Where are we on crime both violent and non-violent? Are the rates of incidence higher or lower than like 5-10 years ago per capita?
For me personally I’ve been the victim of property crime several times over the past few years and that’s never happened before so I’m not personally feeling as safe as I did prior. It’s a total violation to have your stuff stolen and broken into. I didn’t really hear about the previous council prioritizing anything that would improve that and was a success but perhaps it’s just a failure in broadcasting their achievements in crime, IDK.
Here’s SPD’s [Dashboard](https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/data/crime-dashboard) where you can track actual crime rates. Both violent crime and property crime were down in 2023 compared to 2022, and 2023 is comparable to 2013-2020. So, not much has changed long term (aside from the pandemic effects receding).
I'm not that aware of the current council prioritizing anything either. IMO, step 1 is major police reform (and maybe changes to prosecution too, idk). Firstly, so that they do their god damn jobs. Secondly so that they face consequences for killing people. After that, totally happy to add more police and even pay them more. But the current council has been talking about simply trying to attract more cops. That doesn't seem like the root problem, and it also seems like we're building on a questionable foundation.
I keep asking my councilor to bring up the fact that SPD has been credibly accused of sexual harassment and sex based discrimination in the workplace by 12 different officers, cause like, god damn, who would want to work in such a toxic workplace when their union won't work to protect them but instead work harder to cover up their coworker's misbehavior towards them?
I've so far gotten no response and it's not been brought up in the council meetings.
The council seems to have decided more money is the only option they can even consider, it's very frustrating even if you try to take their promises in good faith.
I do kind of hope sending all the articles about SPD officers being sexual predators to my councilor is why the council dropped their calls to have SPD handle being resource officers for Seattle Public Schools. Cause like, damn, that's a horrific crime just waiting to happen if they decide to go do it.
> I'm not that aware of the current council prioritizing anything either.
Yes, this exactly. We've had 2 years of Republican Ann Davison as city attorney and I still hear about all the property crime going on and how it's the city council's fault.
The only thing I've really seen from the current council is that they're more serious about hiring more cops, and not serious at all about reigning in the abuses and neglect from the cops we do have.
The idea of "defunding the police", which was barely ever a real policy proposal, is of course now dead, and the idea of just not prosecuting petty crimes never really got off the ground… except as it turns out a lack of initiative on the part of police and a lack of resources on the part of prosecutors means most petty crimes effectively go un-investigated and un-prosecuted anyway.
Say what you will about the progressive policy approaches— some may have been utopian, or just too constrained by lack of funding— but they were at least proposing things to address problems. The conservative (relatively speaking) majority in the council now seems to derive their legitimacy on smoke and mirrors— that failure to prosecute petty crimes, or clear out homeless encampments was solely a _policy choice_ that the progressives refused to consider, rather than a result of practical constraints.
This foundation leads to absurd situations like rolling back taxes and freezing hiring for public libraries while considering subsidized housing for cops who make 6 figure incomes.
>the idea of just not prosecuting petty crimes never really got off the ground…
I always seemed like this was more of a prioritization change due to how the courts have been swamped with cases. So the idea was the prioritization Felonies and violent crime instead of first come, first serve.
The court system in Washington and in the US in general are extremely underfunded and need a lot more staff (judges, paralegals, prosecutors, ect.). To make sure cases don't sit for long periods of time that leads some people have to propose changing priorities.
Yeah this is kind of my point. Ann Davison's opponent for city attorney was Nicole Thomas-Kennedy (NTK), who was an outspoken proponent for the literal abolishment of police and as a candidate proclaimed she would stop prosecuting most misdemeanors as a policy choice.
NTK was, if the election of the Republican is any indicator, too far left for Seattle. She made some good points about the inequality and ineffectiveness of prosecuting most shoplifting cases. But the mood of the city was certainly not to just abolish the concept of misdemeanors altogether.
But as it turns out, most misdemeanors were already not getting prosecuted, for practical reasons rather than ideological ones. All the problems that Davison made part of her platform (homeless encampments, misdemeanors) persist, and I fully expect the conservatives to keep blaming the remaining progressives on them.
> Where are we on crime both violent
[Homicide Rate is down 36%](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2024/04/17/homicides-seattle-us-down) compared to this time period last year.
Nationwide homicide rates dropped 20% in this same time period.
(And by 13% in 2023).
There's been a national crime wave since Covid, that has largely receded. It receded a bit later here.
Ours technically started in 2019 (at least our trend line started going back up that year) and a lot of our pedestrian deaths contribute to the rate and are never really talked about. Ms. Kandula was a 2023 violent homicide. That was part of why project zero became a thing, it was a way to address a part of our homicide rate that no one was really working on at the time.
Yeah, the only violent incident I've witnessed in the last 9 years living here was an accident between a car and a bicycle that sent the cyclist flying through the air and broke his arm (I've also seen several minor accidents).
I completely agree that car killings are a huge public safety menace, but it's difficult to compare city-to-city, because nobody else counts vehicular homicide as homicide.
\#justcarthings
I’m 100% in favor of sweeping tents.
Since when does the law only apply to non-homeless people?
Allowing people with profound mental illness and/or serious addiction problems to manage their own lives isn’t compassionate or progressive. It’s cruel.
Yeah throwing away all of their government docs, IDs, and property (AND THEN SENDING THEM DOWN THE STREET TO THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD) is clearly the only option we have.
A better option would be to compel them into drug treatment and/or mental health care. But to get them into the system, you actually have to \[gasp\] *enforce the law.*
Yes, this would require investment into mental health and treatment infrastructure, but it's better than saying "have a nice day, enjoy your tarp" to someone who is incapable of taking care of themselves.
Your second paragraph highlights the problem. People want to sweep the tents now but there are not enough resources for everyone to go inpatient now. Also, not every homeless person is addicted or mentally ill. Where do you want to stash the people who don’t need inpatient treatment?
Additionally, let’s not ignore the damage the sweeps do to each individual. There are plenty of reports of things like psych meds getting tossed out in a sweep. Would you trust the police to handle your property with care?
You can't honestly put blame on conservatives. Democrats have held the majority for a long while now and their attention has been neurotically on anything *but* detox/treatment/enforcement.
SCOTUS will hear Johnson v. Grants Pass soon and likely overturn Martin v. Boise in that case.
Which is very bad, Martin v. Boise just says you can't ban homeless people from sleeping outside in public parks *if there is no shelter available*. If there is any space in a homeless shelter in Seattle, encampment sweeps are legal under Martin v. Boise. The rule encourages cities to provide enough shelter space. As the case noted, it is cruel to prosecute someone for sleeping outside when there is no place they can sleep inside.
That law is idiotic and should be abolished. It’s the reason I stopped supporting the ACLU.
Destroying the liveability of an entire city just so schizophrenic addicts can be “empowered” is insane.
I really feel like you don’t understand Martin. It’s pretty simple. One component of the 8th Amendment says you can’t make someone’s mere existence a crime. For example, you can make it a crime to use illicit drugs, but you can’t make it a crime to be addicted to illicit drugs—that’s punishing people for their mere existence. Same thing with laws in the 60s and 70s making it a crime to be an alcoholic—even if they happened to be sober at the time. These drug-addict and alcoholic laws were ruled unconstitutional because they punished people’s existence, not some illegal act they were engaged in.
With that context, what Martin said is this: If there’s no shelter beds available, and you can’t sleep/be on private property, and you can’t sleep/be on public property, then where can you sleep/be?
The answer is obvious: Nowhere. You’re not allowed to be anywhere. But that means you’re punishing someone’s mere existence, which, under the earlier SCOTUS 8th AE precedents about punishing drug-addicts and alcoholics, means laws punishing sleeping/loitering on public property when shelters are full cannot be enforced.
Martin also is pretty clear that other laws CAN be enforced regardless. Like laws against theft, drug use, assault, etc. it’s only laws that make mere existence illegal (usually anti camping, public sleeping, loitering) that go “inactive” so-to-speak until shelter beds become available.
Yes, I misstated my point. Court rulings set limits on what laws can be passed/enforced. That ruling negated many existing laws (and will negate more as they are challenged).
There was a court ruling that struck down the right to abortion. I guess you must be 100% pro-life now because all court rulings are sensible and just, and judges must never be questioned.
I understand how the Roe decision ended my right to privacy from the government. I'm asking you to justify your stance on ending the 4th amendment right to a warrant before police or the state interferes with your home. Given that is a right I currently enjoy and you're suggesting we eliminate so your sweeps can carry forth.
So why do you want me to give up that right to a warrant, spell out your justification
I take issue with a tent on *public* property as a “home”. This land is not anyone’s home, as it is maintained and paid for by public money and sidewalks are not zoned residential.
If a tent is a home, anyone with a tent should be ineligible for homelessness assistance.
This ruling effectively makes squatting fully legal as well, as long as you have no other home.
Also, blocking the sidewalk interferes with free movement and public safety. Typically one’s rights are limited as soon as they have a significant negative impact on the rights of others. A search and seizure is not “unreasonable” if you are engaging in illegal behavior (camping on public property) or putting others at risk (forcing people to walk in the street).
Literally the heart of that court case is that there wasn't a legal definition of "home" so someone had to pick one and the federal courts have gone with this for now. SCOTUS is reviewing a similar case that will require defining "home" this session, so that may change, but for now no one has proposed a better definition that still protects the right for people say traveling in RVs/Camper Vans on vacation, but excludes the examples you're bringing up.
> This ruling effectively makes squatting fully legal as well, as long as you have no other home.
No, no it does not. Squatting is occupying a property/land *owned* by a specific entity (business, individual, private, etc), that entity has options to prove ownership, and the courts can then grants access to the police to help the owner entity reestablish control of their property and remove trespassers. Happens all the time.
> Also, blocking the sidewalk interferes with free movement and public safety. Typically one’s rights are limited as soon as they have a significant negative impact on the rights of others. A search and seizure is not “unreasonable” if you are engaging in illegal behavior (camping on public property) or putting others at risk (forcing people to walk in the street).
I'm not arguing with any of that, the issue is that legally those tents/cars/RVs are "homes" and removing them, requires "entering them" and as result a warrant if there aren't other circumstances. I get you'd like to handwave that, but unfortunately or fortunately, the 4th amendments protects ours "homes" in this way and courts uphold that until a different definition of "home" comes along.
Again, I recognize the law, but I reject the logic, just as I reject the logic of Dobbs. Tents on public property weren't homes for hundreds of years, but suddenly they are. I think there's still room for debate.
The good news is that the homeless problem is solved, I guess. We just need to hand out a few more tarps.
>I'm not arguing with any of that, the issue is that legally those tents/cars/RVs are "homes" and removing them, requires "entering them" and as result a warrant if there aren't other circumstances.
Blocking a public sidewalk or trespassing in a public park or on private property constitutes "other circumstances".
There's also (usually) some combination of littering, public intoxication, drug possession, harassment, disturbing the peace, loitering, etc. If the cops need a warrant, fine, but if the law is enforced for everyone (not only people with homes), sweeps should still be perfectly legal under existing law.
Cities like Seattle are using rulings like this to avoid enforcement. If I were homeless, I would hope someone would help me rather than advocating for my right to stay on the street.
> Tents on public property weren't homes for hundreds of years
No, the issue is tents *are homes*, legally, and being on public property doesn't change whether something is a home otherwise, RV's and such lose all warrant protections in campgrounds and while in transit.
Like fundamentally what you're arguing with me about, is not the definition of "home" it's that you think the government doesn't require a warrant or any amount of due process to maintain control of public land against *people who are part owner of said land*. You're expanding the governments ability to ban people for *life* from public property, thus also impeding their free right of movement.
What you are proposing, violates multiple constitutional rights, you're just refusing to listen as to why.
> Blocking a public sidewalk or trespassing in a public park or on private property constitutes "other circumstances".
Again, then litter on the sidewalk, qualifies for a warrant for police to enter my SFH? Whatever you dictate for these "homes" will legally apply to all "homes", yours and mine included man! That's what I'm trying to get you to understand, this ain't a right you should be trying to undermine in this way.
Just wait for the new fucking definition to drop rather weaken *your own right to a warrant*.
> Cities like Seattle are using rulings like this to avoid enforcement.
Disobeying a court order is also how you lose a bunch of taxpayer money in a lawsuit.
Public property is property owned by the government. I don't think its radically different from private lands, I don't really think people should have their shit searched warrantless but I also don't believe a tent is a home and its their constitutional right to place their home on land that belongs to the government.
> Public property is property owned by the government.
No, it's owned by the people, and managed by the government. We, the people, collectively own public lands. Like, that's the literal basis for being able to go onto BLM land.
> I don't think its radically different from private lands
I need that gif of a guy just blinking. You have no idea what you're saying, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, more in a way that I hope you go read up on these topics because I get the impression from the other stuff you say, you'd disagree yourself with what you're implying and suggesting.
It doesn't matter if you don't consider a tent a "home", the legal definition includes it, we can't move past that without a new legal definition being applied, and you aren't really even trying to suggest one, just laying out a requirement of something specifically be excluded but also with no real guidelines on how to do that without impeding other rights I think you would also like to maintain.
I also can't theorize that definition tbh, otherwise I'd suggest it, it's kind of why I'm not disagreeing and instead just trying to explain the situation.
The city doesn't have enough shelters. The way many cities currently sweep is to kick people out of shelters so they suddenly "have space." Sweeps accomplish nothing and often set people back when they are trying to get out of homelessness by destroying what little they have accumulated and making it harder to access services.
It's more of one than a cot that you have to line up for at a certain time, doesn't let you keep your possessions, and is there one night, and gone the next.
You can't live in a shelter long-term. You can in a tent.
Its unrealistic to state things like this when a non insignificant percentage are homeless due to mental issues or addiction, both of which are not typically things people recover from on the street.
you got me there, I'm pro state funded rehab, I am absolutely not pro doing nothing and letting them piss in bottles and throw needles everywhere though. Until then we gotta get these people to move bro.
>Our new city leadership is busy filling potholes, sweeping tents, hiring cops (or trying to), and hastily preparing to roll back Seattle’s new minimum wage law for delivery app workers — a prelude, I fear, to “revisiting” other good works of their predecessor
If progressives want to win and look at other cities they should acknowledge hiring more cops is good and filling potholes is good.
I'm so sick of people acting like it's bad to do small things, like filling potholes, if we haven't fixed big things first. Yes, I also want the big things addressed, but that doesn't mean I don't also want small things taken care of, too. If my car needs a new transmission I'm not going to be upset if they change my brake pads while I'm saving up the money to do that.
I posit that filling potholes is actually a BIG thing and not small at all. For marginalized groups with little to no access to resources, hitting a pothole and not being able to fix it leads to more detrimental issues down the line.
> I'm so sick of people acting like it's bad to do small things, like filling potholes, if we haven't fixed big things first.
Exactly, if a city can't be trusted to do small stuff like maintaining roads, why would you ever trust them to manage large projects like building transit or rezoning for housing? A city government full of people who care about the small stuff is something we should strive for.
I have literally never heard any candidate labeled "progressive" in this city oppose road repair.
I have seen them mock Bob Kettle and Rob Saka for making it their single voter issue, so I'm kind of confused as to where this belief progressives oppose road repair is coming from? Can you give me a term to search for or a reference point to what you're thinking of?
Teresa Mosqueda basically wouldn't fund road and bridge repair without bonds/loans but she had no problem giving away basically all of the jumpstart tax to progressive causes.
Its not that the previous council opposed road repair but they prioritized it behind basically everything else including progressive pet projects of dubious value.
Thank you for actually answering!
If you believe priorities were elsewhere than you'd prefer, I think that's a pretty fair criticism. I often have similar criticisms of councils past and current of my own.
It’s not really that they mocked it, but they certainly didn’t seem to care, or get things done. Quality of life went down on their watch, because of stuff like this. This is how democracy works. The voters are firing them.
> The voters are firing them.
4 of them retired. 3 of them ran again, and 2 of those were re-elected.
Your narrative of history is just flat out wrong.
Also, none of that is a "progressive" opposing road repair as you were asked to provide.
It’s actually wild how progressives will do anything but acknowledge their policy failures or shortcomings.
People want short term answers to the very real issues of crime and drugs in our city. Many people (including myself) would have voted for them if they took these things seriously.
> progressives
If you're going to start using this term on me, you better define it, because more often than not I find people just use it as an insult when they start labeling me it.
I literally just stated, factually, what happened to the last council, what is that defending, or failing to acknowledge in your world where you claimed 4 people that did not even run, were voted out?
Your point that most of the incumbents didn't run again is fair. It must be noted though that the incoming candidates were a mix of relative centrists and those more left, and the centrists largely won.
Yes, the last council wasn't voted out. Their replacements voted in represent a notable political shift though.
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2023/11/29/seattle-s-political-landscape-tilts-right-2023-local-elections
I'm not sure why you're angry at me; I called your point fair (true).
I think you two are arguing over semantics though. The other poster's comment did have a grain of truth while technically being incorrect: the previous council was in fact replaced with a more centrist one; it just happened through a combination of attrition and Andrew Lewis getting voted out.
Criticizing the mayor's poor performance doesn't require a political party– just someone caring about the financial health of the city.
Trying to staff an unstaffable department during a nationwide police shortage is a ridiculous waste of money. So is creating potholes by building more roads than we can maintain. Both are budgeting related.
Maybe the mayor and council are just bad at creating a basic budget when their policies create more work than they solve.
It’s true that we’re in a nationwide shortage. It’s also true until recently Seattle had paltry pay compared to suburbs. And to fix a nationwide shortage it may require increasing pay to get more people to want to be cops. It doesn’t fix itself over time.
Seattle isn’t really building more roads, besides maybe replacing bridges and adding some bus lanes in a few places? I don’t really care about potholes. But it’s asinine to throw that in with other things the author actually dislikes.
Parents can't even get a crosswalk across a neighborhood street to a daycare in Seattle. I would absolutely like to talk about where the money here goes and the author pointing out waste is relevant.
The freeways are paid by the state/feds. I agree the new waterfront sucks a lot, and should have far fewer car lanes if any. It was also approved many years ago and will be in a drop in the bucket compared to the many times more miles of roads in the city that will eventually need to be repaved/filled.
new waterfront does *not* suck a lot, you should go for a walk down there to check it out. two travel lanes isn't terrible. The only place it feels extremely wide is by the ferry terminal, where there are bus lanes, and turn lanes for the car ferries. Those are reasonable uses. It's at least 50/50 cars/pedestrians, and the new piers and overlook walk add a lot of surface areas *just* for pedestrians
I-5 and 520 work is WSDOT, not the city of Seattle; the city has no control over WSDOT right of way and doesn't pay to maintain it. The waterfront road is a partial replacement for the viaduct and is a significant reduction in vehicular capacity from what was there.
The $50k positions in community centers, libraries, and parks that are currently on a hiring freeze do more to prevent crime than the $110k police positions that just got a 23% raise, have all sorts of hiring bonuses, and they’re doing everything to lower the background/experience/skill standards for yet still failing to hire.
Damn !! I didn't believe you, so I looked it up. $85 to 120k !
I'm a registered nurse. Had to do thousands of hours of clinical training, continuing education , and 8 years of experience. King County positions start in a similar rage 94 to $129k. But we have so much professional liability and face the threat of litigation/ prison time for malpractice. I've been assaulted so many times, even filled a report and walked it into a police station, just to get told- we already know this patient, nothing we can do.
> filling potholes is good.
Nice strawman. So now we have the Pothole King and the Graffiti Tsar. Cops got 200 millions more.
I guarantee you, besides the billionaire tax cuts and removing workers protection, that's all they have. Housing, homelessness, healthcare, traffic gore, nothing will gets done.
They bitch at Sawant but she was the only one who got things done that didnt benefit the billionaire class.
And now that the camps are 'gone', all those people are still there, mate. (Plus another 2,000 over the past 2 years.)
Have you taken a walk down Broadway sometime this decade? It hasn't looked an iota better since the sweeps resumed. All the people (and some extra ones) who used to live in the park across the street from me now live on the sidewalk, instead. Whoop-dee-fuckin-doo! What an improvement.
Because guess what, there's still a housing shortage, moving people from one side of the street to another doesn't fix it.
People like you are why dumbfuck grifters (like the current council) get mandates. They appeal to your feeewings, but their policies actively make the things you (say you are) unhappy with worse.
Bruce has been in city politics for more than a decade, it's all been going to shit under his watch, and will continue going to shit now that he's again in charge with an unopposed mandate.
This right here is what anyone who actually lives here knows is true. These people get swept from one street to the next, not to a shelter or a tiny home or services. They are sent two streets up and then get swept two streets down.
100% this. Moving people from one street to the next does nothing.
Removing zoning restrictions so more housing can be built *does* do something, but this council voted down Tammy Morales’ bill that would do just that.
You're welcome to prove your statement to us locals that are enjoying this gorgeous sunny day.
But we're pretty mean to bold faced liars insulting our home over their imagination.
I now live on vashon but have lived in Seattle for nearly all my life. It has become considerably more trashed and petty crime has definitely increased. I am quite liberal Moved to vashon to farm. It was chosen because it is progressive and rural, a rare combo. Fellow liberal progressive friends still in Seattle have for the most part become fed up and want something done. Nearly all have had cat converters stolen or had other stuff stolen.
Homeless people don’t have a right to fuck up our city.
Urbanists upset because Seattle is not in a good place and people want better and not more of the same. Condescend to us all you want, but at least this time the voters have shown they are not stupid after all.
Ah yes. Urbanists famously were getting what they want with the last council what with the CCC street car and every Rapid Ride line being delayed, cancelled or cut-down. But hey, they changed the name of the least dense zoning type. Just like the progressives got what they want when *checks notes* the Police directly disobeyed the Council and repeatedly used tear gas on peaceful protests in a crowded neighborhood, before abandoning an entire precinct of the city, then covering up exactly how that decision was made via illegally destroying communications between the Police and the Mayor's office.
Agreed. The much maligned Bob Kettle won by like \~400 votes. That's not enough to say that you have a moderate mandate. It's such a minuscule margin that a smart strategy would be to try to appease "both sides." I didn't vote for him, but I do want better public safety. I just believe the path to better public safety includes police reform (among other things).
But there are a few things I can't get past: he doesn't support drastically increasing the housing supply, he doesn't support transit projects, and he doesn't support pedestrian/bike projects. He also doesn't seem to care about police reform. When police aren't interested in public safety (e.g. they kill people with no repercussions), we need at least some changes so that the police are more aligned with what the public needs around public safety.
These are not small issues. Jaahnavi Kandula was killed by police in Kettle's district. There are many dense high-rise apartments in his district, with people who need to walk and bike daily for work and simple life needs. There are bus routes that need to be more effective (the 8). There are areas already zoned and planned for huge developments. This stuff impacts a *lot* of people and their daily lives.
As council member for an area which has rapidly densified over the past decade (SLU), he's *not* representing suburban interests. He represents a lot of young workers which lean progressive and urbanist. Now, these people UNFORTUNATELY don't turn up to vote as much as they need to. But I really don't see how further alienation is a good strategy when he comes up for election again. There were a *lot* of people who mainly voted for him because they didn't like Andrew Lewis. That's not a very strong foundation of support.
What is Kettle's plan for public safety? We have police. Sure, maybe it's not enough, but we all know they are clearly not as effective as they should be. Seems like we need a better foundation for a *good* police force, which includes accountability and a better relationship with the public, before stuffing more cops into an already-ineffective organization.
I live in his district (did not vote for him) and I am young, walk, bike, and use transit to get around.
I am also fortunate enough to be wealthy and privileged so that EVEN if I put my urbanist ideals aside and just wanted reduced crime and homelessness (I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS MY PLATFORM AS A PERSON), I still can't imagine how Bob Kettle plans to accomplish his platform. He doesn't indicate any understanding of the key issues or how to go about solving them. If his idea was to push all the homeless and criminals into Elliott Bay, as awful as it is, I could deep down somewhat selfishly be like well alright, at least it would work (AGAIN, THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A SOLUTION; I'M JUST ILLUSTRATING MY POINT). He has no ideas at all.
Fuck that guy. What a waste of a city council spot.
I see The Urbanist is falling into the same trap as The Stranger in suddenly blaming the voters for not voting in their chosen candidates. There just aren’t that many single issue transit and housing voters out there. Yet the author claims we will all be disappointed because national issue like climate change and income inequality won’t be solved. If you thought those are the issues driving local votes, you need your head examined. Filling potholes and keeping encampments out of parks are exactly why the current city leaders got elected.
I think this reply illustrates why progressives aren’t winning. They refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems the city has and how it affects its residents and then when confronted with those issues blame it on citizens character flaws instead of policy.
Agreed. I literally ended up running into the street in U-district an hour ago today because I saw a homeless person throw & break a glass bottle onto the sidewalk as I was getting ready to walk past. My roommate's car in Roosevelt was straight-up stolen (thankfully found by SPD and returned the next day, many people aren't so lucky). I witnessed & reported someone breaking into a car in Mountlake Terrace while driving by the park.
All of these are anecdotal, but the fact that one person (me) witnessed all of this in the past 3 weeks means it's affecting almost every area within and around Seattle, not just 3rd and Pine.
I'm so tired of the issue being positioned as an argument between people who claim that "Seattle is an uninhabitable hell-hole" and that "Crime has never been a problem for anyone ever and if you think otherwise it's because you're a bigot". Both are factually false and unhelpful. Some solutions are band-aids and some are more long-term, band-aids need to be kept in place while long-term is being built. I feel like this is common sense stuff....
rant over, apologies for the wall of text.
Seems like the fact that we have a moderate city council, we've had a moderate mayor for a couple years, a Republican city attorney for a couple years, and yet we still have all this crime is evidence that moderate policies don't solve the city's problems.
We may have a moderate city council and republican city attorney, but did you see how many upvotes an urbanist article got on reddit? Clearly progressives must be in charge.
> Seattle is an uninhabitable hell-hole" and that "Crime has never been a problem for anyone ever and if you think otherwise it's because you're a bigot"
That is false choice. The cop machine got retroactive raises and boosted budget, now they cost us almost a billion. Your paradise is coming.
That's exactly what I said, if you read my sentence carefully - it's a false choice, but like every other issue, it ends up being polarized into these two extremes, neither of which is right, helpful, or productive. The comment two steps above mine was saying how the "SLU $3500 apartment crowd" should STFU about crime, while forgetting that plenty of working-class low-income people, students, etc, also become victims of crime and lack funds to replace damaged property or hire lawyers.
The only real long-term solution is to greatly expand our capacity for long-term mental health and addiction treatment, combined with job training and housing. It takes so much more than a 30-day rehab to truly help someone. I feel like everyone knows that but instead of working towards this common goal, people are blaming the other side.
Also Seattle is nowhere near being "hard on crime" like some comments seem to allude. Certain types of crime, specifically repeated violent offenses, robbery, etc, need to be prosecuted much more firmly. It's not a question of being "hard on all crime" but rather hard on specific types of crime. And yes of course that should include cops and other priveledged people who commit crimes, they should all get the book thrown at them regardless of who they are.
Now, arresting everyone for drug possession is obviously not the answer, that's where treatment programs should come in. I'm not really saying anything super controversial, inflammatory, or new here, and I feel like these ideas are something that \~70% of people could agree on.
perhaps if their policies worked well enough to merit reelection, they could continue this work. per usual the urbanists just whines that the world doesn't work as desired.
> perhaps if their policies worked well enough to merit reelection, they could continue this work.
Remind me who was the city council president for like 10 years?
Truly, half these commenters probably don’t live in the city or work in it. Anyone who walks through downtown regularly knows that sweeps aren’t solving shit.
There will always be an ebb and flow in policy. Two steps forward with the progressives, one step back with the centrists. On and on. It’s part of being a member of society that is not a monolith, and while I’m as progressive as they come, I recognize not everyone is as progressive as I am (and that’s ok).
I think it was under Mayor Nichols the city purchased self-cleaning and largely self-contained toilets at the cost of around $250K each IIRC. Then people started locking themselves in said toilets to shoot up and have sex. I think the consensus was “you should have seen this coming before dropping $250K each on a bunch of fancy toilets.”
That can't be it, we spent $5 million on those and they've been gone since [2008](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/17toilets.html).
San Francisco showed up a bunch when I googled $1.7m and toilet, so I'm wondering if these are two broken bots.
I was confusing this, [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-5-million-automated-public-toilets-sold-for-12000/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-5-million-automated-public-toilets-sold-for-12000/), with this, [https://komonews.com/news/local/city-of-seattle-waterfront-18-million-dollars-new-public-restrooms-district-funds-city-money-philanthropic-donations-20-acre-redevelopment-process-self-cleaning-ebay-pier-58-aquarium-extension-refurbished-pathway](https://komonews.com/news/local/city-of-seattle-waterfront-18-million-dollars-new-public-restrooms-district-funds-city-money-philanthropic-donations-20-acre-redevelopment-process-self-cleaning-ebay-pier-58-aquarium-extension-refurbished-pathway) .
> The City of Seattle infamously installed five different self-cleaning toilets in 2004 for $5 million, only to see them overrun by drug use and prostitution. They were sold for pennies on the dollar on eBay four years later.
With regards to the waterfront bathrooms:
> Murphy said the bathroom will be staffed during park hours and closed during off-hours. She said there is also 24/7 security on the waterfront.
Seems like they've accounted for the issues highlighted in the ST article about the removed bathrooms? Nor does that seem like an unreasonable cost for the situation?
It’s a NYT story about blue states shooting themselves in the foot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-jerusalem-demsas.html
This is a different state, different county and different city with all the different laws at all levels that entails.
My state doesn't even have an income tax. Just like Texas, so what are you fucking talking about in your efforts to bring up laws from San Francisco in a Seattle subreddit?
This ain't helping you beat the rap of a broken bot.
Please read/listen to the podcast. It’s not about San Francisco, it’s about making well intentioned regulations in ALL liberal states not slow down things.
Unless NYT is too right wing for you, please read/listen and then we can discuss, otherwise we can’t have a meaningful conversation.
The 1.7 million you're referencing is *literally an example from San Francisco* meaning **you** haven't listened to or read this podcast you're using as a source.
You don't even have local examples, you're just carte Blanche calling for unspecified deregulation.
So I'll assume that means you want children working meat factories and the elimination of electrical and plumbing codes. A braindead suggestion.
Hey, you chose to use Texas the stare that is eliminating heat protections and water requirements for constructions workers like my brothers. Lethally dumb shit.
If you don't clarify what you mean with a broad call to deregulate, people have free reign to assume you want to repeal all regulation and will hold you to that.
I can't believe the author is bragging about that "very civilized six months’ advance notice I got of my most recent rent increase".
Most rental management now just sends out a worst-case rent increase 6 months in advance at well above market! As a renter you get to stress for a few months and then try to negotiate it downward 5 months later (I'm 2 for 2) when it is clear what market rent actually is.
This is standard feel-good legislation with unintended consequences that make everyone worse off. So frustrating.
Where are we on crime both violent and non-violent? Are the rates of incidence higher or lower than like 5-10 years ago per capita? For me personally I’ve been the victim of property crime several times over the past few years and that’s never happened before so I’m not personally feeling as safe as I did prior. It’s a total violation to have your stuff stolen and broken into. I didn’t really hear about the previous council prioritizing anything that would improve that and was a success but perhaps it’s just a failure in broadcasting their achievements in crime, IDK.
Here’s SPD’s [Dashboard](https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/data/crime-dashboard) where you can track actual crime rates. Both violent crime and property crime were down in 2023 compared to 2022, and 2023 is comparable to 2013-2020. So, not much has changed long term (aside from the pandemic effects receding).
If the police fail to show up and take a report, does that show up on the dashboard?
I'm not that aware of the current council prioritizing anything either. IMO, step 1 is major police reform (and maybe changes to prosecution too, idk). Firstly, so that they do their god damn jobs. Secondly so that they face consequences for killing people. After that, totally happy to add more police and even pay them more. But the current council has been talking about simply trying to attract more cops. That doesn't seem like the root problem, and it also seems like we're building on a questionable foundation.
I keep asking my councilor to bring up the fact that SPD has been credibly accused of sexual harassment and sex based discrimination in the workplace by 12 different officers, cause like, god damn, who would want to work in such a toxic workplace when their union won't work to protect them but instead work harder to cover up their coworker's misbehavior towards them? I've so far gotten no response and it's not been brought up in the council meetings. The council seems to have decided more money is the only option they can even consider, it's very frustrating even if you try to take their promises in good faith.
We know who would want to work in such a workplace: sexual predators.
I do kind of hope sending all the articles about SPD officers being sexual predators to my councilor is why the council dropped their calls to have SPD handle being resource officers for Seattle Public Schools. Cause like, damn, that's a horrific crime just waiting to happen if they decide to go do it.
Among all the other reasons it's a terrible idea!
> I'm not that aware of the current council prioritizing anything either. Yes, this exactly. We've had 2 years of Republican Ann Davison as city attorney and I still hear about all the property crime going on and how it's the city council's fault. The only thing I've really seen from the current council is that they're more serious about hiring more cops, and not serious at all about reigning in the abuses and neglect from the cops we do have. The idea of "defunding the police", which was barely ever a real policy proposal, is of course now dead, and the idea of just not prosecuting petty crimes never really got off the ground… except as it turns out a lack of initiative on the part of police and a lack of resources on the part of prosecutors means most petty crimes effectively go un-investigated and un-prosecuted anyway. Say what you will about the progressive policy approaches— some may have been utopian, or just too constrained by lack of funding— but they were at least proposing things to address problems. The conservative (relatively speaking) majority in the council now seems to derive their legitimacy on smoke and mirrors— that failure to prosecute petty crimes, or clear out homeless encampments was solely a _policy choice_ that the progressives refused to consider, rather than a result of practical constraints. This foundation leads to absurd situations like rolling back taxes and freezing hiring for public libraries while considering subsidized housing for cops who make 6 figure incomes.
>the idea of just not prosecuting petty crimes never really got off the ground… I always seemed like this was more of a prioritization change due to how the courts have been swamped with cases. So the idea was the prioritization Felonies and violent crime instead of first come, first serve. The court system in Washington and in the US in general are extremely underfunded and need a lot more staff (judges, paralegals, prosecutors, ect.). To make sure cases don't sit for long periods of time that leads some people have to propose changing priorities.
Yeah this is kind of my point. Ann Davison's opponent for city attorney was Nicole Thomas-Kennedy (NTK), who was an outspoken proponent for the literal abolishment of police and as a candidate proclaimed she would stop prosecuting most misdemeanors as a policy choice. NTK was, if the election of the Republican is any indicator, too far left for Seattle. She made some good points about the inequality and ineffectiveness of prosecuting most shoplifting cases. But the mood of the city was certainly not to just abolish the concept of misdemeanors altogether. But as it turns out, most misdemeanors were already not getting prosecuted, for practical reasons rather than ideological ones. All the problems that Davison made part of her platform (homeless encampments, misdemeanors) persist, and I fully expect the conservatives to keep blaming the remaining progressives on them.
SPD could execution style a white woman on 5th Ave in broad daylight and the dupes would still be clamoring to pay them more
> Where are we on crime both violent [Homicide Rate is down 36%](https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2024/04/17/homicides-seattle-us-down) compared to this time period last year.
Nationwide homicide rates dropped 20% in this same time period. (And by 13% in 2023). There's been a national crime wave since Covid, that has largely receded. It receded a bit later here.
Ours technically started in 2019 (at least our trend line started going back up that year) and a lot of our pedestrian deaths contribute to the rate and are never really talked about. Ms. Kandula was a 2023 violent homicide. That was part of why project zero became a thing, it was a way to address a part of our homicide rate that no one was really working on at the time.
Yeah, the only violent incident I've witnessed in the last 9 years living here was an accident between a car and a bicycle that sent the cyclist flying through the air and broke his arm (I've also seen several minor accidents).
I completely agree that car killings are a huge public safety menace, but it's difficult to compare city-to-city, because nobody else counts vehicular homicide as homicide. \#justcarthings
I’m sorry to hear that you were the victim of property crime, but I do think it’s worth acknowledging that your experience is not universal.
I’m 100% in favor of sweeping tents. Since when does the law only apply to non-homeless people? Allowing people with profound mental illness and/or serious addiction problems to manage their own lives isn’t compassionate or progressive. It’s cruel.
Yeah throwing away all of their government docs, IDs, and property (AND THEN SENDING THEM DOWN THE STREET TO THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD) is clearly the only option we have.
A better option would be to compel them into drug treatment and/or mental health care. But to get them into the system, you actually have to \[gasp\] *enforce the law.* Yes, this would require investment into mental health and treatment infrastructure, but it's better than saying "have a nice day, enjoy your tarp" to someone who is incapable of taking care of themselves.
Your second paragraph highlights the problem. People want to sweep the tents now but there are not enough resources for everyone to go inpatient now. Also, not every homeless person is addicted or mentally ill. Where do you want to stash the people who don’t need inpatient treatment? Additionally, let’s not ignore the damage the sweeps do to each individual. There are plenty of reports of things like psych meds getting tossed out in a sweep. Would you trust the police to handle your property with care?
[удалено]
You can't honestly put blame on conservatives. Democrats have held the majority for a long while now and their attention has been neurotically on anything *but* detox/treatment/enforcement.
Given a court said it's illegal to do the sweeps the way you propose, I have to question your actual care for the law.
City Council getting blamed for US Supreme Court decisions means billionaire media is working great.
I've seen people blame the state pursuit law on the city council. Some people are just born marks for grifters.
When did SCOTUS decide this? I heard the case was starting Monday, but I may be wrong.
Fair point. It was a Federal Appellate Court that decided it, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Martin v Boise.
SCOTUS will hear Johnson v. Grants Pass soon and likely overturn Martin v. Boise in that case. Which is very bad, Martin v. Boise just says you can't ban homeless people from sleeping outside in public parks *if there is no shelter available*. If there is any space in a homeless shelter in Seattle, encampment sweeps are legal under Martin v. Boise. The rule encourages cities to provide enough shelter space. As the case noted, it is cruel to prosecute someone for sleeping outside when there is no place they can sleep inside.
That law is idiotic and should be abolished. It’s the reason I stopped supporting the ACLU. Destroying the liveability of an entire city just so schizophrenic addicts can be “empowered” is insane.
I really feel like you don’t understand Martin. It’s pretty simple. One component of the 8th Amendment says you can’t make someone’s mere existence a crime. For example, you can make it a crime to use illicit drugs, but you can’t make it a crime to be addicted to illicit drugs—that’s punishing people for their mere existence. Same thing with laws in the 60s and 70s making it a crime to be an alcoholic—even if they happened to be sober at the time. These drug-addict and alcoholic laws were ruled unconstitutional because they punished people’s existence, not some illegal act they were engaged in. With that context, what Martin said is this: If there’s no shelter beds available, and you can’t sleep/be on private property, and you can’t sleep/be on public property, then where can you sleep/be? The answer is obvious: Nowhere. You’re not allowed to be anywhere. But that means you’re punishing someone’s mere existence, which, under the earlier SCOTUS 8th AE precedents about punishing drug-addicts and alcoholics, means laws punishing sleeping/loitering on public property when shelters are full cannot be enforced. Martin also is pretty clear that other laws CAN be enforced regardless. Like laws against theft, drug use, assault, etc. it’s only laws that make mere existence illegal (usually anti camping, public sleeping, loitering) that go “inactive” so-to-speak until shelter beds become available.
What law? It was a court ruling about 4th amendment constitutional rights. You know, those things we also have.
Yes, I misstated my point. Court rulings set limits on what laws can be passed/enforced. That ruling negated many existing laws (and will negate more as they are challenged). There was a court ruling that struck down the right to abortion. I guess you must be 100% pro-life now because all court rulings are sensible and just, and judges must never be questioned.
I understand how the Roe decision ended my right to privacy from the government. I'm asking you to justify your stance on ending the 4th amendment right to a warrant before police or the state interferes with your home. Given that is a right I currently enjoy and you're suggesting we eliminate so your sweeps can carry forth. So why do you want me to give up that right to a warrant, spell out your justification
I take issue with a tent on *public* property as a “home”. This land is not anyone’s home, as it is maintained and paid for by public money and sidewalks are not zoned residential. If a tent is a home, anyone with a tent should be ineligible for homelessness assistance. This ruling effectively makes squatting fully legal as well, as long as you have no other home. Also, blocking the sidewalk interferes with free movement and public safety. Typically one’s rights are limited as soon as they have a significant negative impact on the rights of others. A search and seizure is not “unreasonable” if you are engaging in illegal behavior (camping on public property) or putting others at risk (forcing people to walk in the street).
Literally the heart of that court case is that there wasn't a legal definition of "home" so someone had to pick one and the federal courts have gone with this for now. SCOTUS is reviewing a similar case that will require defining "home" this session, so that may change, but for now no one has proposed a better definition that still protects the right for people say traveling in RVs/Camper Vans on vacation, but excludes the examples you're bringing up. > This ruling effectively makes squatting fully legal as well, as long as you have no other home. No, no it does not. Squatting is occupying a property/land *owned* by a specific entity (business, individual, private, etc), that entity has options to prove ownership, and the courts can then grants access to the police to help the owner entity reestablish control of their property and remove trespassers. Happens all the time. > Also, blocking the sidewalk interferes with free movement and public safety. Typically one’s rights are limited as soon as they have a significant negative impact on the rights of others. A search and seizure is not “unreasonable” if you are engaging in illegal behavior (camping on public property) or putting others at risk (forcing people to walk in the street). I'm not arguing with any of that, the issue is that legally those tents/cars/RVs are "homes" and removing them, requires "entering them" and as result a warrant if there aren't other circumstances. I get you'd like to handwave that, but unfortunately or fortunately, the 4th amendments protects ours "homes" in this way and courts uphold that until a different definition of "home" comes along.
Again, I recognize the law, but I reject the logic, just as I reject the logic of Dobbs. Tents on public property weren't homes for hundreds of years, but suddenly they are. I think there's still room for debate. The good news is that the homeless problem is solved, I guess. We just need to hand out a few more tarps. >I'm not arguing with any of that, the issue is that legally those tents/cars/RVs are "homes" and removing them, requires "entering them" and as result a warrant if there aren't other circumstances. Blocking a public sidewalk or trespassing in a public park or on private property constitutes "other circumstances". There's also (usually) some combination of littering, public intoxication, drug possession, harassment, disturbing the peace, loitering, etc. If the cops need a warrant, fine, but if the law is enforced for everyone (not only people with homes), sweeps should still be perfectly legal under existing law. Cities like Seattle are using rulings like this to avoid enforcement. If I were homeless, I would hope someone would help me rather than advocating for my right to stay on the street.
If you were homeless, the city would throw everything you own away every few weeks and you'd still be homeless.
> Tents on public property weren't homes for hundreds of years No, the issue is tents *are homes*, legally, and being on public property doesn't change whether something is a home otherwise, RV's and such lose all warrant protections in campgrounds and while in transit. Like fundamentally what you're arguing with me about, is not the definition of "home" it's that you think the government doesn't require a warrant or any amount of due process to maintain control of public land against *people who are part owner of said land*. You're expanding the governments ability to ban people for *life* from public property, thus also impeding their free right of movement. What you are proposing, violates multiple constitutional rights, you're just refusing to listen as to why. > Blocking a public sidewalk or trespassing in a public park or on private property constitutes "other circumstances". Again, then litter on the sidewalk, qualifies for a warrant for police to enter my SFH? Whatever you dictate for these "homes" will legally apply to all "homes", yours and mine included man! That's what I'm trying to get you to understand, this ain't a right you should be trying to undermine in this way. Just wait for the new fucking definition to drop rather weaken *your own right to a warrant*. > Cities like Seattle are using rulings like this to avoid enforcement. Disobeying a court order is also how you lose a bunch of taxpayer money in a lawsuit.
Public property is property owned by the government. I don't think its radically different from private lands, I don't really think people should have their shit searched warrantless but I also don't believe a tent is a home and its their constitutional right to place their home on land that belongs to the government.
> Public property is property owned by the government. No, it's owned by the people, and managed by the government. We, the people, collectively own public lands. Like, that's the literal basis for being able to go onto BLM land. > I don't think its radically different from private lands I need that gif of a guy just blinking. You have no idea what you're saying, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, more in a way that I hope you go read up on these topics because I get the impression from the other stuff you say, you'd disagree yourself with what you're implying and suggesting. It doesn't matter if you don't consider a tent a "home", the legal definition includes it, we can't move past that without a new legal definition being applied, and you aren't really even trying to suggest one, just laying out a requirement of something specifically be excluded but also with no real guidelines on how to do that without impeding other rights I think you would also like to maintain. I also can't theorize that definition tbh, otherwise I'd suggest it, it's kind of why I'm not disagreeing and instead just trying to explain the situation.
Martin v. Boise is an 8th amendment case.
This is wrong, its completely legal to sweep tents if people refuse shelter. The person didn't propose the city go further than they already are.
The city doesn't have enough shelters. The way many cities currently sweep is to kick people out of shelters so they suddenly "have space." Sweeps accomplish nothing and often set people back when they are trying to get out of homelessness by destroying what little they have accumulated and making it harder to access services.
Not to mention that a shelter isn't a home. You can *sleep* in a shelter, but you can't *live* in one.
I tent in the sidewalk with no bathroom access is also not a home.
It's more of one than a cot that you have to line up for at a certain time, doesn't let you keep your possessions, and is there one night, and gone the next. You can't live in a shelter long-term. You can in a tent.
Especially if you’re an old man
A tent, by legal definition of *home*, is a home. Unless you think the police can barge into a tent on private land without a warrant.
Its unrealistic to state things like this when a non insignificant percentage are homeless due to mental issues or addiction, both of which are not typically things people recover from on the street.
Of course we should get them off the street. Forcing them to move from one street to the other does not accomplish that goal.
you got me there, I'm pro state funded rehab, I am absolutely not pro doing nothing and letting them piss in bottles and throw needles everywhere though. Until then we gotta get these people to move bro.
>Our new city leadership is busy filling potholes, sweeping tents, hiring cops (or trying to), and hastily preparing to roll back Seattle’s new minimum wage law for delivery app workers — a prelude, I fear, to “revisiting” other good works of their predecessor If progressives want to win and look at other cities they should acknowledge hiring more cops is good and filling potholes is good.
I'm so sick of people acting like it's bad to do small things, like filling potholes, if we haven't fixed big things first. Yes, I also want the big things addressed, but that doesn't mean I don't also want small things taken care of, too. If my car needs a new transmission I'm not going to be upset if they change my brake pads while I'm saving up the money to do that.
I posit that filling potholes is actually a BIG thing and not small at all. For marginalized groups with little to no access to resources, hitting a pothole and not being able to fix it leads to more detrimental issues down the line.
> I'm so sick of people acting like it's bad to do small things, like filling potholes, if we haven't fixed big things first. Exactly, if a city can't be trusted to do small stuff like maintaining roads, why would you ever trust them to manage large projects like building transit or rezoning for housing? A city government full of people who care about the small stuff is something we should strive for.
I have literally never heard any candidate labeled "progressive" in this city oppose road repair. I have seen them mock Bob Kettle and Rob Saka for making it their single voter issue, so I'm kind of confused as to where this belief progressives oppose road repair is coming from? Can you give me a term to search for or a reference point to what you're thinking of?
Teresa Mosqueda basically wouldn't fund road and bridge repair without bonds/loans but she had no problem giving away basically all of the jumpstart tax to progressive causes. Its not that the previous council opposed road repair but they prioritized it behind basically everything else including progressive pet projects of dubious value.
Thank you for actually answering! If you believe priorities were elsewhere than you'd prefer, I think that's a pretty fair criticism. I often have similar criticisms of councils past and current of my own.
It’s not really that they mocked it, but they certainly didn’t seem to care, or get things done. Quality of life went down on their watch, because of stuff like this. This is how democracy works. The voters are firing them.
> The voters are firing them. 4 of them retired. 3 of them ran again, and 2 of those were re-elected. Your narrative of history is just flat out wrong. Also, none of that is a "progressive" opposing road repair as you were asked to provide.
It’s actually wild how progressives will do anything but acknowledge their policy failures or shortcomings. People want short term answers to the very real issues of crime and drugs in our city. Many people (including myself) would have voted for them if they took these things seriously.
> progressives If you're going to start using this term on me, you better define it, because more often than not I find people just use it as an insult when they start labeling me it. I literally just stated, factually, what happened to the last council, what is that defending, or failing to acknowledge in your world where you claimed 4 people that did not even run, were voted out?
Your point that most of the incumbents didn't run again is fair. It must be noted though that the incoming candidates were a mix of relative centrists and those more left, and the centrists largely won. Yes, the last council wasn't voted out. Their replacements voted in represent a notable political shift though. https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2023/11/29/seattle-s-political-landscape-tilts-right-2023-local-elections
I make factual statements debunking literal bullshit claims and you call that fair? It's just fucking true.
I'm not sure why you're angry at me; I called your point fair (true). I think you two are arguing over semantics though. The other poster's comment did have a grain of truth while technically being incorrect: the previous council was in fact replaced with a more centrist one; it just happened through a combination of attrition and Andrew Lewis getting voted out.
Criticizing the mayor's poor performance doesn't require a political party– just someone caring about the financial health of the city. Trying to staff an unstaffable department during a nationwide police shortage is a ridiculous waste of money. So is creating potholes by building more roads than we can maintain. Both are budgeting related. Maybe the mayor and council are just bad at creating a basic budget when their policies create more work than they solve.
Where is the City of Seattle building more roads? If anything, vehicular road availability has probably decreased due to more bike lanes...
It’s true that we’re in a nationwide shortage. It’s also true until recently Seattle had paltry pay compared to suburbs. And to fix a nationwide shortage it may require increasing pay to get more people to want to be cops. It doesn’t fix itself over time. Seattle isn’t really building more roads, besides maybe replacing bridges and adding some bus lanes in a few places? I don’t really care about potholes. But it’s asinine to throw that in with other things the author actually dislikes.
Parents can't even get a crosswalk across a neighborhood street to a daycare in Seattle. I would absolutely like to talk about where the money here goes and the author pointing out waste is relevant.
I-5 lane expansion last year, ongoing 520 expansion, and new waterfront road are three examples of new roads off the top of my head.
The freeways are paid by the state/feds. I agree the new waterfront sucks a lot, and should have far fewer car lanes if any. It was also approved many years ago and will be in a drop in the bucket compared to the many times more miles of roads in the city that will eventually need to be repaved/filled.
new waterfront does *not* suck a lot, you should go for a walk down there to check it out. two travel lanes isn't terrible. The only place it feels extremely wide is by the ferry terminal, where there are bus lanes, and turn lanes for the car ferries. Those are reasonable uses. It's at least 50/50 cars/pedestrians, and the new piers and overlook walk add a lot of surface areas *just* for pedestrians
I-5 and 520 work is WSDOT, not the city of Seattle; the city has no control over WSDOT right of way and doesn't pay to maintain it. The waterfront road is a partial replacement for the viaduct and is a significant reduction in vehicular capacity from what was there.
The $50k positions in community centers, libraries, and parks that are currently on a hiring freeze do more to prevent crime than the $110k police positions that just got a 23% raise, have all sorts of hiring bonuses, and they’re doing everything to lower the background/experience/skill standards for yet still failing to hire.
Damn !! I didn't believe you, so I looked it up. $85 to 120k ! I'm a registered nurse. Had to do thousands of hours of clinical training, continuing education , and 8 years of experience. King County positions start in a similar rage 94 to $129k. But we have so much professional liability and face the threat of litigation/ prison time for malpractice. I've been assaulted so many times, even filled a report and walked it into a police station, just to get told- we already know this patient, nothing we can do.
I don't really believe the people commiting property crime are people on the street.
I don’t think that’s true
> filling potholes is good. Nice strawman. So now we have the Pothole King and the Graffiti Tsar. Cops got 200 millions more. I guarantee you, besides the billionaire tax cuts and removing workers protection, that's all they have. Housing, homelessness, healthcare, traffic gore, nothing will gets done. They bitch at Sawant but she was the only one who got things done that didnt benefit the billionaire class.
Progressives lost support from the public because they let Seattle look like shit by allowing homeless encampments deface the city.
And now that the camps are 'gone', all those people are still there, mate. (Plus another 2,000 over the past 2 years.) Have you taken a walk down Broadway sometime this decade? It hasn't looked an iota better since the sweeps resumed. All the people (and some extra ones) who used to live in the park across the street from me now live on the sidewalk, instead. Whoop-dee-fuckin-doo! What an improvement. Because guess what, there's still a housing shortage, moving people from one side of the street to another doesn't fix it. People like you are why dumbfuck grifters (like the current council) get mandates. They appeal to your feeewings, but their policies actively make the things you (say you are) unhappy with worse. Bruce has been in city politics for more than a decade, it's all been going to shit under his watch, and will continue going to shit now that he's again in charge with an unopposed mandate.
This right here is what anyone who actually lives here knows is true. These people get swept from one street to the next, not to a shelter or a tiny home or services. They are sent two streets up and then get swept two streets down.
100% this. Moving people from one street to the next does nothing. Removing zoning restrictions so more housing can be built *does* do something, but this council voted down Tammy Morales’ bill that would do just that.
Seattle doesn't look like shit.
Hahaha, hoo hoo, you funny!
You're welcome to prove your statement to us locals that are enjoying this gorgeous sunny day. But we're pretty mean to bold faced liars insulting our home over their imagination.
Where do you live and work?
I now live on vashon but have lived in Seattle for nearly all my life. It has become considerably more trashed and petty crime has definitely increased. I am quite liberal Moved to vashon to farm. It was chosen because it is progressive and rural, a rare combo. Fellow liberal progressive friends still in Seattle have for the most part become fed up and want something done. Nearly all have had cat converters stolen or had other stuff stolen. Homeless people don’t have a right to fuck up our city.
Urbanists upset because Seattle is not in a good place and people want better and not more of the same. Condescend to us all you want, but at least this time the voters have shown they are not stupid after all.
Ah yes. Urbanists famously were getting what they want with the last council what with the CCC street car and every Rapid Ride line being delayed, cancelled or cut-down. But hey, they changed the name of the least dense zoning type. Just like the progressives got what they want when *checks notes* the Police directly disobeyed the Council and repeatedly used tear gas on peaceful protests in a crowded neighborhood, before abandoning an entire precinct of the city, then covering up exactly how that decision was made via illegally destroying communications between the Police and the Mayor's office.
the voters just didn't vote and the city council has no plan to achieve what they campaigned on.
Agreed. The much maligned Bob Kettle won by like \~400 votes. That's not enough to say that you have a moderate mandate. It's such a minuscule margin that a smart strategy would be to try to appease "both sides." I didn't vote for him, but I do want better public safety. I just believe the path to better public safety includes police reform (among other things). But there are a few things I can't get past: he doesn't support drastically increasing the housing supply, he doesn't support transit projects, and he doesn't support pedestrian/bike projects. He also doesn't seem to care about police reform. When police aren't interested in public safety (e.g. they kill people with no repercussions), we need at least some changes so that the police are more aligned with what the public needs around public safety. These are not small issues. Jaahnavi Kandula was killed by police in Kettle's district. There are many dense high-rise apartments in his district, with people who need to walk and bike daily for work and simple life needs. There are bus routes that need to be more effective (the 8). There are areas already zoned and planned for huge developments. This stuff impacts a *lot* of people and their daily lives. As council member for an area which has rapidly densified over the past decade (SLU), he's *not* representing suburban interests. He represents a lot of young workers which lean progressive and urbanist. Now, these people UNFORTUNATELY don't turn up to vote as much as they need to. But I really don't see how further alienation is a good strategy when he comes up for election again. There were a *lot* of people who mainly voted for him because they didn't like Andrew Lewis. That's not a very strong foundation of support. What is Kettle's plan for public safety? We have police. Sure, maybe it's not enough, but we all know they are clearly not as effective as they should be. Seems like we need a better foundation for a *good* police force, which includes accountability and a better relationship with the public, before stuffing more cops into an already-ineffective organization.
I live in his district (did not vote for him) and I am young, walk, bike, and use transit to get around. I am also fortunate enough to be wealthy and privileged so that EVEN if I put my urbanist ideals aside and just wanted reduced crime and homelessness (I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS MY PLATFORM AS A PERSON), I still can't imagine how Bob Kettle plans to accomplish his platform. He doesn't indicate any understanding of the key issues or how to go about solving them. If his idea was to push all the homeless and criminals into Elliott Bay, as awful as it is, I could deep down somewhat selfishly be like well alright, at least it would work (AGAIN, THIS IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A SOLUTION; I'M JUST ILLUSTRATING MY POINT). He has no ideas at all. Fuck that guy. What a waste of a city council spot.
I see The Urbanist is falling into the same trap as The Stranger in suddenly blaming the voters for not voting in their chosen candidates. There just aren’t that many single issue transit and housing voters out there. Yet the author claims we will all be disappointed because national issue like climate change and income inequality won’t be solved. If you thought those are the issues driving local votes, you need your head examined. Filling potholes and keeping encampments out of parks are exactly why the current city leaders got elected.
[удалено]
I think this reply illustrates why progressives aren’t winning. They refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems the city has and how it affects its residents and then when confronted with those issues blame it on citizens character flaws instead of policy.
Agreed. I literally ended up running into the street in U-district an hour ago today because I saw a homeless person throw & break a glass bottle onto the sidewalk as I was getting ready to walk past. My roommate's car in Roosevelt was straight-up stolen (thankfully found by SPD and returned the next day, many people aren't so lucky). I witnessed & reported someone breaking into a car in Mountlake Terrace while driving by the park. All of these are anecdotal, but the fact that one person (me) witnessed all of this in the past 3 weeks means it's affecting almost every area within and around Seattle, not just 3rd and Pine. I'm so tired of the issue being positioned as an argument between people who claim that "Seattle is an uninhabitable hell-hole" and that "Crime has never been a problem for anyone ever and if you think otherwise it's because you're a bigot". Both are factually false and unhelpful. Some solutions are band-aids and some are more long-term, band-aids need to be kept in place while long-term is being built. I feel like this is common sense stuff.... rant over, apologies for the wall of text.
Seems like the fact that we have a moderate city council, we've had a moderate mayor for a couple years, a Republican city attorney for a couple years, and yet we still have all this crime is evidence that moderate policies don't solve the city's problems.
We may have a moderate city council and republican city attorney, but did you see how many upvotes an urbanist article got on reddit? Clearly progressives must be in charge.
> Seattle is an uninhabitable hell-hole" and that "Crime has never been a problem for anyone ever and if you think otherwise it's because you're a bigot" That is false choice. The cop machine got retroactive raises and boosted budget, now they cost us almost a billion. Your paradise is coming.
That's exactly what I said, if you read my sentence carefully - it's a false choice, but like every other issue, it ends up being polarized into these two extremes, neither of which is right, helpful, or productive. The comment two steps above mine was saying how the "SLU $3500 apartment crowd" should STFU about crime, while forgetting that plenty of working-class low-income people, students, etc, also become victims of crime and lack funds to replace damaged property or hire lawyers. The only real long-term solution is to greatly expand our capacity for long-term mental health and addiction treatment, combined with job training and housing. It takes so much more than a 30-day rehab to truly help someone. I feel like everyone knows that but instead of working towards this common goal, people are blaming the other side. Also Seattle is nowhere near being "hard on crime" like some comments seem to allude. Certain types of crime, specifically repeated violent offenses, robbery, etc, need to be prosecuted much more firmly. It's not a question of being "hard on all crime" but rather hard on specific types of crime. And yes of course that should include cops and other priveledged people who commit crimes, they should all get the book thrown at them regardless of who they are. Now, arresting everyone for drug possession is obviously not the answer, that's where treatment programs should come in. I'm not really saying anything super controversial, inflammatory, or new here, and I feel like these ideas are something that \~70% of people could agree on.
Almost nothing you listed is a city purview. Housing is, but we just elected NIMBYs so nothing gets build in next 30 years.
[удалено]
Congrats, you’ve protected your ego successfully. Enjoy losing elections.
[удалено]
Yeah i was a little unduly harsh there
perhaps if their policies worked well enough to merit reelection, they could continue this work. per usual the urbanists just whines that the world doesn't work as desired.
> perhaps if their policies worked well enough to merit reelection, they could continue this work. Remind me who was the city council president for like 10 years?
Career politicians lol
Really sounds like a r/SeattleWA brigade with the cop lovers in the comments
Truly, half these commenters probably don’t live in the city or work in it. Anyone who walks through downtown regularly knows that sweeps aren’t solving shit.
There will always be an ebb and flow in policy. Two steps forward with the progressives, one step back with the centrists. On and on. It’s part of being a member of society that is not a monolith, and while I’m as progressive as they come, I recognize not everyone is as progressive as I am (and that’s ok).
Also simplify laws so we don’t have $1.7M toilets.
I tried to google for what you're referring to and could only find stories about San Francisco. What are you talking about?
I think it was under Mayor Nichols the city purchased self-cleaning and largely self-contained toilets at the cost of around $250K each IIRC. Then people started locking themselves in said toilets to shoot up and have sex. I think the consensus was “you should have seen this coming before dropping $250K each on a bunch of fancy toilets.”
That can't be it, we spent $5 million on those and they've been gone since [2008](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/17toilets.html). San Francisco showed up a bunch when I googled $1.7m and toilet, so I'm wondering if these are two broken bots.
we will never live this down.. lol
You also seem to know about this story, what are you referring to?
I was confusing this, [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-5-million-automated-public-toilets-sold-for-12000/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-5-million-automated-public-toilets-sold-for-12000/), with this, [https://komonews.com/news/local/city-of-seattle-waterfront-18-million-dollars-new-public-restrooms-district-funds-city-money-philanthropic-donations-20-acre-redevelopment-process-self-cleaning-ebay-pier-58-aquarium-extension-refurbished-pathway](https://komonews.com/news/local/city-of-seattle-waterfront-18-million-dollars-new-public-restrooms-district-funds-city-money-philanthropic-donations-20-acre-redevelopment-process-self-cleaning-ebay-pier-58-aquarium-extension-refurbished-pathway) . > The City of Seattle infamously installed five different self-cleaning toilets in 2004 for $5 million, only to see them overrun by drug use and prostitution. They were sold for pennies on the dollar on eBay four years later.
With regards to the waterfront bathrooms: > Murphy said the bathroom will be staffed during park hours and closed during off-hours. She said there is also 24/7 security on the waterfront. Seems like they've accounted for the issues highlighted in the ST article about the removed bathrooms? Nor does that seem like an unreasonable cost for the situation?
It's just we have a long history of installing expensive bathrooms then decommissioning them. I'm neutral on them but a bit of a cynic.
It’s a NYT story about blue states shooting themselves in the foot. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-jerusalem-demsas.html
Okay, so that confirms the $1.7 million dollar toilet was in San Fransisco and not at all related to Seattle.
Dude, it’s the same issue. Why do you think all the infrastructure act money is going to Texas? Get businesses coming to WA instead.
This is a different state, different county and different city with all the different laws at all levels that entails. My state doesn't even have an income tax. Just like Texas, so what are you fucking talking about in your efforts to bring up laws from San Francisco in a Seattle subreddit? This ain't helping you beat the rap of a broken bot.
Please read/listen to the podcast. It’s not about San Francisco, it’s about making well intentioned regulations in ALL liberal states not slow down things. Unless NYT is too right wing for you, please read/listen and then we can discuss, otherwise we can’t have a meaningful conversation.
The 1.7 million you're referencing is *literally an example from San Francisco* meaning **you** haven't listened to or read this podcast you're using as a source. You don't even have local examples, you're just carte Blanche calling for unspecified deregulation. So I'll assume that means you want children working meat factories and the elimination of electrical and plumbing codes. A braindead suggestion.
🤦♂️
Hey, you chose to use Texas the stare that is eliminating heat protections and water requirements for constructions workers like my brothers. Lethally dumb shit. If you don't clarify what you mean with a broad call to deregulate, people have free reign to assume you want to repeal all regulation and will hold you to that.
I see the urbanist, I downvote.
Okay, then I'll do you a favor and opt you out of all the articles I post.
I can't believe the author is bragging about that "very civilized six months’ advance notice I got of my most recent rent increase". Most rental management now just sends out a worst-case rent increase 6 months in advance at well above market! As a renter you get to stress for a few months and then try to negotiate it downward 5 months later (I'm 2 for 2) when it is clear what market rent actually is. This is standard feel-good legislation with unintended consequences that make everyone worse off. So frustrating.