of the change
that people have individual comfort levels with,
but you know, these, I think, holistically,
and we're going to continue to have some of these,
these policy debates over time. Nothing's final.
All these are essentially proposals at this time.
But like, on the workforce development proposal
in the Duwamish Valley in my district,
some of the most -- worst off
from the climate crisis, pollution perspective,
these are community features and elements
that our communities are demanding that we put in.
And again, nothing's baked and nothing's final just yet,
but I think it is a reflection of...
of the community's input, not just our individual offices.
-Some more input here, Jeremy wrote an email to me
and he actually is in your district, Councilmember Saka.
He asked this.
I want to talk about this briefly.
It can be a contentious issue for some neighbors I know,
but then there's this idea of supporting small businesses.
Some thoughts about this? -Yeah.
So, corner stores are important, and I'm glad it's a feature
that was included in the mayor's proposed package here.
I have my own amendment on corner stores.
And as we saw during the broader conversation,
we have some competing amendments on corner stores.
So. I think, as a principal position,
it's very clear that, as a whole,
there is some consensus among the council,
rallying around the construct of corner stores.
The question becomes,
to what level do we roll these out?
Like, there's, you know, various considerations
in terms of hours, among other things.
But we need to support small business.
We need to better, as a city, live up to the notion,
this goal, of a 15-minute walkable neighborhood.
And one way to do that --
not the only way, Brian, but one way to do that --
adding more corner stores. -Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Rinck, I want to make sure
I touched on your Roots to Roofs plan,
which is adjacent to this, I think,
This is a program to add
density and height bonuses for developers,
especially those who might be working in areas
with a history of racially restrictive...
situations happening there.
Former council member Morales introduced
something similar to this a couple years ago
about equitable development.
The council was not onboard with it at the time.
What's different this time around with this?
-Certainly, I appreciate the question
and special shout out to former council member Morales
for her work on this.
I know she worked tremendously hard across two years,
engaging with community-based developers,
and community, broadly,
to find a way to support equitable development
and the connected communities legislation was that.
I think there's some key differences here,
and the first of which I want to note,
I was so proud to have been able to collaborate
with Chair Solomon's office on this legislation,
while also working to make changes to the legislation
to address constituent feedback that was raised last year.
Some of the key differences
include we've removed the bonus area
for the high-risk displacement map.
So, we're putting a greater emphasis on areas
that have had historically racially restrictive covenants.
Meaning, quite literally, locking out folks of color
from homeownership opportunity,
which much of north of the Ship Canal has been,
and including a number of other areas.
So, by removing that high-risk displacement map bonus,
we've essentially elevated the racially --
the additional bonus associated with any property
that has had a racially restrictive covenant.
And University of Washington has done some good research on this
and how it's shown up locally in this community.
We're also bringing back the owner unit incentive
with retention of owner equity from the landowner.
And then, also, earlier this year,
council passed interim legislation on House Bill 1110,
allowing us to implement Missing Middle.
So, we are able to build on that.
So, being able to expand a little bit more on FAR
and build a little bit higher, so being able to build more.
So, those are some of the key differences
between the previous version of the legislation.
I think it's important to note that the key spirit of this
is we want to be able to help
some of these community-based developers
be able to build affordable housing
the communities that they serve,
while also trying to reckon with our...
our zoning and land use policies in the past
by creating more housing opportunity in neighborhoods
that haven't seen density, haven't seen growth.
-Okay. Thank you for that.
I did want to make sure I got to another point here.
I want to clear the air
on appointing the Renters' Commission.
Councilmember Saka missed a meeting a couple weeks ago
with a family emergency.
Meeting didn't have a quorum.
I know there were some words said.
Are you guys cool? Have you talked with each other?
Do we have this figured out? Is it okay?
Yes? Okay. -Yes. I think we're cool.
I think -- I want to say, um,
I think we're both committed
to working on communication moving forward,
and making sure, you know, we are,
you know, council is a team, in essence.
You know, we may represent different districts
or have different constituencies,
but we're a team, fundamentally,
and that means good communication for all parties.
And so, I know we share the intent
of wanting to make sure that renters are represented
and we're moving together in tandem.
-Sure sounds like it. -Yeah, yeah.
No, I mean, just to build upon that,
you know, I'm committed with Councilmember Rinck,
along with every last one of my council member colleagues,
to being the best,
most communicative and collaborative person possible.
It's not always possible under certain circumstances,
but in any event,
I think we have a shared goal of that.
And we also, the public wants us all to work together.
Regardless of whatever sort of, like,
where one's slotted on any particular issue,
the public wants us to work together,
and you know, I've enjoyed working with Councilmember Rinck
since she's been -- almost a year now.
But I've also enjoyed working with all of my colleagues!
And so, but on the broader issue
of renters and renters' rights,
because this is an important issue,
it's an important issue for our city.
And it's not just --
our ability or inability to make progress on this issue
impacts more than just renters.
And so, this is the cornerstone of affordability.
A recent data disclosure revealed
that over the last 10 years in King County,
the average price of a one-bedroom apartment
increased 58%, and that's countywide.
No doubt, in the city of Seattle, it's higher than that.
-Yeah. You want a one-bedroom place?
$92,000 is how much you have to make a year,
the Seattle Times was talking about. -Insane! Insane.
So, out of hand, like...
I'm also told that there are some current --
It's sort of a "renter's market" right now,
so there's some stability in the market,
but we need to do a better job,
especially longer term, to address that.
I'm committed to working with folks
in the Renters' Commission, all impacted stakeholders,
figuring out how we can get a better policy grip of this
because coincidentally, right now,
we're going through an MFTE revision proposal.
-The Multifamily Tax Exemption. Yep.
-Comp plan ties to it. Any number --
We passed, and I'm proud to have championed, a bill,
well, co-sponsored a bill during budget last year
to add $3.3 million
to provide for increased rental assistance.
We all recently passed the bill
to ban algorithmic discrimination
in price fixing of rents.
So, there's various policy options that are available.
We need to keep pulling them. -I hear what you're saying.
I do want to talk to you, Councilmember Rinck,
because the council did end up approving 14 renters
to be part of this board a couple weeks ago.
Some landlords have reached out with their concerns.
I know you've heard this, too,
Angie wrote this in an op-ed in the Seattle Times recently.
"Why doesn't the Renters' Commission
have landlords on it?"
I think is the bottom-line question here.
-Why doesn't the Women's Commission have men on it?
[ Laughs ] -Okay. Okay. Okay.
-I make a joke, but to illustrate a larger point
that, you know, we are a majority renter city in Seattle,
and as Councilmember Saka very pointedly noted,
58% is a large increase.
And being a renter myself,
and I think a lot of folks in the city
have been a renter at one time,
know about the power dynamics that can exist with,
you know, within landlord-tenant relationships.
And I think that there is a large power imbalance
that we continue to see.
You know, the majority of the city may be renters,
but the majority of the city isn't landlords.
And so, while I think there --
we find ways to engage with folks
who are property managers and landlords
to understand those kind of issues,
it's still important to elevate
and understand the renter perspective,
especially given the amount of renters
that are rent-burdened in this city,
and that folks who are renters
are also folks who've become homeless.
And so, just by having a space
where we can ensure that perspective is heard,
I think is really important for just good policy making.
Again, if we want to get to the bottom
of these affordability challenges
that too many in our community are facing,
we need to have a space where we're just talking to renters.
And I think there are a number of spaces
where we do hear from landlords and property managers.
-Okay. Alright. Thank you for that.
Councilmember Saka, I want to make sure
I touch on public safety with you.
There's been a spike in gun violence,
as you know, you serve on the Public Safety Committee,
and I know this is very important to you
and all the council members, too.
This has been happening in West Seattle,
all around the city recently.
Seattle has recently expanded
its surveillance camera capabilities in the CID.
Also in Capitol Hill,
there are plans for the Central District
and Pike/Pine Corridors possibly down the line.
Are more cameras the answer?
Talk to me about how you're approaching
issue of violent crime.
I'm sure your office is hearing a lot about this.
-Absolutely. So, violent crime and gun violence,
although the trends seem to be,
by the data, the trends seem to be going in the right direction
in terms of overall declines citywide.
Problem is...
I'm not going to throw a stat sheet
in one of my constituents' face
and tell them -- when they're experiencing
the impacts of gun violence or crime
in their own neighborhoods, in their backyard.
And so, in terms of the broader strategy or solution,
yes, I do think things, uh,
crime prevention and crime fighting technologies like CCTV,
when responsibly deployed,
can be a part of the broader solution.
So, I'm proud, for example, that some of those
are going to go into my district,
and SoDo, the Stadium district,
because again, it's part of a broader,
comprehensive approach and solution
to, you know, prevent crime, and also, once crime happens,
to provide some investigative support to the officers.
And so...yeah.
-Okay. Alright. Thank you for that.
I'm so sorry, we're out of time, and I want to thank
all the people who've written in --
Irene, Steve, Riley, Eric, Jameson,
everyone on the West Seattle Blog
wrote a lot of different notes here.
I'm going to do my best to get those messages
through to the council members here
because I couldn't ask all of them on the show.
I guess I'll wrap up by asking,
what are your plans for this break, as it were,
over the next two weeks?
I know council members are always busy,
but what's happening over the August break here?
Councilmember Saka? -Oh, sure. Thanks, Brian.
Just going to enjoy some family time.
Me and the family, and you know,
maybe a few cartoon characters along the way.
So, uh, yeah. -Okay, take a deep breath.
Do what you got to do there. Councilmember Rinck?
-I will be spending my break
stewarding Saint Rat in Capitol Hill --
I'm kidding. -Okay, not that, not that.
I'm kidding, but I would recommend any viewers
to go make the pilgrimage
out to see the Saint Rat Mosaic in Cal Anderson.
It's a hot rat summer, so go see Saint Rat themselves.
I will be out of office.
I'll be doing a bit of traveling,
and you know, viewing other cities.
So, I'll be going international,
and the city nerd in me is always curious to see
how other cities are doing things,
and so hoping to bring some good learnings back
to share with my colleagues. -Thank you very much.
Councilmember Rinck, Councilmember Saka,
thanks a lot for joining us. I'm Brian Callanan.
We'll see you next time on "Council Edition."
♪♪