Voters’ Guide on Housing and Homelessness — 2017 Seattle Mayoral Race (Primary Election)

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

King County and the City of Seattle, by way of their delusional, “progressive” policies, have created these crises, and these crises have been very lucrative for those governments.  The mayor should work only with the city and county governments, not with the state and federal governments. City Hall is largely to blame for Seattle’s cost of living and homelessness problems.  If City Hall focused only on the city by focusing only on the basics – public safety, water, electricity, and roads – City Hall would need far less tax revenue, and the cost of living wouldn’t be so high.  Regarding homelessness, the City is aiding and abetting homelessness.  The Homelessness Industrial Complex is alive and well in Seattle.  $60M will be spent on homelessness this year, but that money only enriches the NGOs that thrive on homelessness.  $60M equates to over $19k per homeless person, but the homeless don’t see that money.

 Tiniell Cato

As you know, Seattle Washington is an upcoming powerhouse for small businesses, non-profit organizations, and holistic wellness centers for children and adults. As a business owner, I found that you’re only as strong as our weakest link, which is our homelessness in the City.

The mission right now: is to unite all regional, state and federal government to discuss how we can merge our influences together to build an inner circle of leaders that will create the foundation for the powerhouse which in turn will create more traffic coming to and from Seattle Washington.

This economic growth and development will create addition revenue to fund solutions to decrease homelessness and increase affordability. And create jobs & resources, income, medical, education, transportation crisis etc. for all people who the community lacks today.

Jenny Durkan*

As a City, we must explore working with King County to create a regional consolidation of homelessness services under one roof. This approach would reduce administrative overhead and better coordinate service delivery. We need increased drug and mental health treatment option, low barrier shelters and a system to measure outcomes for providers. With a regional approach, we also could seek Countywide funding, to address the problem of homelessness.

We need to create more housing options in this city. I will look to leverage City and regional tools and partnerships to help meet this need including seeking property tax exemptions for low-income homeowners and for landlords providing affordable housing.

In addition, I will help lead efforts to fight any cuts in federal funding. We must rally our state and local leaders to ensure Congress rejects proposed cuts by the Trump administration.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

I’ve been a state legislator and have worked at the executive level in a county transit authority, so I understand how to work with multiple levels of government. I have developed relationships in Olympia as well as in Seattle and King County that will allow me to take the lead in formulating and implementing regional solutions. In the 2016 legislative authorization of Sound Transit, I secured landmark requirements for affordable housing near light rail. This will be a crucial tool in solving the problem long term. Ultimately, we need to pull together as a region to focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing through all available means, and I’m the candidate with the skills to do that.

Bob Hasegawa

Seattle is not alone when it comes to addressing the joint crisis of affordability and homelessness. This year during the annual count of the homeless in King County, more than 11,600 people were tallied in this year’s point-in-time count — with 5,485 of them found to be living on the streets, in motor vehicles and tent encampments. Also, according to a survey conducted as part of the count, 40 percent of the 1,131 people surveyed reported becoming homeless at some point in the last three years. This is reflective of the overall state of affairs in the county. We need to do a better job of addressing homelessness and affordability in the region, and as mayor I would meet with other mayors and leaders to find ways in which we can work together to address these issues.

Lewis A. Jones

With the future in mind, we emphasize the importance of the uneducated to practice savings and with bank cooperation access to forming an account with a small deposit. Transitional housing for families and females.  Immediate rentals with city funds.  Storage of belongings, mail stops, answering service for jobs, a place to stay dry, for those yet out.  With the CCC-type approach from the Depression era, sanitary houses for washing clothes, showers, wherein the homeless themselves work to keep these places clean, and pay low rent, or work for housing. I will fight homelessness with a prosperity (see the following)

Mike McGinn

As mayor from 2010-13 I enjoyed strong working relationships with other mayors, as well as the King County Executive, because we met regularly and listened to each other. I led regional coalitions on new funding approaches for local streets, as well as opposing coal and oil trains. If elected, I would partner with other regional leaders to convene a working group on how to decrease homelessness and increase affordability. That would mean setting goals and building support for regional funding options as well as land use reforms to make housing more affordable. Statewide, we should restart the conversation around tax reform a way to increase affordability, diversify revenue streams, and reduce our reliance on regressive taxes.  We cannot rely on the federal government to address our homelessness and affordability.

Cary Moon

We need to work at three levels to address the affordability crisis: stop the speculation overheating our market, expand affordable housing, and build the missing middle of workforce housing.

• I will propose a tax on corporate and non-resident ownership of housing, a tax on vacant properties, and an additional REET on luxury real estate to deter speculation.
  
• I will plow proceeds into the production of affordable non-profit and public housing — seeking suitable sites on surplus public land as viable and lead a regional effort to expand the state housing trust fund, and organize the philanthropic sector to focus on housing production. We can work with communities to focus new housing in neighborhoods facing the most displacement pressure.
• I will improve our land use code and permitting process to add more housing options for multifamily infill development: community land trusts, duplexes, backyard cottages, rowhouses, co-housing, co-ops, clustered housing, and congregate housing.

James Norton Jr.

As far as homelessness we need to identify what each person suffers from in order to properly treat or provide care for them. There is a huge difference between someone who is homeless and wants to be left alone to a homeless person on hard time, mentally ill and substance abuse. Our current city government doesn’t understand and lumps them altogether.
Affordability and low income affordability are 2 different things. Low income housing does need to increase and I believe there has to a drastic criteria change for those qualified. I have seen too many people who earn to high of an income to qualify yet still need assistance. These people eventually become part of the problem as they slip into the working poor category. I would like to work with our state housing departments to determine a better evaluation process for those who might be qualified and benefit from more housing.

Nikkita Oliver

Seattle’s homelessness crisis goes hand in hand with the lack of affordable housing options in our city. Seattle has tremendous amounts of development yet very little of it actually meets the needs of our residents. I will push for the development of truly affordable housing by 1) redefining “affordability,” 2) holding developers accountable to provide 25% mandatory affordable housing, 3) leveraging Seattle’s bonding capacity to build city-owned public housing units, 4) re-assess the current budget/divert funds to our immediate needs, and 5) address the issue of speculative capital.

We Will Also:
1) increase the number of low-barrier shelters and shelters, 2) building housing options that incorporate wrap around services, 3) address the current opioid crisis as a public health issue, 4) work closely with King County and cities in our region to develop a regional plan for quality affordable housing.

Jason Roberts

Housing affordability is defined by the area median income. The AMI is calculated by HUD based on census data. Our regional wage disparity has inflated the AMI to proportions that do not reflect what the average worker earns, hence unrealistic and unaffordable pricing models exist in our housing market. I would like to work with HUD and our state legislators to factor the AMI based on what the average worker earns, not the sum average of all earned wages in the region. Currently the AMI is near 80k per year, I believe a more accurate number would be around 40 to 50k.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

HALA is a disaster. It tramples property rights, and it isn’t economically sustainable. “Affordable housing” is a lie; diffusing the cost of housing doesn’t make housing more affordable. When City Hall illegally orders developers to provide units at below-market rates, developers then must charge above-market rates on the remaining, vast majority of units. As previously stated, City Hall manufactured Seattle’s affordability “crisis.” Seattle is the fastest-growing large city in the country, but because of HALA, supply cannot keep up with demand, which is the reason housing is so expensive. The best way to make housing more affordable is to allow the market to build more housing. HALA is, at best, a distraction, at worst, social engineering. It is not for government to determine something as inherently subjective as “livability.” Again, if City Hall focused on the basics – public safety, water, electricity, and roads – Seattle would naturally become more livable.

Tiniell Cato

I appreciate the goal and agenda of MHA that will need new development to include affordable homes or give to a City fund for affordable housing.

I agree “the theory of MHA is sound, but implementation is risky: if the mandate costs homebuilders more than the added apartments let them earn, they may choose not to build at all, yielding neither more market-rate nor affordable housing choices. A policy intended to be a win-win becomes a lose-lose.”

However, if this doesn’t immediately decrease households with the lowest incomes, making 30 percent or less of their area’s median income, facing the biggest shortage of rental housing that is both affordable – costing no more than 30 percent of their income – and available, we still have a major problem.

Jenny Durkan*

I support the implementation of the HALA recommendations and will focus on the “highest impact recommendations” first. The cornerstone of HALA is the Mandatory Housing Affordability requirement (MHA). Achieving 20,000 new units of low-income housing over the next 10 years – the goal of HALA – requires the participation of the private housing development community. This program’s value was confirmed as projects that vested prior to the MHA program began requesting to opt into it. We must maximize the number of people eligible for these options and make sure both low-income and middle class housing exists in all parts of our city. We should remember that the “L” in “HALA” is “Livability”. Our overall approach must be holistic with our goal livability; neighborhoods and urban villages must have affordable housing, excellent public schools, green space and parks, and thriving small businesses all within easy walking distance to transit.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

Every day we’re generating only about 30-40% of the housing supply needed in Seattle to match the demand of newcomers to our City. To keep our City affordable and inclusive, we need the right set of policies that ensure that our housing supply keeps up with demand. We should be building on HALA by taking additional steps: appropriate up-zones, reducing setbacks, streamlined design-review processes, permissive DADU and ADU policies, and transit-oriented development, among others. I have been a leader in the legislature on expanding mass transportation and affordable housing in tandem. I sponsored and shepherded into law ground-breaking legislation to provide low-income housing near transit stations There are major urban centers we can learn from where exclusionary housing policies that manipulate incentives, like those in San Francisco, have not artificially ballooned demand and created an irreversibly unaffordable urban center.

Bob Hasegawa

I support sufficient public housing to shelter everyone who needs it. In its current form, HALA seems like a giveaway to developers. The “affordable” set aside or the alternative fee is so low, it will never come close to creating an adequate supply of housing. Using this incentive type strategy will never work because developers will never take a deal unless it’s a good deal for them. It could be part of a much broader strategy to increase housing if the set asides/fees were much higher. The City of Seattle needs more housing, and it needs to charge impact fees to mitigate the social costs associated with development. My proposal for a publicly owned bank includes building new public housing, repairing our infrastructure, and other needs identified by the community. My strategy does not include going to the bond market because a publicly owned bank will self-finance.

Lewis A. Jones

I agree. Affordability can be addressed with a prosperity yet to be discussed.

Mike McGinn

I support most of the recommendations in HALA, including Mandatory Housing Affordability and its call for more “missing middle” housing in our communities. However, I don’t believe it will be sufficient to address rising rents and rising home prices once all its recommendations are accepted or rejected in the legislative process. If elected, I would immediately start a broad based public conversation to identify how to address housing prices. This will include a discussion of how neighborhoods can accommodate housing growth as well as how to accompany growth with appropriate investments. In addition, I support greater investment in publicly-financed, community-owned housing, paid for by taxes on large successful corporations. We are fortunate to have job growth in Seattle, but the companies profiting from that growth should help pay for the impacts of growth on housing prices.

Cary Moon

HALA was a good first step, and I support the upzones and MHA requirements, but there is more to do to improve housing affordability in Seattle. Cities that have solved the escalation problem show that long-term, having a significant portion of public and nonprofit housing is an essential counterbalance to achieve stability in housing costs; we should aim to increase production four-fold. In Single Family zones we should pursue viable low-rise multifamily housing options for working people in the “missing middle” as described above, while maintaining the unique cultural character of neighborhoods. We need to both change the land use code in SF zoning to allow more types of multifamily options, and review and improve the permitting/ SEPA/ design review process to simplify entitlement for quality projects. We should implement targeted taxes to deter corporate and non-resident real estate speculation, and plow the proceeds into affordable housing production.

James Norton Jr.

I believe HALA has the right idea but unfortunately it isn’t implemented well. Not enough units are available to low income people. And again I question the criteria for who is receiving the housing. I think HALA creates animosity in some cases and that is not good for anyone. If you are going to create this “shared” housing environment then you have to make it benefit everyone in some way. Even the tenants that are not on low income.

Nikkita Oliver

We recognize the hard work from community organizations and residents that went into developing HALA. And though several of the recommendation including MHA are good starts to addressing the housing crisis, our city needs more. Many of our residents have already been pushed out by rising rents and property taxes, and many more continue to be at risk. In order to stop this trend, I believe we need to demand more from developers. We need to push for 25% affordable housing in new developments. We also need to develop our own public housing to better serve middle to low income residents. Additionally, I am concerned that HALA is not doing enough to stop housing segregation in our city. If developers continue to pay linkage fees instead of providing affordable housing units, it won’t be too long before we see our neighborhoods further divided across economic and racial lines.

Jason Roberts

For HALA and the MHA to be truly effective at creating affordable housing, the requirements most be significantly higher. Currently developers are only required to provide 7% of their units at 60% of the AMI. That number should be at least 25%. Also, the fee per square foot to bypass providing affordable units must be higher than $20 per square foot. I also believe that the ultimate decision in whether to upzone a neighborhood should include a vote from the community that lives there.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

City Hall, in its never-ending pretentiousness, picks and chooses which neighborhoods are worthy of economic development, and when some neighborhoods are upzoned, those that aren’t become disadvantaged. Again, City Hall tramples property rights. City Hall should upzone the entire city, or better yet, do away with zoning altogether. Doing this will allow growth to happen where it is most needed, and property rights will be respected. Combining that policy with a property-tax overhaul would increase the number of housing options, as well as make those options cheaper. We should tax only the land, not what is on it. This land–value tax incentivizes denser (greener) growth, and those with shared walls will have lower property-tax bills (i.e. cheaper rent). If people don’t like density, then they’ll be able to pay for the luxury of not having shared walls. It’s not for angry residents to determine what others do with their property.

Tiniell Cato

I agree that Seattle officials can fix it by granting more capacity in the MHA upzone along with complementary changes to development rules to ensure builders can make use of that extra capacity, or make the affordability requirements less demanding, or combine these options. Any which way, to bring MHA into balance will release the potential to deliver Seattle neighborhoods more subsidized homes and more market-rate missing middle housing.

Jenny Durkan*

We must have more equitable development. But we cannot have effective or equitable policies without broad, meaningful, and sustained community input. How we make decisions is very important, and often can be the difference between a policy that is accepted and becomes part of the fabric of our city – or one that is rejected. We know that every part of our city will grow and become more dense. As this occurs, we need to ensure it includes both affordable and middle class homes. Density comes in many forms: from upzones to townhouses to multi-family to backyard cottages and mother-in-laws.

We also must ensure benefits of development flow equitably in the city. Some of neighborhoods have borne the burden unfairly. When planning, those most impacted in our communities must be invited to ask questions, voice their concerns, and share their wisdom.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

Part of what is important is being clear from the beginning, saying to every audience, that every single neighborhood will have to accommodate growth in some way. My vision is to build a strategic plan for the city that allows us to hold ourselves accountable, and then creating programs within every single neighborhood. By setting a target of $1 billion in affordable housing and allocating affordability targets across the entire city, we can then use that in flexible ways, like creating neighborhood-based plans that use an array of affordability tools, rental vouchers so that people who are living in current housing can stay there, more accessory dwelling units, or more traditional density projects. This will give neighborhoods the flexibility to choose how they accommodate density without letting any neighborhood off the hook.

Bob Hasegawa

People are not going to stop moving to Seattle, this is a fact. We are going to have to build more housing and with that comes increased density. However, the neighborhoods should have a say in how that density looks. As part of my idea of bringing back the neighborhood councils, I would require that A) the councils be reflective of the demographics of the neighborhood and B) to incentivise the neighborhoods to accept density, I would give them access to money they could use for neighborhood projects in exchange for accepting a portion of the density. I am still working out the specifics around this idea but I think this would be a great step in the right direction in terms of bringing both sides together.

Lewis A. Jones

More mother-in-law units and shared housing for seniors trying to pay their property taxes. I propose, where space allows, across Seattle, underground insulated L-entrance self-financing rentals.

Mike McGinn

We must provide housing to meet job growth – there’s no way around it, Seattle is going to keep growing. We can do so by working with communities on how to allow more diverse housing types, including “missing middle” housing (backyard cottages, mother-in-law units, duplexes, and triplexes), congregate housing, subsidized housing for low-income workers, and senior housing. As I mentioned above, we should have a broad based public conversation that brings everyone to the table – those who oppose density, those who support it, and perhaps most importantly, those who are in the middle. I believe that most Seattle residents understand we need more housing, but they want their voices heard. And that is not just on housing, but on everything that makes communities work – transit, parks, safe streets, public safety. By listening and responding to concerns, I believe we can go farther than with a top-down approach.

Cary Moon

I support more flexible land use codes in all zones. We have more land allocated to Single Family zoning than in any point in our city’s history, and this limitation is problematic. The starting point is reframing the question constructively: how do we ensure our neighborhoods are welcoming to folks at all income levels and stages in life? What lower cost and multifamily housing types are a good fit with neighborhood character and culture? Invite people to be part of the solution, helping tackle the affordability crisis together, working toward a future city that is inclusive and diverse. We must make a broader range of low rise multifamily housing forms more viable and increase the range of housing types being built. We also must revise the Condo Act to rebalance liability risks; the dearth of new condominiums is further limiting the supply of starter homes.

James Norton Jr.

I believe that you have to first include the current residents in the decision making process. Let them voice their concerns and fears. Talk about possible acceptable compromise and alternatives. Pushing housing down the neighborhoods throat will again just create divide and animosity to get future proposals accepted.

I understand our city is growing but we can’t let it be the deciding factor in all our decisions. We have to learn to combine the growth with our history.

There are areas more amenable to up housing or living in a more dense neighborhood. It appears now the city government is the only one deciding where and when this happens.

Nikkita Oliver

I believe our residents want to see our city grow in a healthy and equitable way, they just need to be part of the process. The tensions that exist presently have been exacerbated by the City in many ways. By moving forward with development irrespective of community input, our city has angered many neighborhoods. In order to balance these disagreements we need a formal way for community to voice and shape policy around housing and development. As mayor, I would:

1) Actually communicate with residents and neighborhoods in a meaningful way before the City takes action and/or makes a decision.
2) Ensure that the spread of density and affordable housing stretches throughout all of the neighborhoods within Seattle and is paired with equitable access to that housing and meaningful employment opportunities
3) Develop our city’s transportation systems in a similarly equitable way

Jason Roberts

I believe that neighborhoods and communities should have a vote as to whether their neighborhoods are up-zoned. Currently HALA is failing to provide significant amounts of affordable housing yet succeeding at displacing communities and gentrifying neighborhoods. I do not believe that affordability is a supply and demand issue, more housing has not equated to lower costs. It is my opinion that once the market shifts, development will slow; preserving the profits of developers.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

This question is based on the fallacy that government is best at generating money for housing and homelessness services, but in reality, government is best at taking money away from those who would otherwise be able to donate to housing and homelessness services. If City Hall extracts less money from residents, Seattleites will have more disposable income with which to donate. Philanthropy is not the role of government. Seattle is fortunate to have many compassionate residents, so let’s allow them to care for whatever cause they deem worthy of their donations. Getting the government to do your caring for you is pessimistic, lazy, and pretentious. The City of Houston doesn’t spend a dime on homelessness, and that city has seen its homelessness population rapidly decrease over the past five years. I doubt many would call Houston a “progressive” city, but they’re obviously on to something that Seattle would rather ignore.

Tiniell Cato

I did vote. I appreciate that since 1981, Seattle voters have approved one bond and five levies to create affordable housing. Seattle has now funded over 13,000 affordable apartments for seniors, low- and moderate-wage workers, and formerly homeless individuals and families, plus provided homeownership assistance to more than 900 first-time low-income home buyers and emergency rental assistance to more than 6,500 households. This is remarkable.

The economic growth and development from the united regional, state and federal government that merge influences to build an inner circle of leaders that create the foundation for the powerhouse of small businesses, non-profit organizations, and holistic wellness centers for children and adults which in turn will bring more traffic coming to and from Seattle Washington is one way best to generate money for housing and homelessness services to decrease homelessness and increase affordability.

Jenny Durkan*

Yes, I did vote for the Seattle Housing Levy in 2016 as well as the previous levies. Affordable housing is one of the biggest challenges facing Seattle and the approach of the 2016 levy – producing and preserving affordable housing, assisting low-income homeowners and providing emergency rental assistance – is a critical part of the solution.

We also have to explore both public housing investments and greater public-private partnerships to address the critical need for low income housing.

I support the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. There is no way we can achieve 20,000 new units of low-income housing over the next 10 years without the participation of the private housing development community.

We need to make sure we are funding the policies that yield the best outcomes. I will make sure that all taxpayer funds are spent effectively and efficiently, especially when it comes to housing and homelessness services.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

Yes, I voted for the Housing Levy. It’s a crucial piece of the City’s ability to tackle affordability. I think that going forward, we should be looking to sources of revenue that move our tax system away from the reliance on regressive sales and property taxes, and toward a more progressive system. That’s why I support the City’s proposed income tax on high earners.

Bob Hasegawa

I did indeed vote for the Seattle Housing Levy in 2016, the reason being that as we can see today we clearly need to be doing everything we can to address housing issues in our city. I think however that we cannot continue to rely on levies to support these efforts, regardless of good intentions. This is why I am such a strong proponent for the establishment of a Public Municipal Bank. It will allow us to leverage the funds we already have to finance these efforts without having to continually go back to the taxpayers.

Lewis A. Jones

We could accept the Federal money for dutifully obeying the immigration laws, such as reviewing the status of those immigrants, including those with green cards, who are in America to exploit vulnerable citizens through love fraud or marriage fraud, in order to obtain citizenship or sponsorship, (more common than is commonly realized) and who also commit other crimes.

Mike McGinn

I voted for the housing levy because it is essential.

I believe we need to take a hard look at our budget and how we tax. Our City’s general fund has increased by 25% over the past 3 years, over $250 million a year in new spending. If elected I would immediately review the budget. In the 2010 recession I cut the budget by $67 million while protecting human services. I will take the same approach to cut unneeded dollars and re-prioritize dollars to essential needs and social services. To the extent we need more revenue for major new initiatives, I support progressive tax and/or fee policies – like a high income earners tax, or taxes on large successful corporations. When levies come up for renewal, I will look at funding packages that include progressive sources.

Cary Moon

Yes, I proudly voted for the housing levy. We must address root causes of the surge in homelessness to get ahead of the problem; our housing affordability crisis, defunding of behavioral health and addiction services, and the difficulty securing stable employment are all contributing.

We need to assess the duplication of efforts and inefficiencies in our system, and collaborate across agencies and service providers to optimize the most effective solutions. I would work to find efficiencies with the existing budget, focus on solving the problem upstream, and focus philanthropists on funding the most effective solutions. And I would implement targeted taxes or other mechanisms to deter corporate and non resident real estate speculation to fund affordable housing.

James Norton Jr.

I believe I did vote for it. I believe it’s of the utmost importance to preserve our history and diversity. I believe that developers are not paying their fair share. Impact fees, upping the fees associated with their decision to forgo “x” number of low income units if they decide to upzone a building. Maybe even some type of environmental fee if the project takes longer than expected.

Nikkita Oliver

I support(ed) the levy, though I have not voted in every election for many reasons including institutional/systemic barriers and as a direct result of my own displacement due to our city’s housing affordability crisis.

Some revenue options I would look into as mayor include:

– City budget- We have a $5.6 billion budget with a $1.2 billion general fund. We could tighten the budget and re-prioritize based on needs.

– Speculator tax – This would fund affordable housing options for moderate to low-income families and curb speculator behavior in our market, stabilizing it.

– Additional taxes: This would include luxury taxes, a progressive income tax, progressive corporate B&O, a corporate head tax, and taxing unearned wealth.

– Impact fees : We need to hold our developers and corporations accountable by requiring they invest into our city’s infrastructure especially transportation.

– Partnerships: Non-profit organizations and corporations could help us build more affordable housing.

Jason Roberts

I voted for the housing levy. I think we need to look further than preserving low income housing. Seattle is becoming unaffordable for most incomes. We need to strike at the heart of the issue which is housing costs. As long as affordability is determined by a flawed AMI, rents will rise. This will likely take intervention at the state level by legalizing some form of rent control or stabilization.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

I wouldn’t do anything “above and beyond what the City has already done,” and I’d likely undo some of the measures that the City has put into place. When government tries to be progressive, the net effect is regressive. HALA, Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, First in Time, move-in fee restrictions, etc. were all implemented with good intentions; however, these laws have only decreased housing affordability. These laws end up hurting the very same people that the City claims to care about. Good intentions mean nothing when the results are disastrous.

Tiniell Cato

Candidate exceeded word limit. Please see questionnaire for full answer.

Jenny Durkan*

First and foremost, we must ensure that renters are at the table when we discuss housing policy and issues of growth and density. We must bring more of their voices into City Hall. I support a stronger, direct voice like the new Renter’s Commission that was formed. We also must have policies to ensure that we enforce discrimination laws and that we break down the barriers that prevent people who have experienced homelessness and or who have criminal records from obtaining housing.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

The new requirement that qualifying applications be considered in order is a good start. We also need to address the difficulty that those who have felony records or previous evictions have in finding housing. I believe tenants deserve more rights, such as earlier notices of rent hikes. A crucial part of the plan is a robust commitment by the City to building public housing that will compete with private housing and drive down prices, as well as incentives, affordability targets, and other measures I mentioned above to increase affordable housing and change the dynamic between renters and landlords. Above all, we need better representation of renters in City decision-making, which starts with the proposed Renters’ Commission.

Bob Hasegawa

I think first and foremost we need to take a look a closer look at the policies we already have in place that are supposed to be protecting renters. We need to ensure that the “Carl Haglund” law the City council passed last year is being adequately enforced, the city’s Department of Construction and Inspections is following through with their inspections, and ensure that landlords are not refusing to rent to tenants based on where they are getting their income (or giving preference to one form over another).

Lewis A. Jones

Dangerous situations, such as flawed roofs, should be fixed immediately, they should have 30 days, not 20 days to move out.

Mike McGinn

I believe in renter protections. During my term I partnered with the city council to pass rental inspection legislation quickly before it was pre-empted by state law.

I support repealing the state prohibition against rent control so that Seattle can have more flexibility to take action. We may be bumping up against the limits of what we can do, which we will find out when the courts rule on challenges to recent tenant protection laws.

This is one of the reasons I support a major funding initiative to build more publicly owned housing. If we own the housing, we can control the rent and ensure fair practices toward renters.

With regard to private rentals, I would work with the renters commission to identify appropriate new tenant protections.

Cary Moon

We need to increase tenants’ rights to provide stability and protections to renters. The Seattle Renters Commission is a good first step, but we can do more to empower the voice of renters. We need to create a Renters Bill of Rights, where we lay out equitable standards that renters can expect. We need to set up legal assistance for low income people facing code violations, disputes, and the threat of eviction. We need to fund enforcement for renter protections. We need to identify better methods to prevent evictions of families with children and safeguard transitional housing for families and victims of domestic violence. We need to examine best practices for rent stabilization across the world, and figure out how to make it work in Seattle. And fundamentally, we need to exponentially expand affordable housing from only 6% of Seattle’s housing market toward a goal of four times this share.

James Norton Jr.

I am always for equality. I believe long time residents should have some benefit though as they are often people on a fixed income and have shown the ability to contribute to the health of our city for years. I think they should be rewarded not pushed out because some can pay more money for rent.

Nikkita Oliver

I would work to curb speculation in Seattle which contributes to skyrocketing rent and home prices. A tax on speculation worked well in Vancouver and could help our city protect our residents from displacement.

Rent stabilization would be another option i would explore in order to stop displacement of our residents. I recommend we pair rent stabilization with other market intervention strategies though and that we are thoughtful in the policies we develop around rent stabilization, making sure we protect small building owners in our city.

Additionally, we should consider developing more community land trust options. This type of home ownership model enable residents, tenants, and communities to be self-determined in own property while keeping prics affordable in the long term. Community Land trust  programs keep families in affordable housing and create paths to co-operative ownership, which successfully curbs gentrification.

Jason Roberts

Seattle has been very progressive for the rights of tenants. Currently the mayor is working on legislation to stop discrimination in rental applications by ending criminal background checks. I have mixed feelings about some of the recent changes, though I generally approve. I think we need to be thinking big picture and look at ways to stabilize rents.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

Seattle has suddenly outlawed homelessness? This is either false, or the Seattle Police Department isn’t enforcing such rules. The homeless population is only increasing, due in large part to the City’s counterproductive policies. City-sanctioned homeless encampments need to go. We already have laws against trespassing.

Tiniell Cato

Yes, I will work to repeal and mitigate the impacts of ordinances that criminalize homelessness and I will oppose attempts to introduce such ordinances.

Homeless should get medical treatment for mental and physical health through the nonprofit holistic wellness centers we will facilitate, while businesses and nonprofits will provide the education opportunities, jobs, and resources to help sustain them in the community to become a healthy resident and citizen.

This way they do not have to worry about not having medical insurance or being able to afford services.

All people should have equal opportunity to a job, housing, food, medical, clothing, and transportation to live independent and financially secure in Seattle.

Jenny Durkan*

Yes, I absolutely and unequivocally reject policies that criminalize homelessness. Housing is a human right, and I believe in housing first. We must not infringe upon people’s civil rights, and must do all that we can to avoid worsening the trauma of those experiencing homelessness. The best way to do this is to provide them, as quickly as possible, with the services they need based on their individual situation. The strategies we need to pursue must be focused on mental health and substance abuse treatment, low-barrier shelters, and ultimately long-term housing. People experiencing homelessness are our neighbors and are disproportionately people of color, those who identify as LGBTQ (especially among the youth population), and have a history of domestic violence abuse or experience with foster care. We must approach this issue with compassion, and help get people off the streets and into safe housing, not criminalize them.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

Yes, I would–we should not approach homelessness punitively. We need to be taking emergency measures to mitigate the effects of homelessness on the unhoused rather than punishing them. First, we should have sanctioned encampments in areas where services are available. Second, we should use secure short-term housing, or tiny homes. And third, we should  inventory the shelter space that the city can access. Surplus buildings that the County, City, and other public and private entities have could serve as shelters. Ultimately, the greatest impact we can have on the lives of our homeless residents is focusing on ample long-term affordable housing.

Bob Hasegawa

If elected I will work to to repeal and/or mitigate the impacts of ordinances that criminalize homelessness in Seattle. These are people who have fallen on hard times, and what kind of society are we if we put policies in place that kick people while they’re down? We as a community have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to not sit idly by while people are struggling. I am absolutely against the current administration’s policies around the homeless sweeps and I think the money being used to finance them should instead be focused on getting people off the streets and into housing.

Lewis A. Jones

Those ordinances are not the answer. Where are these people supposed to go to spend the day? How can they leave their belongings unattended and expect to find them when they return? How to stay dry? Please see answer #1 They also need mail stops and phones, in case they find work. And a job board. And someone to put up first, last, and deposit for a room.

Mike McGinn

Absolutely. In 2010 I vetoed the anti-panhandling statute due to these exact concerns. That action helped set the stage for our Center City Initiative, which brought together social service providers, agencies, business leaders and residents to identify new innovative approaches.

One outcome of that process was expanding Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, which prioritized drug addiction services over arrest for non-violent violations of the law. I would work to expand LEAD citywide. As a general principle, we must prioritize harm reduction and abandon punitive approaches that don’t work.

I mention my prior actions, because while it easy to espouse progressive action, it is far more difficult to do it when powerful economic interests are demanding immediate (but ultimately unproductive) actions to criminalize homelessness. You can count on me to stand up to that pressure.

Cary Moon

Yes. Poverty is not a crime, and we must vigilantly protect the human rights of the poor and vulnerable as we work to offer suitable shelter to our houseless neighbors. We need to address root causes of our homelessness surge to get ahead of this problem and collaborate across agencies to find the most effective solutions to help people back into secure housing.

As mayor I will:

• Prioritize long-term supportive housing options and housing first approaches.
• Provide more low-barrier shelters that allow the right mix of options to match needs, like allowing pets and enabling couples to stay together.
• Address the immediate need for emergency shelter with temporary solutions like more self-governed tiny house villages hosted by churches and neighborhoods as we get more lasting solutions moving.
• Expand shelters for victims of domestic violence that are essential to their survival.
• Invest in treatment for mental health, drug and alcohol dependency.

James Norton Jr.

I would not repeal the law. That is not my job. If it went to a vote and the people wanted to change it then so be it. Most officers gives warnings often. If it is a repeat person at some point the officer has to enact the law as written otherwise we shouldn’t have it. I will expect citizens to follow the laws as people’s unlawful behavior impacts those following the low and city ordinances.

Nikkita Oliver

Yes. Yes.
We can’t keep criminalizing poverty! A study by Seattle University’s Law school found that Seattle gave out 5,814 citations over a 5 year period for “crimes” like the ones you mentioned in your question. These citations were accompanied by penalties that required payments of anywhere from $250 to $5,000. These sorts of citations fuel a cycle of poverty and homelessness that will only hurt our city and our residents in the long-term. Individuals struggling to get on their feet are only set further back by laws like these that trap them in debt. We need to stop criminalizing poverty and reinvest the money we spend policing these “crimes” into strategies that work to end poverty and homelessness.

Jason Roberts

Homelessness is not a crime. Our focus should be on increased affordability, drug treatment programs, medical and social services, and job training rather than ineffectual and punitive legislation.

Gary Brose

Casey Carlisle

This question is ridiculous. Lyles was killed because she came at police with a knife. “Intersectionality” does not apply, and your organizations should be ashamed for blaming Lyles’ death on “intersectionality.” Her death is tragic, and I wish the police who defended themselves were able to do so in a non-lethal manner; however, it’s too easy for us to judge those policemen. We weren’t there. Maybe we could have responded differently, but maybe not.   The only failure I see is from Seattle’s own City Council. Councilmembers wanted to make Lyles’ death about identity politics, which is why no attention was given to the murder of this policeman. We demand too much of police. I want the police to deal with only theft and violence. If that was their mandate, I bet they’d have a lower attrition rate, and I bet the public would respect them more, making Seattle safer.

Tiniell Cato

Candidate exceeded word limit. Please see questionnaire for full answer.

Jenny Durkan*

The recent shooting of Charleena Lyles is a tragic reminder that police reform is never done; progress requires constant and urgent evaluation of what we can do better. We failed Ms. Lyles before the police got to her door. We must better align our systems – health care, mental health, children and family services, courts and housing – to help people in a holistic fashion.

As US Attorney, I led efforts to begin police reform in Seattle and as mayor, I will continue implementing reforms – particularly in the areas of de-escalation and crisis intervention. Under these reforms, progress has been made. But we also know that community trust can be earned or lost with every officer interaction. We must keep pushing and evaluating if policies, training and oversight are working in practice and to make sure the community has a voice in that process.

*Durkan’s questionnaire was submitted 24 hours after the deadline. We agreed to accept it in the spirit of informing voters.

Jessyn Farrell

Institutionalized racial biases must end in our city. While the recent legislation passed by the City Council to continue federally mandated reforms is a sign of progress, we still have a long way to go. We need to expand and support crisis teams that integrate mental health professionals and social workers with specially trained officers. Community members with mental health issues should not be presented with police tactics alone. These teams should be part of a new push to integrate services across City government. In addition, we need to strengthen diversion programs, like mental health court, that provide treatment rather than just punishment through the criminal justice system.

Bob Hasegawa

We need to empower the Civilian Oversight Commission to have everything it needs to do it job. I also think we need to implement the recommendations of the Washington State Joint Legislative Task Force on the Use of Deadly Force in Community Policing in changing the wording of the law to change the “malice” burden of proof. These are good ideas for dealing with tragedies after the fact, but we need to do a better job of meeting people’s needs where they are at so that we can avoid tragedies like the Charleena Lyle’s shooting.

Lewis A. Jones

The police must ALWAYS possess tazers on every call, at the ready. Briefed on the possibility of the “suicide by cop” phenomenon, they must also be briefed on all the various types of mental illness with an Abnormal Psych class as part of their educational curriculum. They should know the behaviors to expect from Autism, Downs, Schizophrenia, bipolar, and Alzheimers, as well as every depressive mental disorder. This will enlighten them as to the fact that stressed people who are also battling mental health issues will almost ALWAYS act out. This is to be expected, and the police must be ready to subdue these people, while maintaining a personal distance between themselves and the patient. Education is the answer. I will institute these changes in January, upon assuming office.

Mike McGinn

The tragic killing and loss of Charleena Lyles highlights a series of systemic failures. Two threads that weaves these failures together is our failure at every level of government to prioritize the well-being of people, and the clear and ongoing presence of racial inequity across institutions and systems.

It is difficult for a city alone to resolve these systemic failures. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of a mayor to marshal the resources at our disposal to address them.

That means

• Budget prioritization
• Actively managing city agencies to work together. As mayor I held weekly cabinet and subcabinet meetings to break down silos.
• Convening across government, providers and community as we did with the Center City initiative.
• Empowering and listening to the Community Police Commission.
• Holding oneself accountable in public
• Never shying away from a hard look at the racial inequities embedded in our institutions.

Cary Moon

I am feeling anger, rage, and grief at the tragic killing of Charleena Lyles. She needed help, and our systems failed her again and again. As a black mom of four experiencing the toxic stress of poverty, housing insecurity, domestic violence, fear of losing her kids, and suffering a mental health crisis, Charleena urgently needed the best care we could provide. But because we as a society have drained our funding for mental health care and social services, we had little to offer her.

As Mayor, I will redouble our commitment to do the transformative work to root out systemic racism, systemic wealth inequality, and ongoing societal injustice towards people of color. And work with progressive leaders across the state to build public will for progressive tax reform. We need sufficient revenue to fund the services we all know are essential to helping struggling neighbors get back on their feet.

James Norton Jr.

As a Seattle Police officer I respond to many calls a day similar to the victim Lyles tragedy. I think we need to stop sending our police officers to situations which are setting them up for failure. V/Lyles had mental health issues, known by SPD and our mental health agencies as well as her family. Police alone should not be the ones sent to resolve future issues with her. She already had a negative experience with officers weeks just prior their response. Our mental health system is failing and we have to address it if we are going to continue to have a large percentage of our 911 calls involving police response.

We need to have more people assigned to our crisis team with meantal health professionals accompanying them to these type of calls.

Nikkita Oliver

Our city failed Charleena Lyles and her family. And, we will continue to fail our residents if we don’t begin to transform our systems. As mayor I will work to develop a clear vision, articulated with goals & metrics, that sets out to meet the needs of our most vulnerable residents. I will partner with other cities and the county to develop a regional approach to our housing crisis, state of emergency around homelessness and the opioid epidemic currently affecting our communities. Most importantly, I will strive to address the root causes of poverty and eliminate institutional barriers to accessing jobs, education and land ownership which promote economic sustainability. This will cost more upfront but save lives and money in the end.

Jason Roberts

The systemic failure of our social services is directly linked to the growing disparity in our local economy and the growing numbers of people that rely on these services. This is compounded with a culture of social inequity that disproportionally marginalizes people of color. We must first acknowledge that there is a problem here. The solution is as multifaceted as the problem, the short answer is we need to do better in every way. We must improve in our public schools, in our access to college, in providing opportunities, in our legal systems, in our police force, in our social workers, and in all ways we treat each other as humans. Social equity is bigger than a 150 word essay, it’s going to take a paradigm shift in all of our behaviors.