Meet the YIMBYs

This piece originally ran in Seattle Magazine; read the full version here.

Sara Maxana is exactly the sort of person you might expect to see getting involved in her neighborhood meetings. A single mom with two young kids, Maxana lives in a single-family 1931 Ballard bungalow of the type many neighborhood activists are fighting to preserve. Ballard, where the population grew 26 percent between 2010 and 2014, is ground zero in Seattle’s density wars, which pit pro-growth advocates, many of them young renters who moved to the city within the last decade, against the longtime homeowners sometimes disparagingly known as NIMBYs, for “not in my backyard.”

What you might find surprising is that Maxana isn’t a NIMBY. She’s one of a growing group of people who say “yes in my backyard,” coining a new acronym: YIMBY.

Maxana, who once worked at the sustainability nonprofit Futurewise, had more or less retired from politics. But she got re-engaged after Mayor Ed Murray proposed the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) in 2015. The plan (see sidebar, below), which proposes higher density across the city—including the addition of more backyard cottages and basement apartments in single-family areas—quickly became divisive.

Maxana started identifying as a YIMBY because she felt Seattle decision makers needed to hear a positive story about the changes that are coming to the city. She began speaking up at public meetings, studying the details of HALA and tweeting as @YIMBYmom, a quiet rebuke to those who say all urbanists—i.e., people who believe that cities should be dense, culturally vibrant, diverse places with lots of different transportation options—are single, transient renters with no ties to their community.

By embracing the YIMBY concept, Maxana joins a growing community of activists, researchers, housing experts and community-based organizations that see growth as an opportunity to create housing for all the new people who want to live in cities, rather than a hostile invading force. These groups make up a loosely organized, informal coalition of organizations and individuals across the country and, indeed, the globe (groups using the YIMBY framework have sprung up from Melbourne to Helsinki to Iowa City), who believe that the root of housing affordability is a housing shortage, and that the solution to that shortage is simple: Build more housing.

Image By: Maria Billorou
Zachary DeWolf at the 12th Avenue Arts Building: trying to make Capitol Hill a place for mansion owners and street people alike

Although they span the political spectrum, from far left social-justice activists to hard-core libertarian free marketeers, YIMBYs generally agree that cities should be accessible and affordable for everyone, whether they own a million-dollar mansion or rent a $900-a-month studio, and whether they work as a barista or just moved to Seattle for a new job at Amazon.

Seattle might not seem the most obvious axis for this pro-density revolution. For one thing, it’s a city where the single-family home, especially the iconic Craftsman bungalow, is sacrosanct. So thoroughly did Seattle embrace the postwar ideal of the detached single-family house with a yard that it’s written into our zoning code, which preserves a remarkable 57 percent of the city’s buildable land exclusively for single-family houses. (In Portland, the number is 3 percent.)

But as more and more people move to Seattle—the city’s long-range plans anticipate 120,000 new residents by 2035—tension between longtime homeowners and renters, many of them relative newcomers to the city, has mounted. Rents in Seattle increased more last year than those in any other big city in the country, and in the past five years, the median rent has increased from just over $1,500 to more than $2,000. Meanwhile, the median income of renters, $47,847, is less than half that of homeowners, $108,768.

Instead of merely complaining about the housing crisis, Maxana says, YIMBYs “see growth as something that can catalyze change and bring about good things for cities.”

“I don’t see YIMBYs as addressing a problem so much as addressing an opportunity,” Maxana says. “We’re not trying to stop things; we’re trying to say yes to change. I think it’s much more exciting to be pushing for a vision than against what’s happening.”

For Maxana, that vision includes more new neighbors, more interesting shops and coffeehouses, more places to walk and bike and ride—in other words, more of all the things that are coming to her Ballard neighborhood already. “In Ballard, we have all these new breweries, and they’re child-friendly and they’re dog-friendly, and there are places to sit outside with your kids,” Maxana says. “I see more people in the parks, on the streets, on the bus. In my neighborhood, I can walk to five bus lines that get me across town to everywhere I could possibly need to go in the city. And all of that activity lends itself to more vibrancy, and just a more interesting place to live.”

Maxana can rattle off the statistics that describe Seattle’s housing crisis—for example, 40 new people and 35 new jobs are added every day, yet only 12 new housing units a day. But she and other YIMBYs argue that statistics don’t change minds; values do. “We cannot convince anybody with the data alone. We have to be speaking about our values and we have to be speaking from our heart—not ‘I feel this way and so should you,’ but ‘I’m a mom in Ballard and I want my kids to be able to live here when they grow up, and ultimately, this is why I support [density].’”

YIMBYs are starting to make waves at city hall. In July, under pressure from YIMBYs and other urbanists who argued that the city needed to do more to include marginalized groups such as renters, immigrants and people of color, Murray announced the city was cutting formal ties with the 13 neighborhood councils that advise the city on growth and development, eliminating their funding and creating a new advisory group to come up with a more inclusive neighborhood outreach strategy. (The neighborhood councils, Murray noted, are dominated by older, white, wealthy homeowners, and are not representative of an increasingly diverse city.)

While the YIMBYs didn’t make this change happen on their own, their support helped provide political cover for Murray and his neighborhood department director, Kathy Nyland (a former Georgetown neighborhood activist who is openly sympathetic to the YIMBY cause), for what turned out to be a controversial move. Many neighborhood activists liked the neighborhood councils as they were.

Some neighborhood groups are starting to move in a YIMBY direction. A Capitol Hill renter and self-identified YIMBY, Zachary DeWolf stepped into a leadership vacuum on the Capitol Hill Community Council in 2014. He was first elected vice president in 2014, and then president in 2015. As president, he restructured a traditional neighborhood group dominated by older homeowners into an organization run almost entirely by young renters.

His goal: to make the group that represents Capitol Hill more welcoming and inclusive. He has encouraged young renters to run for leadership positions; changed the style of the meetings from a traditional format with leaders sitting at a table facing the audience, to a circular roundtable where everyone can participate; and instituted more after-work hours/evening “community conversations” and “socials” to give a wider range of people a chance to get to know each other and discuss neighborhood issues.

The group’s policy emphasis has been different, too. Instead of advocating for anti-urbanist causes, such as banning corner stores in residential areas and placing a moratorium on new micro apartments as it did in the past, the council is discussing how to accommodate a supervised drug-consumption site in the neighborhood. As DeWolf puts it, “Instead of pushing [drug users] out to neighborhoods that are farther out, where there’s less resources and community, why not just keep them here and take care of them ourselves?” He adds, “At the end of the day, every person that’s in our neighborhood—whether it’s someone living in North Capitol Hill in a gajillion-dollar mansion or someone sleeping in the doorway on 15th in front of someone’s business, every type of person is our neighbor. To me, that is very YIMBY.”

Dennis Saxman, a longtime Capitol Hill activist and renter who opposes what he sees as out-of-control development and gentrification in his neighborhood, believes YIMBYs are well-meaning, but that they misunderstand the root causes of Seattle’s affordability crisis. “I don’t think they understand that Seattle was once notable for the strength of its neighborhoods and their differing characters, and that at one time, that was seen as something important to preserve and desirable,” Saxman says. “Now it’s seen as a way to market neighborhoods while at the same time destroying what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood.”

Saxman says he admires a lot of what DeWolf has done to bring new people into the council, but argues that “they’re falling short” when it comes to including more racial minorities, longtime residents and low-income people. “I don’t think they’re authentically community-based,” he says.

Will Seattle’s future look more like DeWolf and Maxana’s vision—an ever denser city, where newcomers and their ideas are welcome—or more like the city of the past, where conversations were dominated by residents resistant to change? That may depend on whether YIMBYs can make the leap from a vocal group of contrarians who provide a counterpoint to conventional wisdom at city hall to a force that helps guide city policy while bringing new allies, including more single-family homeowners, on board.

One sign that yimbys in Seattle are having an impact came last June from 1,300 miles away in Boulder, Colorado. A group of 150 YIMBYs from all over the country convened at an inaugural conference, YIMBY 2016, to talk about their challenges and successes. The Seattle contingent, which included Maxana, Sightline Institute staffer and Capitol Hill renter Serena Larkin, and University District renter and YIMBY activist Laura Bernstein (who tweets at @YIMBYSea), showed up feeling a bit discouraged by local rancor over HALA. But they left energized after delegations from other cities expressed enthusiasm for what they see as an inclusive coalition of Seattle groups that support HALA, which include urban activists, developers, environmentalists and social justice organizations.

“All these other groups and cities kept telling us, ‘We need to do that work—how did you get all of those people at the table together?’” says Larkin. “It wasn’t the policies [the details of HALA] we came up with, but the relationships that they saw had been built through HALA.”

When you’re in the thick of things in Seattle, it’s hard to see what’s being accomplished here, notes Bernstein. “But when you compare Seattle to other cities, then all of a sudden we look like the success story. I think that there are battles that we’re losing, but we’re winning the war.”

Maxana points to the success of the housing levy, which funds low-income housing and which Seattle voters approved by more than 70 percent in August, as a sign that many Seattleites support the idea of building more housing, including affordable housing. “I see that, and I just have to believe something is clicking,” says Maxana. “And even though you have such a volume of vitriol on [private social media site] Nextdoor and in some of these neighborhood meetings, I think, for the most part, when I look at the city, I see people who want a good place to live not just for themselves, but for their kids and their neighbors.”

Including neighbors they don’t even know yet.

Help The C Is for Crank Expand!

unnamedI’m going to be taking a short break from The C Is for Crank to visit with family over the Thanksgiving holiday and, in early December, to travel down to San Francisco to tour that city’s Navigation Center—a low-barrier shelter for the homeless that will serve as the model for Seattle’s own Navigation Center, to be built and run by the Downtown Emergency Service Center.

In the coming year, I’m going to be dedicating more of my time to The C Is for Crank and other writing projects, which means, among other things, that I’ll be going part-time at my regular day job to dedicate more time to reporting and writing here. To do that, though, I need your help. Your sustaining monthly contributions are the way I pay for this work—this site has no advertising, grant funding, or major investors, so your contributions are what pay for my time, travel costs when I take reporting trips to places like San Francisco and Vancouver, B.C., equipment (like a small digital camera and the Macbook I’m writing these words on now), and the many other expenses that go into producing stories on this site. Stories like these:

A Conservative and a Liberal Walk Into a Safe-Injection Site (and its followup companion, Safe Injection Opponent Miloscia: “My Opinion Didn’t Change At All” On Safe Consumption Sites), in which I visited a heroin clinic, a safe-injection site, and a no-eviction housing project in Vancouver, B.C. with the legislature’s most outspoken opponent of safe drug consumption sites.

Grand Bargain Preserved, with New Barriers to Development in “At Risk” Neighborhoods, a behind-the-scenes look at the sometimes-frantic efforts to save the mayor’s housing affordability plan and the compromise that puts development in areas where people want to live at risk.

With Transitional Housing Under Fire, Rapid Rehousing Remains Unproven, a deep dive into the potential pitfalls of Mayor Murray’s proposal to redirect spending on homelessness toward short-term vouchers for housing on the private market. In this piece, I talk to proponents and opponents of so-called “rapid rehousing,” and explore the ways in which transitional housing, which includes sober “recovery housing” and housing for domestic violence victims, is at risk.

Citing “Competitiveness,” City to Raise New SPU Director’s Pay—Even Though They’ve Already Hired Her, the first and only in-depth story about the city council’s decision to grant the new Seattle Public Utilities Director a raise of up to 67 percent over her predecessor, making her one of the highest-paid employees in the city.  The mayor’s office of Finance and Administrative Services claimed they needed to offer the huge pay hike to attract good candidates—even though they had already hired the new director, Mami Hara, at a much lower salary.

At a time when the mainstream media are producing carbon-copy stories filled with false neutrality, and when the alternative media veers too often into political propaganda uninformed by talking to “the other side,” this site strives to present stories with a point of view informed by context, serious reporting, and a deep understanding of the issues I cover. As someone who came up in the old alt-weekly tradition, I don’t hide my opinions on certain issues in subtext—it says “urbanism” right there at the top of the site—but I come to those views through a dedication to nuanced reporting and openness to many points of view, and it’s my opinion that we need more of that as our nation, and city, enter very uncertain times. If you agree, please consider contributing as generously as you’re able, and if you’re already a contributor, consider increasing your monthly contribution. Thank you so much for reading, and I’ll see you back here next week.

“Very, Very Worrying”: Homeless Providers and Advocates on Post-Trump Seattle

President-elect Donald Trump has made his agenda quite clear on many issues. He has promised to crack down on immigration and ban “sanctuary cities,” end the Affordable Care Act, roll back civil rights law, renounce the Paris Agreement on climate change, and suspend immigration from Syria, to name just a few of the policies he has outlined in his plan for the first 100 days of his presidency.

One issue on which Trump has said little to nothing is homelessness. Perhaps because the homeless aren’t exactly a coveted constituency, perhaps because the issue lacks the headline-grabbing force of proposals like the border wall or a ban on Muslim immigration, homeless advocates, service providers, and housing agencies have been left largely in the dark about how Trump’s policies will impact them. They know, of course, that a President bent on dismantling the social safety net and “devolving” much federal spending to the states won’t be good for the nation’s most vulnerable, and least powerful, residents, but for now they can only speculate about just how damaging a Trump presidency will be. To get a sense of how local homeless providers and advocates are anticipating Trump’s policies will impact them, I talked to four representatives of agencies that provide housing and services, and one advocate for the homeless, in the Seattle area. Here’s what they had to say.

Daniel Malone, executive director, Downtown Emergency Service Center

We have no idea, is the bottom line. I think there’s a lot of pants-shitting and dejection overall. Our organization relies heavily on federal funding. We get a lot of Medicaid money through a whole complicated stew [of funding sources]. The whole Obamacare repeal, if it’s true repeal and does kick off the 20 million people who got on Medicaid through the expansion, that does impact some of our clients who were eligible for Medicaid through disability. A lot of times [before the Affordable Care Act expanded access to Medicaid], they wouldn’t participate in the process, because they had to go through evaluations and they didn’t want to do that. We’ve been able to get mental health care services through the expansion.

We build a lot of affordable housing with the federal low-income tax credit. That’s the one I’d be most confident about saving, because it’s politically popular, it involves the private market, and it involves rich people making investments and making money off the deal.

We get a lot of [Department of Housing and Urban Development] money. It almost all flows through the city of Seattle or King County. We have to raise a lot of private money, but it’s a small portion of our budget–a little over a million dollars out of about $40 million is private money. If we had millions of dollars in cuts from HUD or other sources, the prospect of raising that from private funding is totally grim, even if we were to become a cause celebre.

Sharon Lee, executive director, Low-Income Housing Institute

We are worried about the tax reforms that might be put in place. If there is serious tax reform, where they’re going to cut the corporate tax, that will impact the low-income housing tax credit program, because Fortune 500 companies will have less interest in investing in low-income housing if the rate gets cut.  Just about every new building we’re building has relied on the housing tax credit program, so that would be a significant. But then again, there’s the other version, which is: [Trump]’s a developer. He knows about real estate, and he knows that a lot of corporations have gained a lot from the tax credit program. Maybe it’s one program that he would want to support. We just don’t know.

The other thing that’s very concerning is if the president puts forward a budget that doesn’t have a cap on military spending, but then he wants a corresponding decrease in other spending, that’s going to be where housing, human services, and education will all get cut. If there continue to be cuts to the HUD budget, the concern for people relying on rental subsidies like housing vouchers is that not only would the program not grow, but that existing people would be cut off Section 8 [a program that provides rent vouchers for low-income people and pays for some housing construction], and that would be most problematic. There’s for-profit and nonprofit organizations that build housing, and only way it’s affordable is that they all have Section 8 subsidies, so that the seniors or families or homeless people can pay 30 percent of their income. We have people paying $100 or $200 for rent because that’s a third of their income. Without Section 8, they would have to pay the full cost, which they can’t afford.

“The reality is, we’re dealing with folks with dementia or severe trauma or huge medical issues who can’t just pull themselves up by their bootstraps without a little help.”

The other thing that’s a major new initiative that we’re concerned about is the housing trust fund, and that is being funded through the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [the agencies that . My concern is that if they decide Fannie and Freddie should be privatized, that would take away a funding source for housing. Trust fund housing is terrific because it is the only program that is funding new housing for low-income families. Every other funding program has been devastated.

Paul Lambros, executive director, Plymouth Housing Group

We’re waiting to see who the HUD secretary is going to be. It’s not only about the amount of funding for Section 8, but all the rules that we’ve tried to forward for fair housing. Section 8 has been vital to us. Then there’s the question of what’s going to happen with McKinney funding and all the service money we get through McKinney. [McKinney-Vento homeless assistance grants are the primary source of federal funding for people experiencing homelessness.] A lot of the dollars that we all rely on are pass-through federal dollars [federal funds distributed by state and local governments], so we have to wait and see

Janet Pope, executive director, Compass Housing Alliance

Mayor Murray and [King County Executive] Dow Constantine were very clear that part of declaring the state of emergency [on homelessness] was to try to get national attention, [to say] “We can’t do it on our own, we’re really suffering, and we need your help.” Seattle has the resources to address that. Just as we’re hearing that folks are starting to step up to give to refugee organizations or Planned Parenthood or other organizations, I hope people will start giving to homelessness organizations. We need to start thinking about trying to address the problem on our own.

I think in the area of homelessness, folks are frustrated now. There’s much more of an activism and a sense of, “This can’t happen in our community.” How can we expand that sense of wanting to do more and be involved, and not being just stuck in our daily grind.

[I’m  worried about] the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is something that was talked about during the campaign that would change the landscape completely. There’s a general bias [in the new administration] that people can just pull people themselves up by their bootstraps. I think that was reflected a lot in this administration too, and the reality is, we’re dealing with folks with dementia or severe trauma or huge medical issues who can’t just pull themselves up by their bootstraps without a little help.  For the businessmen and folks who have been successful, it’s very hard to walk in the shoes of these people.

Then there’s just the safety of our staff and our clients, who are very diverse. We do serve some undocumented folks. Seattle has one of the largest populations of Somali refugees and a lot of people with language barriers. Everybody’s scared about what’s going to happen to our people—to our staff and to our clients.

Alison Eisinger, executive director, Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness

I think, in general, what we’re looking at with this administration really does go beyond any kind of Democrat or Republican labels. It goes to the heart of the question, what is government’s function? And I think that what we are concerned about—those of us who know that the federal government is the most important source of significant investments [in housing]—what we are concerned about is two things. One is that the people who will be making decisions, and I mean mot only administration appointees in key department roles, but the people who are controlling both houses of Congress are people who believe that there is not an appropriate role for government to play in ensuring that we don’t leave a million people homeless every day.

Let’s start with the idea of block-granting Medicaid. That is not only a godawful idea, but every one knows that block-granting is essentially a way to ultimately reduce the amount of money that goes to the states to do their work.

The unpredictability [of Trump] is part of the concern, because in fact we do not know. But based on statements that Trump the candidate has made, and based on the kinds of people who seems likely to be advising him for the long haul, I think what we can expect to see is a less fair tax system, which means fewer resources, and from the point of view of homelessness and health care, the federal government is the biggest player. The allocations in the federal budget simply dwarf  anything that the city, county, or state governments are able to invest, so that’s why when Mayor Murray says we the the state and federal governments to do their part, we agree, and that’s why it’s very, very worrying when there’s a possibility that Health and Human Services and HUD will be not just run by people who don’t necessarily see the government as having an important role to play but will, as agencies, have greatly reduced budgets. Because of [federal budget] sequestration, we lost hundreds of section 8 vouchers in Washington State, so we are still behind. We’re at a point where we need increased federal resources to support people who are working to pay a reasonable proportion of their income in rent, and instead what we are anticipating is drastic reductions in those resources.

And of course, I have had countless conversations just over the last 10 days with people who are concerned about their staff and the people they serve, who are immigrants and people of color, and it is a reality that there is cause to be worried about the safety, wellbeing and status of people regardless of whether or not they are in the country legally. My privilege is to say, “Let’s inform ourselves, let’s prepare, and let’s get ready to fight.”  But I understand that there are people who are panicked, and I have deep sympathy for those concerns. Think about children who are homeless and in our public schools. There are tons of reasons why those parents or guardians might be reluctant to go to the school counselor and say, “I’m homeless. I need help.” Those concerns are likely to be magnified, because this is the reality we live in. We may have elected officials who hang tough, but let’s not kid ourselves—we also have people in the community who have demonstrated their willingness to engage in threatening and harassing and bigoted behavior. That’s really where the whole country is.

Transitional Housing Funding to Be Preserved, For Next Year at Least

This post has been updated as of Tuesday night. 

As I reported last week, Mayor Ed Murray has vowed to maintain Seattle’s status as a “sanctuary city,” where city employees aren’t allowed to question people about their immigration status. This puts federal funding for city programs in jeopardy, since president-elect Donald Trump has said he will cut all federal funding to sanctuary cities. Pathways Home—Mayor Ed Murray’s plan to shift spending on homelessness away from service-heavy “transitional housing” (which includes housing for domestic violence victims and sober recovery housing) toward “rapid rehousing”  programs that consist mostly of short-term subsidies for housing in the private market—relies heavily on federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

For now, Mayor Ed Murray has proposed an HSD budget that assumes Pathways Home will move forward, and that funding for transitional housing programs serving immigrants, domestic violence victims, and veterans will be cut. However, council member Lisa Herbold reportedly has the votes and has come up with money in next  year’s budget  to maintain funding for those programs, at least temporarily, at a cost of $219,000. Herbold initially had the support of just two council members, regular allies Kshama Sawant and Mike O’Brien, but now council members Rob Johnson and Debora Juarez are on board.

Last week, Herbold argued that until the city knows whether rapid rehousing works to house the most vulnerable populations, including veterans, immigrants and refugees, victims of domestic violence, and those suffering from mental illness, the city shouldn’t eliminate their funding.

“Transitional housing programs serve high-need families that would not do well under rapid rehousing,” Herbold said. “I am supportive of moving towards more rapid rehousing and away from transitional housing, but I think it’s really important that we look at reinventing those current systems after we are certain that the new systems that we are proposing to use—in this case, rapid rehousing—[are] really able to meet the varied needs of vulnerable communities.”

The eight programs slated for cuts are:

• Six apartments for veterans at Bennett House in Columbia City;

• The Low-Income Housing Institute’s  Columbia Court, also in Columbia City, which provides housing for 13 refugee families;

• The YWCA’s Windermere House in the Central Area, which houses four families;

• Asian Counseling and Referral Services’ Beacon House, which includes six units for single adults;

• Dove House in the Rainier Valley, which houses vulnerable teenage girls in five units;

• Twenty-four units of transitional housing for young and single adults at four sites scattered across North Seattle;

• Six units at the Community Psychiatric Clinic’s El Rey center for people with mental illness;

• Six units for families at the YWCA’s Union Street apartments in the Central Area.

Herbold confirmed late Tuesday night that she had secured five votes to fund the transitional programs, and had patched together the funding from several different revenue sources. (A separate, $29 million housing bond proposal, which has the backing of six council members, would pay for capital projects like housing construction and seismic retrofits, not transitional housing projects that are already on the ground).

The council will meet to discuss the budget, including many other proposed changes, in council chambers at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

If you enjoy the work I do here at The C Is for Crank, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of the site! For just $5, $10, or $20 a month (or whatever you can give), you can help keep this site going, and help me continue to dedicate the many hours it takes to bring you stories like this one every week. This site is funded entirely by contributions from readers, which pay for the substantial time I put into it as well as costs like transportation, equipment, travel costs, website maintenance, and other expenses associated with my reporting. Thank you for reading, and I’m truly grateful for your support.

No, Trump Won’t Be “Good For Cities”`

TrumpPointing

Over the last few days, I’ve seen a number of urbanists claiming that even if Donald Trump does deport millions of undocumented immigrants, ban abortion, eliminate health care coverage for 20 million Americans, and devalue the lives of women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities, at least he’ll be “good for cities.”

After all (the argument goes), Trump is a developer, and a New Yorker—which makes him fundamentally urbanist, right? I mean, check it out: Not only did he help build the biggest, most urban city in the nation, he made a promise to “rebuild America’s inner cities,” which could definitely use some sidewalks and pothole fixes. And he vowed to spend $1 trillion on “rebuilding America’s infrastructure”—which can only be good news for mass transit, sidewalks, and crumbling city streets. (Finally, a Pothole President!) And just think: By clearing away local and state regulations that hamper housing production—like environmental laws that keep housing away from freeways, and zoning restrictions that draw borders around developable areas–President Trump will clear the way for a new urbanist renaissance.

Bullshit. Trump would be a disaster for cities, and not just because his ascension represents a total rejection of the diversity of thoughts, ideas, opinions, and people that makes cities great. He would be a disaster for cities because every policy he has espoused is (like his largely rural support base) profoundly anti-urban—and if you believe, as I do, that Trump means what he says, then it’s time to take a gimlet-eyed look at what Trump has said he will do in, and to, cities. Urbanists must stop indulging in the fantasy that there is a “real” Donald Trump who supports investments in public transit, urban housing, and programs that will give poor people in cities opportunities to succeed. There is only one Donald Trump. Here is what that Donald Trump seems likely, based on his own words and actions, to do.

Cut federal funding for mass transit.

When Republicans talk about transportation “infrastructure,” they mean, first, big highway projects, and second, roads and bridges in rural areas. The GOP platform adopted this year says this quite explicitly. “One fifth of (trust) funds are spent on mass transit, an inherently local affair that serves only a small portion of the population, concentrated in six big cities,” it says. “We propose to phase out the federal transit program.” Sound Transit 3, which voters overwhelmingly adopted Tuesday, relies heavily on that transit program–it includes $5 billion in matching funds from the federal government—as do most of the transit funding measures passed by urban voters across the nation last week.

Privatize roads, highways and bridges–and leave those that can’t turn a profit to crumble.

If you think a President Trump will not only renege on his party’s promise but reject it wholeheartedly then you haven’t looked at his infrastructure plan. In effect, Trump’s proposal would privatize the nation’s roads, bridges, and highways by providing tax credits to subsidize $1 trillion in private investment in infrastructure. Companies would make their money back for charging people to drive on those roads, bridges, and highways, and any project that doesn’t pencil out—that is, that doesn’t turn a profit for investors—won’t get built. (On Friday, Trump announced his pick to head up his “transportation and infrastructure” team—literal asphalt lobbyist Martin Whitmer.)

This will lead not only to a widening gap between poor counties and cities and wealthy ones, but a disinvestment in inner-city transit infrastructure. (picture wealthy exurban homeowners driving on pristinely maintained toll roads while overcrowded buses ferry carless city dwellers through traffic-jammed, pothole-riddled streets. Rail and express-bus lines that serve the suburbs will be able to pay for themselves through higher user fees, but public transit, which relies heavily on federal funding as well as local subsidies, won’t. (Think about it: Even if King County Metro raised bus fare to, say, $10 a ride—about what it would cost absent other funding sources—the vast majority of riders would be forced to stop riding, making the system unprofitable. Oh, and there’s that whole equity and social justice thing.)

Privatization also creates a perverse incentive for builders to cut corners and endanger public safety, by saving costs on bridge reinforcement, for example, or using less-reliable or less-durable materials. It also means that cities whose citizens can’t afford to pay for improvements  themselves—say, struggling citizens of Flint, Michigan poisoned by lead in their water pipes, or parents in low-income school districts with school buildings that are unsafe and out-of-date—will be left behind. Inner cities aren’t the crumbling, post-apocalyptic hellscapes Trump made them out to be on the campaign trail—far from it—but his privatization plans would send them spiraling in that direction.

Eliminate some federal housing subsidies, and abandon commitments to fair housing made by President Obama.

Trump hasn’t yet said who he’ll appoint to head up the Department of Housing and Urban Development,  and in fact, the issue of housing—particularly housing for the homeless, a population that has boomed in cities even as the economy has recovered—didn’t really come up during the campaign. That’s a shame, because it would be instructive to know how Trump plans to address the growing crisis, which has led three West Coast cities (including Seattle) and Hawaii to declare an official state of emergency.

Seattle, in response to HUD policies under Obama that direct federal funds into “rapid rehousing” vouchers, recently released a plan called “Pathways Home” that reflects this approach, but if HUD dramatically changes direction, reducing the federal subsidies on which cities like Seattle rely or relying on privatization schemes like the one Trump has proposed to pay for other kinds of infrastructure, cities could find themselves trying to dig out of an ever-deeper funding hole. (That’s assuming that those cities that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” for immigrants, including Seattle, still receive any federal funding at all).

Trump’s family, famously, was accused of discriminating against African American tenants in New York City in the 1970s, when Trump was president of Trump Industries. (A New York Times investigation uncovered “a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond.”) On the campaign trail this year, Trump vowed to overturn a rule adopted by the Obama administration called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which requires local jurisdictions that receive federal housing funds to address housing segregation and other disparities in housing access, in part by encouraging affordable housing development in more affluent, whiter neighborhoods. Right-wing outlets and pundits, from the Daily Caller to the Daily Sturmer, effusively praised Trump for his promise to reject Obama’s efforts to, as one alt-right site put it, “force ‘diversity’ on white neighborhoods.”

One day after the election, Mayor Ed Murray said he would consider floating another levy (in addition to the $290 million housing levy voters adopted earlier this year) to address the city’s homelessness crisis. As the impact of Trump’s presidency sets in, we’ll see how serious he is about that idea.

• Adopt policies that make the homelessness and addiction crises worse.

Last year, the One Night Count of the homeless counted about 10,000 homeless people living in King County, about half of them sleeping unsheltered. (Service providers suggest doubling that amount to get an accurate figure). Reducing that number will require funding not just for housing but for drug and alcohol treatment, mental health care, and job assistance.

Trump hasn’t said anything specific about dealing with those root causes of homelessness, but his health care plan consists of repealing the Affordable Care Act, which will leave some 20 million Americans, most of them lower-income, without health care. That includes mental health care, including treatment for addiction. Meanwhile, Trump’s only public statements about drug addiction have consisted of wonderment that an opiate epidemic could exist in America’s beautiful rural areas (“How does heroin work with these beautiful lakes and trees?”), and a promise to build a wall with Mexico to cut off the flow of drugs, War on Drugs-style. Neither of these statements bodes well for reducing the addiction epidemic, or for helping people who are homeless because of addiction get housing and health care.

This is far from a comprehensive list of reasons urbanists, and those who love cities, should be alarmed about the next four years—there’s also the promised crackdown on religious and sexual minorities, the prospect of mass deportations, the rejection of climate science, and the imposition of a 1950s good-ol-boy culture that is fundamentally provincial, anti-intellectual, and conformist. The next four years will reveal how much of this vision Trump manages to inflict on America, and how much cities react by pulling up the drawbridges and becoming not so much urban archipelagos as urban islands.

If you enjoy the work I do here at The C Is for Crank, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of the site! For just $5, $10, or $20 a month (or whatever you can give), you can help keep this site going, and help me continue to dedicate the many hours it takes to bring you stories like this one every week. This site is funded entirely by contributions from readers, which pay for the substantial time I put into it as well as costs like transportation, equipment, travel costs, website maintenance, and other expenses associated with my reporting. Thank you for reading, and I’m truly grateful for your support.

What Trump Could Mean for Seattle

Murray-sanctuary-cities

Like a lot of you, I’ve spent the past day and a half trying to absorb the shock of this Presidential election. As those who read my work at the Stranger know, I was also a Hillary Clinton supporter back in 2008, so I’ll just summarize my immediate feelings about this second, more devastating loss as a combination of outrage, fear, despair, bitterness, fury, and determination. I’m terrified about what Trump’s win will mean for people of color, for immigrants, for women, for those in the LGBTQ community, for people with disabilities, and for anyone else whose identity makes them vulnerable–especially those outside the coastal bubble in which I, and probably you, the reader, live.

As an urbanist and someone who grew up, went to college, and worked as a political journalist in a crimson red state, I reject the notion that people in the middle of the country should simply “move to Seattle” and other liberal enclaves if they want to escape the impact a Trump presidency will have on the marginalized and vulnerable. It is contemptible to suggest that people who live in the vast geographical majority of America are misguided or ignorant for living where they live, and it’s our obligation to reach out to our friends and loved ones in red states and regions and support them as they fight for progressive values in their own communities. I admire those who choose to stay put and fight or put down roots and change things from within, because we don’t win by giving up and retreating to our enclaves, and we don’t win by marginalizing progressives in places like Indiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi–places that, by the way, have cities too.

Here in Seattle, we are no more exempt from creeping Trumpism than the rest of the country. As part of his agenda for his first 100 days, Trump has vowed to “cancel all federal funding for Sanctuary Cities,” like Seattle, where undocumented immigrants can’t be targeted for their immigration status. Yesterday, Mayor Ed Murray declared that he would preserve the city’s status as a “sanctuary city, even if it means losing federal dollars that fund critical local programs.  Under legislation adopted in 2003, city employees are barred from asking anyone about their immigration status, and police officers can only ask about a person’s status if they have “reasonable suspicion to believe” the person has committed a felony and is in the country illegally.

“Seattle will remain a sanctuary city, even if we lose millions in federal funding,” Murray said at a press conference yesterday morning. “It’s important, because these are our neighbors. That’s what this community is about. We can’t allow ourselves to be divided and sorted out.” Asked how worried he was about the loss of federal dollars, Murray said simply: “I’m very concerned.”

Seattle budget director Ben Noble says his office is still working to figure out how much funding the city stands to lose if Trump follows through , but a look at the mayor’s proposed 2017-2018 budget gives a sense of the magnitude of the potential loss. Departments and programs that would be impacted include:

The Human Services Department, which would lose grant funding that is already allocated to help pay for programs like Pathways Home, Murray’s proposed rapid rehousing program for chronically homeless individuals and families; emergency shelters; transitional housing for victims of domestic violence; emergency food assistance for low-income students and seniors; and training for home health-care workers. If HSD lost all its federal funding, transitional housing programs, rapid rehousing grants for housing on the private market, child and senior nutrition programs, and many other human services priorities would be slashed.

The Office of Housing, which would lose out not just on direct funding for affordable housing production and preservation, but on leveraged federal funds that supplement revenue sources like the housing levy, which voters renewed earlier this year, to build affordable housing for low-income Seattle residents. Murray has declared the city’s intent to build 20,000 affordable units by 2025; the loss of millions in federal grants and matching funds would make that goal difficult if not impossible to achieve.

The Parks Department, which would lose out on millions in Community Development Block Grants that help pay for projects like park restoration, ADA compliance, and improvement to parks in low-income neighborhoods.

The Seattle Department of Transportation, which relies on federal grants to pay for everything from expanding the city’s bike share program, to maintaining city-owned streets and bridges, to construction projects that support the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, to paying for RapidRide expansion. Next year, the city plans to start work on expanding and connecting the South Lake Union and First Hill Streetcars with a federally funded Center City Streetcar Connector through downtown Seattle; that project would likely be mothballed without federal funding. Additionally, the Lander Street overpass–which is necessary both for viaduct replacement and for the proposed NBA/NHL stadium in SoDo–can’t be built without federal funding (so far, the Obama Administration has committed $45 million to the project).

These are obviously far from the only federally-funded programs in the city budget. (Grants to hire police officers and recover from natural disasters would also be affected, for example). Nor is Seattle the only local jurisdiction that could suffer from the one-two punch of a Trump Presidency and a GOP-controlled Congress. As Seattle Transit Blog pointed out yesterday, Sound Transit, which won a decisive  victory Tuesday night, requires federal funding, and the Republicans in power seem likely to favor rural road projects over urban transit expansion.

Republicans in Congress have tried to pull federal funding from sanctuary cities before. In 2015, the US House passed legislation that would have banned funding for sanctuary cities; that bill died after failing to win a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

If you enjoy the work I do here at The C Is for Crank, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of the site! For just $5, $10, or $20 a month (or whatever you can give), you can help keep this site going, and help me continue to dedicate the many hours it takes to bring you stories like this one every week. This site is funded entirely by contributions from readers, which pay for the substantial time I put into it as well as costs like transportation, equipment, travel costs, website maintenance, and other expenses associated with my reporting. Thank you for reading, and I’m truly grateful for your support.

An Expert Gives the Prognosis—and Makes the Case—for Medication-Assisted Addiction Treatment

Caleb Banta-Green

If you enjoy the work I do here at The C Is for Crank, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of the site! For just $5, $10, or $20 a month (or whatever you can give), you can help keep this site going, and help me continue to dedicate the many hours it takes to bring you stories like this one every week. This site is funded entirely by contributions from readers, which pay for the substantial time I put into it as well as costs like transportation, equipment, travel costs, website maintenance, and other expenses associated with my reporting. Thank you for reading, and I’m truly grateful for your support.

The King County Heroin and Prescription Opiate Task Force wrapped up its work in September with a 101-page report recommending policy changes in three key areas: Prevention, treatment, and user health/overdose prevention. Two months have passed, and the task force has more or less gone dormant, but some of the recommendations–which include opening two new supervised drug-consumption facilities, one in Seattle and one in a still-TBD King County city–are happening behind the scenes. Some recommendations, including a new buprenorphine clinic providing medication-assisted treatment for opiate addiction at the downtown public health center, are already underway, while others are still on hold pending cost estimates, funding, and neighborhood buy-in.

Although the most controversial element of the recommendations, by far, has been the supervised consumption sites (one state lawmaker, Republican Sen. Mark Miloscia, has vowed to pass legislation that would preclude the city and county from opening any safe-consumption sites, along with legislation that would ban sanctioned homeless encampments), expanding access to medication-assisted treatment is also harder than it looks. Currently, federal drug law only allows doctors to provide buprenorphine (brand name: Suboxone) to a maximum of 100 patients at a time; doctors who want to prescribe buprenorphine have to go through special training and certification. Currently, according to the task force report, “Treatment capacity for buprenorphine is limited and far exceeded by demand.”

Caleb Banta-Green is a task force member and researcher at the University of Washington’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Initiative who has studied the impact of the opiate epidemic and advocates for expanded access to medication-assisted treatment with suboxone or methadone. I sat down with him in his U District office the other day to ask some devil’s advocate questions about Suboxone, other addictions that can’t be treated by taking a pill, and the widespread belief that sometimes, you just have to force addicts into treatment.

The C Is for Crank (ECB): Listening to the task force and to city council members, like Sally Bagshaw, who have really dedicated themselves to working on the problem of opiate addiction, you’d think that buprenorphine treatment is the be-all, end-all of addiction treatment. That worries me a little. For one thing, it’s treating an epidemic largely caused by pharmaceutical companies with drugs prescribed by pharmaceutical companies, and they can and do jack up prices (and lie about side effects, as they did with Oxycontin). For another, it might take away pressure to provide funding for things like counseling and other supports that people need to live better lives without drugs. Should I be concerned?

Caleb Banta-Green (CBG): My analogy is always Starbucks. If you think about how so many people are coffee drinkers, well, there’s a lot of opiate users too, and they’re going to want their fix in a bunch of different ways and settings, just like coffee. Some people like espresso, some people like drip. We don’t just have one type of coffee that everyone has to drink in one setting and one way of paying for it. That’s not the way you get customers, and repeat customers, which is what we want when it comes to treatment. But that’s not what we do. We say, “Here it is, come get, and it if it doesn’t work, you’re failing treatment.” It’s like saying, “We’re making a shitty cup of coffee and you’re not drinking it. What’s wrong with you?”

My favorite, most disturbing, inspiring, frustrating thing in that Frontline piece [“Chasing Heroin“] is the woman [Kristina Block]—she was something like 20—and she said to her dad, “don’t want to use, but I’m not ready for treatment.” And I think treatment with a capital T is what she’s thinking about. Not like, “I don’t want to use and I [would like to] take buprenorphine, which I can take by mouth every 24 hours and not go into withdrawal and not get high.” She’s saying, “I don’t want to deal with the bureaucracy and the counseling and the hassle and the humiliation and the stigma.” That’s a different thing.

ECB: Assuming the county figures out a way to site and fund two supervised consumption sites on a pilot basis, is two years [the length of the proposed pilot program] long enough? I can see a scenario where a facility goes into a neighborhood and has just enough time to piss everyone off and scare them, but not enough time to show meaningful results, which obviously would be less than ideal.

CBG:  I think in two years, if you’re destroying a neighborhood or revitalizing a neighborhood, I think you can have a whiff of it pretty quick. There’s an example in Hamburg or Berlin where they put a [supervised injection facility] next to a park and basically the park looked totally different almost instantaneously, and in fact, drug dealing changed almost instantly because the only people left in the park were the drug dealers. No one was using anymore. So it changed the drug market as well. It can be very dramatic and very sudden.

“When Suboxone came out, we wasted the 2000s, 2002 to 2010, because we looked at what’s better—a 4-week detox or a 12-week detox on Suboxone? They’re both terrible.”

ECB: Leaving aside all the public health measures like emergency room utilization, overdose prevention, and money saved, is there any good way to quantify subjective quality-of-life improvements for the people who use these programs?

CBG:  Do they return to a life that’s worth living? It’s great to keep people alive, but what’s going to make them want to stay alive and have a valuable, meaningful life? And if part of that is a sense of self and identity and worth, I don’t think those are weak outcomes. What is your sense of self? Do you feel valued and respected by other human beings? Those are kind of important things. In fact, they are essential. And it is a public health outcome, because that whole sense of self is related to a person’s mental health and health care and caring for themselves.

ECB: I’ve mentioned some of my reservations about heavy reliance on Suboxone as treatment before: As an opiate drug, it can be both habit-forming and addictive, it puts users’ fate in the hands of drug companies who don’t have a good record being honest with patients about their products, and I’m skeptical of treatments that sound like magic pills because policymakers zero in on the pill as the only solution, abandoning things like long-term therapy and social supports. Can you put my mind at ease about any of that?

CBG: I’m a researcher, not an addiction medicine doctor, but every single addiction medicine doctor who I know is really clear that in their practice with Suboxone, the majority of people who have long-term opiate use disorder do the best being on Suboxone for many years. Suboxone’s only been around for 14 years, so I can’t tell you that it’s 50 years, but I can tell you that the longer the better. And I can tell you that because when Suboxone came out, we wasted the 2000s, 2002 to 2010, because we looked at what’s better—a 4-week detox or a 12-week detox on Suboxone? They’re both terrible. We wasted 10 years of research on that, even though we knew that on methadone maintenance, on average, the longer the better. So we wasted ten years and now we know the same thing’s true for Suboxone. To me, that’s not saying that a person has to be on it for 50 years. The point is, how’s the person functioning? The calendar shouldn’t be the guide for when or whether a person gets off Suboxone. It should be whether they’re functioning.

Opiate use disorder is not the same as alcohol use disorder. The difference is that if you have opiate use disorder, you’ve had it for a long time, you have an endorphin system in your body that is potentially permanently changed. The only way for some people to feel normal—not high, but normal—is to have opiates on those receptors. Most people with opiate use disorder need opiates on the receptors to feel normal. They’re the people who, when they first took opiates, they didn’t get lethargic and nauseated and sleepy. They’re the ones that said, “Oh, I feel normal.” So where’s the issue? If the opiate makes you feel normal and it doesn’t cause euphoria and it doesn’t have side effects and it helps them function, what’s the downside of them being on it?

“If it were my kid who was addicted to opiates, even as an adolescent, I would say, ‘Let’s get this person on Suboxone, and I want them on it until they’re 25.'”

ECB: One downside might be the widely reported side effects.

CBG: Here’s the issue. The side effect of going off of it is that your mortality risk doubles. That’s the side effect I’m worried about—when you’re not on it, your mortality risk doubles. If it were my kid who was addicted to opiates, even as an adolescent, I would say, “Let’s get this person on Suboxone, and I want them on it until they’re 25.” Then we can figure out what’s going on and figure out how they’re doing physically and socially and psychologically. But the overdose risk is so high with opiates, and even more so now with who knows what the fuck’s out there, that pharma raising the price or having some liver side effect that actually has not been found, compared to your overdose risk doubling? For me personally or for a family member of mine, I’m comfortable with that.

ECB: The task force recommended safe consumption sites, rather than safe injection sites, specifically to create a space for users of many different types of drugs, who use them in different ways.  Do you think that aspect will get lost as the county and local jurisdictions hammer out the details of where these facilities are going to be?

CBG: Brad [Finegood, assistant director of King County’s behavioral health and recovery division] has been very clear about trying to make access to all types of drug treatment for everybody, and we need that. And we need to have safe and heathy places for people who are using methamphetamine. We also need to have good treatment, social support, counseling, and all of that. We’re also very  unfortunate in that the treatment solutions for alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana are not nearly as good as they are for opiates.

ECB: Why not?

CBG: It’s because we don’t have medications. Also, we have an antidote [for heroin overdoses, naloxone] that lay people can give. We don’t have that for any other drug. And we have treatment medications that work really well. Methamphetamine’s a bitch. If your’e using meth and heroin, it’s really a bitch. We’ve seen a huge increase in methamphetamine deaths over the last decade, mostly because people are starting to combine it with heroin.

ECB: How many people do you think could benefit from medication-assisted treatment in the state?

CBG: There’s about 10,000 people on methadone. There’s probably 15,000 on buprenorphine in the state, based on a state survey. I think we easily have need for 15,000 to 20,000 more people on treatment medications. So there’s a lot of pent-up demand out there, and I also think that the demand is not just for methadone. There’s actually not bad access to methadone right now, but I know there’s a huge unmet need for buprenrophine.

“Why would we talk about forcing people into treatment when we’ve got a line of people out there who want the right treatment?”

ECB: When I talked to Senator Mark Miloscia after our visit to Insite, a prescription-heroin clinic, and other harm reduction programs in Vancouver, he said he was unconvinced by what he saw there and still believed that forcing people into treatment will make them stop using drugs. What is your response to that?

CBG: That comes up all the time, and as a human being, I don’t like the idea of forcing a person to do that. People have free will. But forget that point—the real point is, we don’t have nearly enough treatment access for the people who do want it, and I’d love to deal with [people who don’t want treatment] after we deal with the problem of making sure we have treatment available to the people who do want it. And the way that we know that they want it is that in a state survey, at least 2/3 of people said they want help reducing their use. People don’t want to be using heroin.

But they also don’t want to access the current types of treatment that are available that may be dehumanizing, that may use behavior modification and yell at you, that may call you a bad person, that may tell you that if you don’t believe in God, then you are not trying hard enough. In what other aspect of our lives would we want to be treated that way? So why would a person with substance use disorder want to be told that they’re a lesser person and they get fewer choices? The majority of people who are using don’t want to be using, and they need the right kind of treatment to not use. So why would we talk about forcing people into treatment when we’ve got a line of people out there who want the right treatment? Let’s take care of those thousands and thousands and thousands of people before we go through a surely illegal process of eugenics and forcing people into treatment.

Diminishing Returns at HALA Focus Groups

When the city’s Department of Neighborhoods (DON) first put out the call for citizens to apply as neighborhood representatives serving on one of four new community focus groups that would advise the city’s Office of Planning and Community Development on the mayor’s proposed Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA), residents of mostly white North End neighborhoods—many of them vocal opponents of the plan—applied en masse. With just two weeks before the application deadline, fully half of the applicants came from only three North Seattle neighborhoods.

DON staffers, sensing that without more geographically diverse neighborhood representation, the focus groups would be dominated by white, north-end homeowners, put out a second call. DON solicited applications from other parts of the city, including West and Southeast Seattle, and got them—eventually, after I published a story on the demographic disparity and DON ramped up its outreach to community organizations, 661 applications poured in from across the city.

Of that initial group, 181 applicants, many of them renters, people of color, community activists, and members of other groups that have traditionally been excluded from city planning processes, were chosen to serve on the four HALA focus groups that have been meeting monthly since last April. The focus groups are organized based not on geography, but by type of neighborhood—low-density urban villages, medium-density urban villages, hub urban villages, and urban villages expansion areas. According to DON Director Kathy Nyland, the idea was to bring together “folks who are going to be experiencing like changes, though not necessarily in like parts of the city”. At the meetings, the groups typically have received a presentation on some aspect of the HALA plan, followed by opportunities to ask questions, provide input, and engage in small-group discussions. The goal is to use feedback from the focus groups to help shape the zoning legislation that is the heart of HALA.

Attendance logs, obtained from OPCD through a records request, show that 137 focus group members showed up for that first meeting in April—a not-bad 76 percent attendance rate. Since then, though, attendance has curved downward sharply: from 60 percent in May to just 41 percent in September. The numbers for October aren’t available yet, but based on anecdotal reports from group members and my observations at the medium-density focus group I attended near the end of the month, with only 15 of 40 original members present, October attendance was probably lower still.

As important as the sheer numbers is who is no longer showing up. Although the city hasn’t taken any demographic surveys, anecdotal accounts from participants and city staffers, as well as a survey of monthly attendance sheets, indicate that many of the no-shows seem to be people of color, immigrants, and residents of South Seattle  neighborhoods—the exact folks DON had hoped would help bring some new perspectives to the planning process. The one clear exception to this rule is eight focus group members who were recruited by Puget Sound Sage, which provided them with ongoing technical support and follow-up meetings on the fundamentals of zoning and land use law.

Laura Bernstein, a University District community activist who resigned from her focus group in September, says she got discouraged when she saw her group being dominated by the “observers” who were supposed to watch quietly and not participate. (Observers are members of the public who watch the meetings and receive a block of time to comment at the end; their names are recorded and included in official meeting attendance records). She says, “there were a lot of really angry outbursts and a lot of whispering form the observers. So you’re trying to get OPCD to answer your question and there’s someone whispering behind you. It was very disruptive and intimidating.” Bernstein’s resignation letter concluded: “What was the point of getting such a diverse group of people if the people with power weren’t going to do more to foster an inclusive environment to retain them at the table[?] This is what fake equity looks like.”

erica-photos-2
Observers at an October focus group meeting. [Photo: Erica C. Barnett]

The medium-density focus group meeting I attended in late October ostensibly included multiple representatives from the Central Area and North Rainier neighborhoods, two areas that are generally more diverse than, say, Phinney Ridge. Nonetheless, for the first half-hour, there was just one person of color, David Osaki from Aurora-Licton Springs, in the meeting room in the basement of city hall.When Rokea Jones, from the Central District, arrived after finishing a meeting of the Seattle Women’s Commission upstairs, she noticed immediately that the wall-size map of her neighborhood had no “dots” (green stickers representing areas or spots participants wanted the full group to discuss further) in her neighborhood. Jones slapped one down on 23rd Ave. S and waited to speak.

Waited, that is, for longtime Fremont neighborhood activist Toby Thaler–a homeowner steeped for decades in the jargon and minutia of land-use decisions—to finish delivering a lengthy jeremiad about how the city “has abandoned neighborhood planning.” Standing up and jabbing his finger down at the seated audience, Thaler denounced the whole focus group process, suggested that the city chose people for the focus groups based on “some other criteria” than aptitude to serve, and lamented how far neighborhood planning had fallen since the 1980s, allowing “horrendous…ugly crap” in once-protected single-family neighborhoods.

erica-photos-1
Toby Thaler passionately voices his opinion about the focus group process during an October meeting. [Photo: Erica C. Barnett]

When Jones finally got a word in edgewise (thanks in large part to aggressive hand-waving by OPCD senior planner Geoff Wendlandt, who struggled to get the attention of facilitator Susan Hayman, a consultant for EnviroIssues hired by the city), she talked about the need to prevent displacement in the Central Area. One way to do that, Jones, suggested, was by increasing the amount developers have to pay into an affordable housing fund before they can to build in gentrifying areas. “There’s a vast amount of displacement with this neighborhood,” Jones said. “I understand that there’s developers and a great deal of concern about them losing money, but frankly, I don’t give a shit about them losing money.” It was the first time the issue of displacement had come up all night.

Read more at the South Seattle Emerald.

Council Budget Restores LEAD Funding, Adds Money for Shelters

The city council’s proposed revisions to Mayor Ed Murray’s 2017-2018 budget include the restoration of funding for Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program expansion, money for lockers so people can store their belongings at overnight shelters, and longer hours at a daytime shelters so that at least some homeless people who use shelters aren’t forced to wander the streets during the day.

The council considered 104 proposed additions and cuts to Murray’s budget yesterday; together, they would cost the city an extra $16.4 million in 2017 and 3.9 million in 2018.

LEAD funding came into question last week, when council members wanted to know why the mayor’s budget eliminated spending for LEAD expansion into the East Precinct, which includes Capitol Hill. LEAD, a pre-arrest diversion program aimed at reducing recidivism among low-level drug and prostitution offenders, started in Belltown but has since expanded throughout central Seattle; supporters hope to see it expand to neighborhoods citywide in the next few years. The $150,000 in one-time funding is supposed to be covered by new revenues from a special King County sales tax for mental illness and drug dependency (the MIDD tax); however, as I reported last week, the county has already allocated much of its new LEAD funding for other purposes (like filling a budget shortfall by paying a county prosecutor out of MIDD funds), and plans to expand LEAD in other parts of King County, not the city of Seattle, using those tax dollars. That leaves LEAD potentially underfunded, and will likely put the burden of expanding the program in Seattle on the city, not the county.

Which brings us back to that $150,000. Although the mayor’s office says the funding is guaranteed, the council wants to take no chances, and put the money back in the budget. “I think it’s really, really important that we continue funding this very effective program,” council member Kshama Sawant said yesterday. Council member Mike O’Brien, noting that the council has heard that “the funding from the county wasn’t going to be available in the way we thought,” seconded Sawant’s statement. He added: “I am still interested in discussing how, over the next year or two, we can expand LEAD to cover the whole city. I’m interested  in exploring what those next steps might be over the next few days and see if there’s any budget implications in the near term.”

Residents of Highland Park, in council member Lisa Herbold’s district, and Ballard, in O’Brien’s, have requested LEAD expansion in their neighborhoods.

Other changes in the council’s human services budget include:

• $105,000 for a social worker to staff the Downtown Public Health Center, the likely location for a low-barrier “bupe-first” pilot treatment project for people with opiate use disorder. The idea behind “bupe-first” is to get opiate addicts on buprenorphine (brand name: Suboxone), a drug that suppresses the physical need to use more harmful drugs like heroin; the same site will also offer needle exchange, case management, and followup services.

• A directive to the Human Services Department to come up with cost estimates for implementing the recommendations of the Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force, which include screening students for risk factors for drug abuse, expanding access to buprenorphine, and establishing supervised drug consumption sites.

• About $350,000 a year for the  Lazarus Day Center, which serves people over 50, to expand its hours and daytime services.

• $545,000 to add 4.5 new positions for 2017 to implement the mayor’s “bridging the gap” plan to address homeless encampments, by setting up four new sanctioned encampments, expanding outreach to people living in unsanctioned camps, and improved needle and trash cleanup (including between 11 and 17 new sharps containers for the entire city).

The next scheduled budget committee is Wednesday, November 9, at 9:30am.

Popular Jail Diversion Program Still Underfunded in Latest City, County Budgets

Last Wednesday, in a meeting about the mayor’s proposed budget for the Human Services Department, city council members raised alarms about what looked like a $150,000 cut to Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion–a successful pre-arrest diversion program aimed at reducing recidivism among low-level drug and nuisance crime offenders. LEAD started in Belltown, but has been so successful that it has been extended throughout downtown and the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct, which includes Capitol Hill; the $150,000 was one-time funding for that expansion. Neighborhoods across the city, from Ballard to far Southwest Seattle, are now clamoring for LEAD expansion into their neighborhoods.

Mayor Ed Murray’s proposed budget this year included $830,000 for LEAD funding, but did not renew the $150,000 expenditure for the East Precinct. The question council members raised, essentially, was whether that cut would be compensated by new funding from the county’s sales tax for mental health and addiction services, known as the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency II (MIDD II) tax, or whether the reduction would threaten the East Precinct expansion in 2017 and beyond. Previously, LEAD was funded through a combination of various county funding sources, private funds, and city dollars–now, its funding from the county will all come from MIDD sales tax revenues*.

Council member Lisa Herbold, a longtime ally of the Public Defender Association, which runs LEAD, said last week, “I believe the idea was that the MIDD II would fund that expansion, but apparently that’s not really how it’s working out. What I’m hearing is that moving the $150,000 will impact LEAD’s ability to even do their current work, much less expand to the East Precinct, and I understand there’s also interest in other areas of the city for LEAD expansion,” such as the Highland Park neighborhood in Herbold’s district. Other council members, including Rob Johnson, Mike O’Brien, and Lorena Gonzalez, piled on. “I’m really uncomfortable with betting on MIDD II funding to keep it going,” Johnson said. “I believe we should be propping up this existing program and expanding.”

The $150,000 reduction received some press coverage characterizing the reduction as a “cut,” which isn’t technically true: The mayor’s office points out that the plan was always to fund the East Precinct expansion of LEAD, and additional expansions in other Seattle neighborhoods, through the MIDD tax, starting in 2017. Scott Lindsay, the mayor’s public-safety advisor, says that “the city advocated for the significant MIDD II funding  for LEAD, and as a voting member of the MIDD II oversight body, we are not cutting this program.”

However, that isn’t entirely up to the city: The city may provide 42 percent of MIDD II’s tax base, but the city of Seattle holds just one of 28 positions on MIDD’s oversight board. Other cities in South and East King County are interested in LEAD, and they are also represented on the oversight body.

And LEAD has bigger challenges on its hands than backfilling the $150,000. Public Defender Association director Lisa Daugaard says that much of the county’s MIDD funding for LEAD–which totals $1.5 million in 2017 and $2 million in 2018–has already been allocated to pay for things that have historically been paid for out of the county’s general fund, including a King County prosecutor, clerical support staff,  and a new staffer in the county’s behavioral health and recovery division. Currently, LEAD’s total budget is about $2.3 million, which would just be covered by the total funding from the city ($830,000) and county ($1.5 million) in 2017. That funding does increase in 2018, but the extra half-million will be needed to fund items LEAD has identified as necessities to continue even existing operations, such as a dedicated city attorney, which could leave little or nothing to pay for expansion to other Seattle neighborhoods.

“By the time you allocate all these essential functions out of MIDD II, there’s very little room for growth,” Daugaard says. “The spirit is willing, but the capacity is not presently there. The city and the central budget office, in good faith, had every expectation that substantial expansion would be funded by MIDD II investments, but then a series of events took place” and the money became spoken for. (This past year, LEAD also lost about $800,000 in funding that had been provided by a private foundation, Daugaard says.)

Tim Burgess, chair of the city council’s budget committee, says it’s still unclear “how much of the MIDD money is going to supplant other county funding sources and how much will truly be new revenue. And we don’t know that, and we won’t know that, until the county makes their final decisions on their budget” in November, around the time when the city council will adopt its own budget. With that uncertainty in mind, Burgess says, many council members are telling him they want to make sure LEAD is fully funded regardless of what the county council decides, by continuing to fund the $150,000.

That’s certainly Herbold’s position. She says that “if we want LEAD to expand in Seattle, we cannot cut the funding intended for expansion. The theory from [the mayor’s office] was that the $150,000 was unnecessary because LEAD would have expansion funding in MIDD II–but that’s not actually how it’s working out.”

Herbold also says she expects that the county will want to spend any “extra” funding available for LEAD on expansion outside Seattle; indeed, the MIDD’s service improvement plan, released earlier this year, calls for gradual expansion “to other communities throughout King County” between 2017 and 2022.

midd

“The expansion that the county is contemplating is explicitly for non-Seattle King County cities,” Herbold says. That means that if the city wants to expand to areas like Highland Park (last year, the members of the Highland Park Action Committee wrote a letter to the mayor requesting LEAD expansion into their neighborhood), it may have to come up with the money itself. Daugaard says the PDA’s original expansion plan for LEAD, which would have extended the program into “all the communities that had expressed willingness to use LEAD,” would cost about $5 million a year.

Daugaard says she thinks the PDA could expand LEAD citywide by the end of 2018, but that would require funding beyond what’s in the current city budget and what the county is likely to allocate to Seattle in its MIDD II budget.

County budget officials did not respond to requests for additional details about MIDD funding.

* As a side note, it’s important to remember that sales tax revenues decline during economic downturns, so we can expect that MIDD revenues will be less robust than they are when the economy goes through its next down cycle.

If you enjoy the work I do here at The C Is for Crank, please consider becoming a sustaining supporter of the site! For just $5, $10, or $20 a month (or whatever you can give), you can help keep this site going, and help me continue to dedicate the many hours it takes to bring you stories like this one every week. This site is funded entirely by contributions from readers, which pay for the substantial time I put into it as well as costs like transportation, equipment, travel costs, website maintenance, and other expenses associated with my reporting. Thank you for reading, and I’m truly grateful for your support.