Seattle City Council Meeting 3/29/2021

already started.

I appreciate the Seattle Channel understood my code.

Thanks.

Thanks, y'all.

Okay, folks, welcome back to the meeting of the Seattle City Council.

It is March 29, 2021. This meeting of the Seattle City Council will now come to order.

It is 2.06pm.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

I will call the roll.

9 present.

Thank you so much.

Presentations.

Colleagues, we have a presentation right here at the top.

Councilmember Strauss has a proclamation honoring Sam Asafa and his service as the director of the office of planning and community development.

Councilmember Strauss is going to first present the proclamation and then I will open the floor for comments from other councilmembers.

a guest to accept the proclamation, and we will also allow Director Asefa an opportunity to provide us some comments.

We are very pleased to have Director Asefa with us in this virtual Zoom room.

This was a surprise for him, so he is here, rather surprised, but very excited to accept this proclamation that I'm now going to hand over the mic to Council Member Strauss to present the proclamation.

Thank you, Council President and thank you colleagues for allowing us to provide this proclamation to Director Assefa.

A little more than five years ago, Director Sam Assefa was nominated to be the first permanent director The first ever of the office of planning and community development director SEPA came to us in Seattle with an impressive resume as a leader in community planning and coming from Boulder Chicago and San Francisco during his time in Seattle.

He oversaw the implementation of mandatory housing affordability, led the creation of the equitable development initiative, and provided steady planning leadership for one of the fastest growing cities in the United States.

During his time, Seattle had the fastest growth in the nation, even outpacing New York City in terms of cranes and construction.

Director Assefa's final day with OPCD was this past Friday.

And I want to take just a moment.

I won't read the whole proclamation considering time.

I do want to recognize the fact that Director Assefa is a nationally and internationally recognized leader in urban planning, bringing forward thinking and equitable approach to shaping our built environment.

And I guess, so that was a whereas Director Assefa.

Other things that this proclamation states is whereas Director Assefa spearheaded implementation of equitable development initiative, which provides assistance and funding to community based organizations and development.

projects that respond to displacement pressures and advance equity in historically marginalized communities.

And whereas under Director Assefa's leadership, OPCD led the implementation of MHA, which will create thousands of desperately needed affordable housing units in Seattle and has already raised more than $66 million for affordable housing.

And while Director Assefa helped establish the criteria for mutually offsetting benefit property transfers, In response to community which is allowed for the track transfers of property, like the central area, senior center and bird bar place in the central district.

This is also allowed for the preservation of my many acres of farmland throughout the region, and increased density here in the CIA in Seattle.

And whereas Director Assefa attended Harvard University, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he earned his Bachelor of Architecture, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned his Master of City Planning.

And whereas in San Francisco, Director Assefa served as the Director of Special Projects for the Department of Planning and Development.

In Chicago, whereas in Chicago, Director Assefa was the Director of Land Use and Planning Policy for the Department of Planning and Development, and whereas in Boulder, Director Assefa served as the Senior Urban Planning Designer in the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability, Director Assefa led transformational change here for the City of Seattle as Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development.

It is, you know, with a heavy heart that I let you go, I have threatened many times to not conclude meetings to retain you here in the city.

I just want to take this moment to recognize you Director SEPA, because I cannot thank you enough for your service to our city and directing us through some of the most incredible growth since the gold rush.

Your fingerprints on our built environment are incredibly meaningful, and we could not have done this without you.

So from the bottom of my heart, thank you, Director Asapa.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss for those comments.

Colleagues, I do want to open up the floor to any comments that any Councilmembers might also have.

And then once we do that, we'll suspend the rules and invite Director Asefa to share some wisdom with us in this in this menu.

So Councilmember Morales, I see your hand is up, please.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss, thank you so much for crafting this proclamation.

I am so glad that you did, because it has been a real honor and pleasure, even in my short time here as a councilmember, to work with you, Director Acefa.

I know your history.

I know the work that you've done in other cities.

And I have been really impressed since you've been here in my capacity as a community member advocating for the Equitable Development Initiative, advocating for communities of color to get to have a seat at the table in deciding what their neighborhoods look like and how their neighborhoods change and grow.

And that work has been guided by your steady hand and your commitment to making sure that communities of color do get a seat at the table.

So I am really sorry to see you go, but I am so thankful for all that you've contributed to the city and your work in really helping create the institutionalization of this priority and commitment to racial equity in our planning processes.

And I think this work will continue.

And the team that you've put together at EDI is going to make sure that your legacy continues to live on in our department.

And I wish you the very best.

And I'm so glad that I had at least a little bit of time getting to work with you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Colleagues, any other comments before we suspend the rules?

Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you so much.

I am very grateful to Director Acefa, and not just that he was leading our planning department at a time at incredible growth, but he was the first director under the city's planning efforts where we actually officially recognize for the first time in our comp plan that there is such a thing called displacement.

And that we should plan towards the understanding that displacement occurs in our city and that part of growth is the inevitable displacement impacts associated with that growth.

So not only for as it relates to the development of the equitable development initiative, but also a recognition that in our efforts to increase development capacity and our efforts to increase funding for the mandatory housing affordability program, but that we have to, in our zoning, recognize that there can be displacement-related impacts.

And the fact that Director Sefa has such a, I think for Seattle, a viewpoint that has become, I think maybe, that it is reflected in our city planning documents might be taken for granted, but I have not taken it for granted.

I have appreciated that wide-eyed reflection of the impacts to low-income communities of color that are often associated with development and growth.

And just, you know, I just fondly recall Director Asafa facilitating a, the viewing of a movie, Citizen Jane, about Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses and sort of the conflict between their views around urban planning.

One view of urban planning, which was very much a allow it to be possible for all to be torn down and something new to be built back up.

And another view of urban planning that recognizes that there are things of value that we want to consider how we maintain those things of value while also encouraging development.

And that's just a memory I have where I saw Sam in the real world talking to a room full of people about his philosophy around planning and really appreciate you.

And you will be missed, Director Acevedo.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Any other Councilmembers?

Councilmember Scada, please.

Thank you very much.

Director Estefan, it's wonderful to see you.

Thank you for all of your work.

I'm very excited that Council Member Strauss surprised you with this.

And I just wanted to note from an internal city family perspective, you were one of the first directors that reached out to me when I was first elected.

We had called around to the various departments and asked for time to meet with the departments and to really do a walkthrough.

And in doing so, wanted to bring with us the Protech 17 members and leadership to have a better understanding of how the city family works to address various issues that we're seeing and how we can do better for our residents with streamlining services.

And you had just an incredible outlook on the role that your city employees play with making the policies of our city come to life.

And I know that when I walked around with you, there was a tremendous amount of respect for you and the way in which you worked with employees.

So thank you for lifting up city employees, our city family, and for the respect and engagement that you provided, both directly with your department members and with the union representation as well.

It was a wonderful show of, I think, unity and really exciting to see you in action.

So looking forward to staying in touch with you and to hearing more about your next chapter, as I'm sure you will be continuing to shake things up and appreciate all you've done for our city.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I will conclude by echoing my deep appreciation for all of the important work you have done for the city at a really critical period of time in our Um, history as a city in terms of, um, helping us to shepherd through strong neighborhood planning with a strong commitment to racial equity and, uh, and, you know, doing that during unprecedented growth is. is a very challenging task to do, but you rose to the occasion and you did it with integrity, with great respect, with a lot of intellect, and with just a deep understanding of what it means to create place and to help us build a city that people from all walks of life can live in.

And I have so deeply appreciated Your contributions to the city and really just appreciate you as just a as a as a human in our in our city family and I know you and I have had a lot of opportunities to talk about sort of your family and your background and your special connection to the city of Seattle and the community here, particularly the immigrant refugee community.

And you will be sorely missed, but I know you will never be that far away.

So we are so grateful to have had you for as long as we did and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

So with that being said, I am now going to ask if there is any objection to the Council rules being suspended to allow Director Sam Assefa to accept the proclamation and provide remarks.

Hearing no objection, the Council rules are now suspended.

And Director Assefa, again, welcome to the City Council meeting.

I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to provide some remarks to the City Council and the members of the viewing public as you accept this proclamation on our behalf.

Well, I don't have enough tissues around, so I'm going to try to stay dry.

But this is a great surprise.

Council President Gonzalez, Council Member Strauss, thank you very much.

This means a lot, especially from the city.

I am incredibly honored to actually have Being part of the City Org for the last five years is an enviable position, as hard as the work is and as challenging time as we have gone through.

Seattle is one of the most incredible cities around the issues that you all care about, about land use, equity.

It has been a leader in a very short time around the country.

And to be part of that has been one of the greatest honor of my professional career.

I accept a lot of the accolade around my accomplishments, but know clearly that it was an incredible staff that we built over the last few years that actually has done the work and ideas.

A lot of the praise that we get for EDI, most of you in this room have been working on that for years.

And the community groups that have actually put our feet to the fire is the reason why that program has succeeded, that the team has done an incredible work around some of the most difficult times whether it's the mandatory housing affordability, the contentious issue going through the pandemic last year, and then having built an incredible program with an office of planning and community development is literally took a village to do that.

I'm also very grateful of Seattle and the two mayors who appointed me and previously and my current boss, to actually give me that opportunity.

Seattle, you know, I compared notes with many of my peers around the country, 35 planning directors.

Seattle has been looked at especially over the last few years on equity issues, on climate issues, and in planning issues because of the work all of you have done here.

Planning is a contact sport and where it is most contentious is where people really care about their place.

So Seattle is one of those places as well.

It's because people care about it.

so much that it becomes such a hard job to do for all of you in this room as well.

If you didn't care about a place, it would be the easiest job for any planner anywhere.

So for that reason, I think the city would still continue to be an example for the rest of the country.

And I'm so grateful that I've had small parts to play in that.

And I thank you.

All of you and Councilmember Herbold, Morales, Councilmember Mosqueda, and Councilmember Juarez, we worked a lot closely together on a number of issues, and most of it is really what I learned from what the city has in terms of its strengths and its community.

I just became kind of a channel.

for that.

And I have learned a lot from here, and I would apply it in my next chapter as well.

But I want to thank you, and I'm just completely surprised by this.

And as I promised, I'll get even with Council Member Strauss for doing this.

But thank you very much, and I really appreciate the recognition.

It means a lot coming from the City of Seattle and from this leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Director Asafa.

Everybody's everybody's clapping in the background.

So we are so appreciative of again of your service and Thank you for your friendship and for your counsel and for your public service to the people of the city.

It's hard to get jazzed up about things like construction codes and development guidelines, but you do it in a way that's really accessible and that really sort of explains to folks why it's so important.

And so really, really deeply appreciative of all you have done for us.

So thank you so much.

All right, colleagues, we're going to move along here next.

Colleagues, as you know, this morning, Council Member Juarez had us sign a second proclamation to honor Chief Librarian Marcellus Turner.

Unfortunately, MT had a scheduling conflict.

So my office is going to work with Councilmember Juarez to reschedule this presentation.

So the proclamation will still be presented.

We're just going to focus on finding an alternative time when MT can be available.

So thanks for signing on this morning, and apologies that we're not going to be able to do it today.

Anything else you'd like to add, Councilmember Juarez?

Nope.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so let's keep going here.

Approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the city council meeting of March 22nd, 2021 have been reviewed.

If there is no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes?

If there is no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

All right, we're gonna move into public comment now.

Colleagues, at this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction and referral calendar, and the council's work program.

I thank everyone for their ongoing patience and cooperation as we continue to operate this remote public comment system.

It remains the strong intent of the city council to have remote public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.

Hold on just a minute.

However, as a reminder, the city council reserves a right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point.

If we deem that the system is being abused, or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and effectively.

I'll moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Colleagues, the public comment period for this meeting was originally scheduled to be 20 minutes, with each speaker being provided two minutes to speak.

However, in reviewing the public comment sign-up sheet, I am noticing that we are up to approximately 52 individuals who are preregistered to speak, so I'd like to go ahead and extend the public comment period to last up to 60 minutes with each person being provided one minute to speak.

That should give us an opportunity to get through everyone today.

So for those of you who called in today, please begin.

Pairing down your comments to one minute instead of two minutes.

I do apologize for that, but we want to make sure that we have an opportunity to hear from all of those who signed up to speak and your cooperation on that front will help us achieve that.

I'll call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be your cue as the speaker to press star six before you begin speaking.

Please begin by stating your name, the item that you are addressing, and the item that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda, the introduction referral calendar, or the council's work program.

Speakers are going to hear a chime around 10 seconds, and that means that you have 10 seconds left of the allotted time of your one minute.

So again, you're going to hear a chime.

when you have about 10 seconds left of your allotted time.

And at that point, we'd ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If you don't end your comments by the end of the one minute, your microphone is gonna be muted so we can call on the next person.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, you can do so on Seattle Channel or any one of the listening options listed on the agenda.

Colleagues, public comment period is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

Again, when I call your name, you're going to hear you have been unmuted and then you have to press star six in order for us to be able to hear you.

The first two speakers are Kate Rubin followed by Beatrice Lacombe.

Kate, welcome.

Hello.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm a renter in District 2 and I'm the Executive Director of B Seattle.

I'm calling in support of Council Member Sawant's right to council bill without burdens and proof of income requirements.

There is a massive power imbalance between renters and landlords.

90 percent of landlords have legal representation in addiction court compared to only 10 percent of renters.

Before the pandemic even began 47 percent of Dale tenants were rent burdened spending more than a third of our income on rent.

Due to Seattle's racist housing history low income Black and Indigenous people of color are more likely to be renters and they're the first to be displaced.

Being forced to prove economic hardship will make it even more challenging for renters to access this service.

Without adequate representation how will they defend themselves.

Many tenants already self-evict because they feel like it's their only option.

Giving people facing eviction fair representation and support will ultimately help to keep them housed and save lives.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Beatrice Lacombe followed by Jacob Shear.

My name is Bia and I'm a renter in Capitol Hill.

I strongly support Council Member Sawant's universal right to council legislation and I'm against any means testing or loopholes.

Overwhelming evidence shows us that any means testing, no matter how minimal, discourages ordinary people who desperately need social services from using them.

Today, this council has the opportunity to oppose any means testing amendments and set a truly progressive precedent for cities everywhere.

Ordinary people, working people, we deserve universal social programs.

We make the city run day after day.

So the universal right to legal representation when we're faced with eviction is not a big thing to ask of a city that's home to the richest man in the world.

I want to thank Council Member Sawant and the many organizations that have joined us to build a fighting movement for renters' rights.

Building movements is how we won the Amazon tax and the $15 minimum wage, and it's how we'll keep winning the things working people need.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Jacob Shearer, followed by Peggy Hodes.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jacob Shearer.

I'm an advocacy organizer for Real Change and I'm a renter in District 4. fund in support of Councilmember Sawant's right to legal counsel legislation in the form that it was intended, without restrictions or loopholes that landlords can exploit or that prevent people facing eviction from getting immediate help.

It's been really disappointing to see Councilmembers delay this legislation when renters need this protection so crucially, and it's also disappointing to see a progressive City Council add amendments to this legislation which are based in harmful right-wing, anti-welfare, and anti-poor talking points.

How is floating the idea that someone making $100,000 a year would stop paying rent in order to take advantage of legal eviction defense any different from Reagan-era welfare queen discourse?

This rhetoric is not only harmful and toxic, but when it becomes the basis for amendments to this legislation, we will end up with a bill that is rooted in distrust of poor people, a bill that makes it arduous and inaccessible to receive desperately needed eviction protection.

Please reject anti-poor right-wing talking points and pass right-to-counsel without restrictions, mean-testing, or repulse.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Peggy Hodes, followed by Howard Gale.

Peggy, welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Peggy Hodes, and I'm a Nicholsville founder and volunteer.

I'm speaking today in favor of council members to want right to counsel for all legislation.

Studies have shown that those being evicted who have legal representation have a much better chance of remaining housed.

The way to level the uneven playing field favoring landlords is to make sure that all tenants have legal counsel by passing this bill and passing it without means testing.

No one under the duress of fighting an eviction should be humiliated by having to declare their indigent.

Evictions lead to homelessness.

Nicholsville has a long waiting list of people who want to move into one of its self-managed tiny house villages.

In fact, we've had to turn away people for nearly all our 12 years of operation.

Sometimes desperate people have even tried to scale our fence to get inside.

You can help prevent heartbreaking situations like that one by giving everyone facing eviction the right to an attorney without requiring means testing of any kind.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Howard Gale, followed by Daniel Kavanaugh.

Howard, welcome.

Good afternoon.

Howard Gale, District 7, commenting on continuing police abuse and failed accountability.

Ten months after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and with four people killed by the SPD during just this last year, the City Council has consistently failed to deliver on police accountability.

Last Thursday, we learned that the OPA has cleared the SPD of any wrongdoing in last year's killing of Sean Furr.

Not surprising, given that the OPA has either ignored or cleared the SPD in 26 of the last 29 killings since John T. Williams.

We fully expect the OPA to do the same in the remaining three cases.

In fact, in all of these cases, all the oversight bodies, OPA, CPC, OIG, have failed to even suggest changes in policies.

As we approach the one-year mark post-George Floyd, it is clear that the council will not deliver on its promise of 50% or any significant level of defunding, nor on its promise to limit the weapons used by SBD to abuse us.

Does Seattle not at least deserve what is 100% achievable by you?

Full civilian control, police oversight, moving beyond police investigating police.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Daniel Cavanaugh, followed by Omsi Jeffs.

Hey, I'm Dan.

I'm a renter in the CD and a member of Socialist Alternative, and I'm here to support the right to counsel bill and speak against the means testing loophole.

And it's because I have neighbors and friends who have faced eviction, and it's one of the most stressful things they've ever had to deal with.

So the issue is that any means testing requirements, even so-called minimal ones, create obstacles for people who are already in a bad situation, hoops for them to jump through.

And the idea that means testing is needed to prevent wealthy people from getting public defense is absurd on its face.

Almost all evictions happen because of inability to pay rent.

So getting an eviction notice on your door is itself a mean testing event.

So this loophole would only make the process more difficult for renters to get help.

So council members should listen to working people who need you to pass the strongest possible bill, not listen to corporate lobbyists who want the bill weakened.

And lastly, I want to thank our movement for making this bill possible.

We exposed the city council's intention to weaken the legislation and scared them off.

from introducing worse loopholes.

So this bill is a real victory for them.

Next up is Amzie Jeffs, followed by Jessica Scalzo.

My name is Amzie Jeffs.

I'm a member of Socialist Alternative, and I'm a head steward with UAW 4121, the union of 6,000 academic workers and postdocs at UW.

Our union is proud to have signed onto the petition calling on city council to pass council member Sawant's legislation without any loopholes or means testing.

Our union's housing justice work group has been one of our strongest and most active work groups, not least because members in our union face unrelenting difficulty with housing in Seattle, whether it's the sheer cost of rent or threats and intimidation from their landlords.

We recently helped organize a housing justice conference with other unions up and down the West Coast because we know that this struggle will require us to get organized on the largest scale possible.

And as part of that struggle for housing justice, we need to make 100% sure that every single tenant facing eviction gets the right to a lawyer.

We all have a stake in stopping evictions, the vast majority of which lead to homelessness.

And we know that any means testing or loopholes, no matter how small or what they're called, is only going to humiliate and discourage tenants and embolden corporate landlords.

Once again, we call on City Council to pass Shama's legislation without watering it down.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Jessica Scalzo, followed by Grayson Van Arsdale.

Hi, my name is Jessica Scalzo.

I am a renter in District 3 and I work in District 2 at a shelter for victims of sex trafficking called REST.

And I am calling today in full support of passing a right to counsel without any loopholes like means testing.

Many clients and guests that stay at our shelter have suffered evictions, And when they're coming to our shelter, they're already walking in with a lot of trauma, other financial issues, and other legal issues.

And so any type of means testing to stay in their home is going to cause an added barrier to them staying in their home.

Even if it's something as simple as just having to state your means, our clients are already experiencing a lot of stigma from being in the sex trade, experiencing sexual assault, or experiencing domestic violence.

And this will add to the stigma.

again create another barrier.

So I ask you to please pass the legislation as it is and keep more people in their homes.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Grayson followed by Hannah Sabuda.

Go ahead Grayson.

Can people hear me?

Okay.

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

I'm Grayson.

I'm a renter in D3 and I urge city council to pass renter's right to council with No means testing or loopholes which includes the amendment I've heard will be brought forward to include an admission of poverty to access right of counsel.

I think Councilmember Salwant is absolutely right when she says that even the seemingly small requirement will turn off the people who need it most from accessing the service and this amendment should be withdrawn.

Right to Council will change the lives of thousands of people in Seattle who will be fighting evictions this year against corporate landlords who are willing to employ extremely dirty tactics to gentrify the city and build profitable housing that only a tiny fraction of people can afford.

It's fantastic that the hard work of renters, tenants' rights activists, and working people alongside Council Member Sawant's office has gotten Right to Council to this point against the wishes of corporate landlords and the democratic establishment.

But I still want to call on Council President Gonzalez directly to not introduce the means testing amendment and pass right to council with no loopholes or barriers to access.

Thanks.

Next up is Hannah, followed by Jordan Quinn.

Hannah, welcome.

Hi, my name is Hannah and I'm a renter in District 3. I'm calling in today as many others have before me to express support for universal tenant rights at council with no means testing whatsoever.

Our movement spoke to City Council about this two weeks ago.

In only a week's time, we collected 468 signatures from Seattle residents for our petition that's demanding a strong, loophole-free right to council bill.

And our movement is here again today to tell you that we need universal right to council now with no loopholes.

The strength of this legislation thus far is thanks to the work of our movement, led by renter activists, Socialist Alternative, Real Change, Be Seattle, and the Tenants' Union.

but Democratic Council members have indicated that they're considering whittling the bill down.

City Council has the opportunity to set a precedent, and it can be either progressive or regressive.

Let's pass the strongest possible legislation.

Any weakening of the legislation now just opens the door for further watering down later on, as loopholes always do.

All tenants facing eviction should receive legal aid with no loopholes.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Jordan Quinn, followed by Kaylin Nicholson.

Jordan, welcome.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

Great.

I'm Jordan Quinn.

I'm a renter in District 2. I'd like to thank Councilmember Salwant for introducing and fighting for the universal right to council legislation.

Also, thanks to the People's Budget Movement and activists who have been a part of it for winning funds for eviction defense attorneys three years in a row that helped set the stage for this bill today.

And also to all the activists like NBC Seattle and Socialist Alternative and the many other organizations that have built a fighting movement for renters' rights.

It's because of this organized movement pressure that we could see this legislation passed today.

And it's only movement pressure that can prevent or minimize pro-corporate loopholes like means testing, which I urge council Democrats not to introduce today.

Like other speakers have noted, means testing only helps the big landlords in the corporate real estate lobby, like the Rental Housing Association of Washington, who knows how the system works.

They can already afford lawyers to represent them.

This will not mean.

Thanks for calling in today.

Next up is Kaylin Nicholson, followed by Ariana Laurie Laurie Anno.

Kaylin, welcome.

Hi, thanks.

My name's Kayla Nicholson.

I'm a renter in District 5. First, I just want to thank Councilmember Sawant and all the organizations who helped turn people out for public comment and get signatures on the petition calling on the Council to pass the Right to Council legislation from Councilmember Sawant with no loopholes, no means testing.

I think, you know, It's, you know, there's been a lot of different names used for means testing to sort of try to obscure what it is.

And in the previous council discussion on this bill, they, you know.

phrases like eligibility and stuff were used.

And of course, as other commenters have mentioned, these right-wing arguments saying that eligibility requirements or means testing is just to protect taxpayer money from being taken advantage of by rich people.

But these are, of course, the same right-wing arguments that have been used to try to attack public programs for decades.

And even having a non-onerous means testing is just a loophole that landlords can exploit later on to make the program,

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ariana, followed by Tara Miller.

Ariana?

My name is Ariana Laureano.

I'm speaking today in favor of a universal right to counsel program.

I'm an autistic American, the very sort of American your means testing works against.

You've delayed this bill by weeks in order to work on writing exclusions into this bill.

During this delay, one household per day has lost their home while you worked on creating barriers for people like myself.

I find it ridiculous that this body of self-described progressive Democrats continues to push for codified discrimination in public programs, something that has been shown over the past 40 years to undermine people's access to a program.

As an American with autism, I personally struggle to jump through the hoops you folks create to access programs.

San Francisco has shown that these barriers are unnecessary.

Evictions have always been a matter of life and death, and Americans with disabilities are often the victims of evictions.

Please pass the right to counsel without codified discrimination.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Tara, followed by Alicia Lewis.

Tara, welcome.

Hi, this is Tara Miller from Faith Action Network, and I'm a renter in District 1. I'm calling in support of renters' right to counsel with no means testing or other loopholes, which Faith Action Network signed on to as part of the Stay Housed, Stay Healthy coalition.

Some of the council members voiced concerns two weeks ago that means testing would ensure that wealthy people aren't abusing a service paid for by the city.

And while that sounds like a good argument, if you use this approach, you'll miss the more important question of who will miss out on the opportunity because of means testing.

The vast majority of people who face eviction are not wealthy enough to support themselves in the legal battle.

A lot of those people end up facing homelessness.

Even if you're offering free counsel, when you insert extra steps in the process, people who are already struggling to survive will fall through the cracks.

If you're facing eviction, you're focused on finding money, taking care of your family, and scrambling to put a roof over your head for the next week.

You may not be able to quickly produce proof of income, and this vital service will end up being underutilized.

It'll keep out the people it's meant to serve.

Please pass this important bill today with no means testing or other loopholes so we can continue strengthening renter protections and prevent homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in next up is Alicia Lewis, followed by Blythe Serrano.

Hi, my name's Alicia.

I'm a renter in district 3, and I'm also part of a coalition of socialists, progressive unions and tenants groups.

including Seattle, real change, UAW 4121, socialist alternative, and the book workers union, which have all sponsored a petition to the city council demanding that you pass council members to want right to council legislation with no means testing, no exclusion, and no more delays.

Our movement's been out over the last week, collecting signatures from ordinary people on street corners, in front of grocery stores, and from union members at a solidarity rally supporting unionizing best Amazon workers.

In that short amount of time, 468 people signed down, with 289 signatures collected over the last weekend alone.

Busy working people who were ready to pass us by turned on the heels when they heard us ask if we wanted to stop unjust eviction.

Clearly, there's widespread support for strengthening renters' rights.

The question is whether you're prepared to stand on the side of our movement, or if you're going to...

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Blythe, followed by Addie Smith.

Hi, my name is Blythe.

I'm a renter in Mount Baker, and I'm calling to express my support for council members who want right-to-council legislation with no means testing or loopholes.

People facing eviction are already a means-tested group.

If someone has enough money to pay rent, they're not going to just suddenly stop paying rent just because the city would provide them with a lawyer.

Means-testing would only serve to hurt the people who actually need right to counsel, who are disproportionately black renters, women renters, and parents and children.

These people should not have to go through the humiliating process of essentially proving that they're poor in order to access an attorney.

Means testing has historically been used by both Republicans and Democrats to divide and conquer working people and set these programs up to be gutted or dismantled in the future.

Welfare is a perfect example of this.

As self-described progressives, you have the opportunity to establish a progressive precedent by rejecting means testing in all its forms.

I urge you all to vote to pass this legislation in its original form with no means testing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Addie Smith followed by Margo Stewart.

Addie, welcome.

Hello, my name is Addie Smith.

The council members, Governor Inslee and all the House and Senate members of the majority Democrat Congress know that an extension of the eviction moratorium through the end of 2021 is in the best interest of public health and safety in the midst of COVID.

Thousands of people in this state have not been vaccinated and thousands more have no intentions of being vaccinated.

With the executive order signed by Governor Inslee, sending children back to school homeless at the end of June is going to make attendance extremely difficult, if not impossible, which means Washington State will have another surge in the coronavirus.

Having legal representation is one thing, but getting rid of bad judges who support corporate landlords is another.

Judges like Kathy Schaffer and Julie Spector and others will evict families because they support corporate landlords.

Corporate landlords can't afford this moratorium through the end of 2021. They paid millions of dollars to lobbyists to go to Congress to speak on their behalf.

Finally, Mercer Island police are refusing to write police reports for hate crimes being committed by white people towards black people on the island.

Governor Inslee must investigate.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Margo Stewart, followed by Charlotte Thistle.

Margo, welcome.

Hi, my name is Margo.

I'm a renter in the Central District, and I'm also calling in favor of Councilmember Sawant's legislation for right to legal counsel for all renters facing eviction.

I think if this passes today, it's going to be a real victory for tenants' rights here in Seattle and a strong example of the effectiveness of organizing directly among tenants and ordinary people.

So I do want to thank Councilmember Sawant, the People's Budget Movement, and all the other activists and organizations who helped fight for this.

I want to agree with other speakers who've spoken to oppose any means testing amendments.

You know, the truth is people who can afford not to get evicted don't get evicted.

And both in terms of legal process and life impact, eviction is already incredibly difficult and demanding.

And so it's demeaning and stigmatizing to ask people to have to swear or prove that they are really poor.

But I do think that if council members and especially those who describe themselves as progressive are genuinely concerned about the rich taking advantage of city resources, then it's incredibly important that you redouble your efforts to defend and expand the Amazon tax to ensure that big business and the most rich in our city are paying their fair share.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Charlotte Thistle, followed by Morgan Bartlett.

Go ahead, Charlotte.

And Charlotte, if you're with us, you just need to press star six so we can hear you.

IT, can you confirm if Charlotte is still with us?

The caller is still there.

Okay, Charlotte, if you can hit star six, that'll unmute you.

Okay, let's come back to Charlotte.

Let's go to Morgan Bartlett, and then Emily MacArthur, and then we will try Charlotte again.

Morgan, welcome.

Can you all hear me?

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

My name is Morgan Bartlett.

I'm a resident of District 4. I'm here today in full support of the tenant right to counsel with no means testing as championed by council members to want.

I work full time with youth experiencing houselessness.

I help with job hunts, accessing counseling and applying for assistance programs.

The quickest way to deny my clients the assistance they need is by introducing means testing.

I've seen people walk away after being told that another document that they don't have is required.

Paperwork takes weeks to receive, and each week brings with it the possibility my clients are injured, re-traumatized, or simply lose hope.

And the only difference between my clients and the tenants this bill would protect is that one is housed and one is not.

Means testing will have the same effect it always does, denying people the resources they need to survive.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Charlotte Thistle.

I'm sorry, Emily MacArthur, unless we have Charlotte with us.

Hello.

Hi, is this Charlotte or Emily?

Emily.

Emily, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Emily MacArthur.

I'm a resident of District 2 and a renter.

20 million renters across the country are behind on rent.

Some estimates put it at one in five renters.

The eviction tsunami, as it's been termed by even mainstream media, is coming.

And this right-to-council legislation, which Councilmember Sawant has introduced, is a key blockade in which we can help prevent these evictions from happening.

I support Councilmember Sawant's universal right to council with no loopholes.

I also heard in the briefing this morning that Councilmember Peterson, who, if folks will remember, voted against this legislation in committee, also voted to delay it, which, as people have already underscored, means that people were being evicted and becoming homeless in that period of delay, is going to introduce an amendment that says it's about funding if there's a subject to appropriation.

This is absolutely ridiculous and we should reject this.

I appeal to all council members to stand against this absurd amendment, which in effect will mean that there will be no right to counsel for anyone if it's subject to appropriation.

Thank you so much.

Okay, let's try Charlotte Thistle again.

Charlotte, if you're with us, press star six so we can hear you.

Okay, it seems like we're still having some technical difficulties getting Charlotte on the line.

So let's go ahead and hear from Shirley Henderson and then Dan McCraw.

Shirley, welcome.

Sure.

Yep, there we go.

Now we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Awesome.

I am a small business owner in the central district and I'm calling in like so many before me in support of Council Member Sawant's right to counsel without loopholes like means testing.

As a small business owner myself, I'm constantly trying to educate folks that it's not workers' rights that make maintaining a small business difficult.

It's the fact that the capitalist system is made for multimillionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations.

Similarly, any struggling mom-and-pop landlords are not struggling because renters are abusing them by willfully refusing to pay rent.

That is a horrible anti-poor myth.

Research has shown that large corporate landlords are the ones doing the vast majority of evicting and that the reason more apartments are owned by corporate landlords is not because mom-and-pops landlords are getting wiped out by rights policies.

It's the same reason big corporations thrive under capitalism.

City Council needs to pass council members' common legislation without with no delays as well.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Dan McCraw.

Hi there.

Hello, council members and fellow supporters of this critically needed right to council legislation.

My name is Dan McCron as a member of a local grassroots homeless organization, share.

Every day we see the consequences of a system where people fall through systemically constructed cracks and end up homeless, needlessly and inhumanely.

We know tens of thousands of our city's renters, your and my neighbors are desperate to pay rent and the accumulated debt from the last year isn't making this any easier.

When we hear that 90% of evictions have led to homelessness and that the black community and women are disproportionately targeted, especially by corporate landlords, we should ask ourselves what we're going to support.

The status quo, a real change.

The tenant's right to counsel is really a basic American right to representation and an extremely important and consequential judicial setting.

When we hear that evictions have been directly linked with increased COVID transmission and death rates, we must recognize that people need to stay housed if we are all to stay healthy.

The council needs to pass this and the mayor must extend the eviction moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Mindy Lee, followed by Eva Metz.

Mindy, welcome.

Hi, thanks.

Yeah, I am a member of Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, and also for the Martin Luther King County Council.

And the people that are testifying today are really smart, and I hope that the council will listen to them, because this means testing is mean.

What you're doing is you're telling people that actually have some money But they have to decide what they want to do with it.

You want to spend your savings account to represent yourself, to defend something that somebody has said you did, that they're saying you are guilty of?

We're not supposed to be that way.

You're supposed to be innocent until somebody else can prove you are guilty.

Don't require people to spend their hard-earned money to defend themselves, which they may end up losing.

And it'll be hard for them to even re-rent again.

And we're going to see more tents out here in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Ava Metz, followed by Star Wiley.

Ava.

Hi, my name is Ava.

I'm a renter in District 2 and I'm here speaking in support of Council Member Swant's right to council legislation in its current form with no loopholes or means testing.

With this vote today, council members have an opportunity to take a clear stand against means testing, which both Republicans and Democrats have pushed for decades because it allows them to divide and conquer working people and to gut and dismantle public programs in the future.

So a secret amendment to make this legislation subject to appropriation as it seems that Council Member Peterson might be planning to introduce would be completely unacceptable.

This is nothing but an excuse to not make right to counsel an actual right.

How dare council members try to strip renters of the right to an attorney in a secret amendment.

This legislation would be an important step towards protecting renters and strengthening renters' power.

That's why corporate landlords oppose it.

And a loophole like this would be a slap in the face to all of those who have fought for a universal right to council legislation.

Next up is Star Wiley and then we will try Charlotte Thistle again.

Star.

Hello my name is Star Wiley.

I'm a renter in District 7 and a member of Socialist Alternative.

I urge you to pass Council Member Sawant's right to counsel legislation today as it is with no amendment.

Means testing only limits access for people who would already be eligible.

Thank you Council Member Sawant for putting forth this legislation.

Many renters in Seattle struggle to pay rent even before a loss of hours due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Workers in Seattle struggling to pay rent have no way to defend themselves against corporate landlords if they are served an eviction notice.

90 percent of people in Seattle become houseless after being evicted.

I know you work hard to address the crisis of houseless people here in Seattle and this legislation can help prevent people from getting to that point.

65 percent of people that have legal representation are able to stay in their home.

Studies have shown landlords are less likely to serve eviction papers when they know their tenant has legal representation.

I think that really speaks to how corporate landlords take advantage of a system that is skewed in their favor.

Please level the playing field for us and give us the right legal counsel with no

Thank you for calling in today, Charlotte Thistle.

Let's try one more time here.

Charlotte, are you there?

Just remember to press star six.

We are still having some issues with Charlotte, so we're going to go ahead and move on to Barbara Finney, followed by Madeline Olson.

Barbara, welcome.

Hi, I'm Barbara Finney, a resident of District 5, where the majority of people are renters.

I speak in favor of the right to counsel for all without any means.

Testing is sponsored and championed by council members who want her office and a broad coalition of local groups and unions.

In a letter to the Seattle City Council members from the Washington ACLU, I quote, securing tenants' rights to counsel is key to fighting the looming cliff amidst the ballooning crisis.

We urge the Seattle City Council to take immediate action to protect vulnerable tenants across the city by creating a truly universal, without exception, right to counsel to all tenants facing eviction in Seattle, end of quote.

The Seattle City Council must pass the right to counsel without burdensome and humiliating proof of income requirements.

No loopholes, no means testing.

We need a universal, without exception, right to counsel to all tenants facing eviction in our city to limit displacement, fight eviction.

Thanks for calling in today.

Next up is Madeline Olson followed by Julia Cobelt.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you go ahead.

Hi, I'm Madeline.

I'm a renter in Green Lake.

I just want to voice my full support for right to counsel for tenants facing eviction.

We need this legislation, but just like health care, this needs to be universal if it's actually going to serve the people most in need.

People facing eviction clearly are unable to afford an attorney.

They wouldn't be in this position of being evicted if they could.

Adding means testing is going to prevent those who need it most from receiving aid.

I also heard that there's a secret amendment out there on the table.

It's an excuse to make right to counsel not actually right because it's subject to appropriation.

This is absolutely shameful to strip this literally life-saving protection with a sneaky amendment.

It's going to cost a fraction of what the city spends on the police budget to provide counsel, and actually has the potential to save the city millions of dollars through people not being displaced.

You know, it's been through the strength of the movement that Massachusetts, Tenants Union, Socialist Alternative, Be Seattle, and a bunch of other people, I know a lot of people on the call have been from these groups, that we have this on the table.

I just want to thank everyone for being out here and being on the call.

Thanks for calling in today.

Next up is Julia Kobelt, followed by Alvin Morigori.

Julia, welcome.

Hi, my name is Julia.

I'm a renter in District 6. I'm calling today to support the right-to-council legislation and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or undermine the legislation, such as means testing.

Seattle renters deserve the basic protections of a universal right-to-council program, which means that it's available and accessible to everyone, regardless of income status.

Studies show that means testing does not help renters and working people.

It does not make the program more efficient.

and even the least invasive means testing only adds unnecessary obstacles and only helps big corporate landlords who would love to see this legislation weakened.

And the actions of the city council today will reveal whose side council members are really on.

And as workers and renters, our best weapon against these betrayals is to get organized and fight back.

The renters' rights movement is responsible for putting a spotlight on this attempt to weaken the right to counsel legislation and for putting immense pressure on the council to pass the full legislation as proposed by council member Sawant.

Today, we're demanding that you pass the right to counsel bill as is.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Alvin, followed by Matthew Wilder.

Alvin, welcome.

My name is Alvin and I'm a renter in District 2. I would like to strongly urge the City Council to pass the Right to Council legislation with no means testing and no loopholes and to pass it as it stands now, the strongest version of the bill.

There's tons of data from cities like San Francisco which have passed such legislation showing that Right to Council keeps renters in their homes and off the streets, prevents predatory landlords from kicking out tenants on flimsy cases, and can save municipalities money in court-related costs.

In San Francisco, where the right to counsel is universal, 85% of those receiving counsel are already of low and extremely low income.

People who are served eviction notices are already poor or struggling, and those with means and resources to pay their rent are not going to be served notices for failure to pay.

Placing limits on those who receive counsel will only place a barrier on the people who need it the most.

Already one year after the legislation is passed in San Francisco, there's a 10% decrease in eviction filings showing that landlords are less likely to file eviction proceedings if they know their tenants are represented.

80% of African-Americans have been able to remain in their homes, and 60% of those who have...

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Matthew Wilder, followed by Matthew Smith.

Hi, my name is Matt.

I'm a renter in District 3. I'm calling in support of Council Member Sawant's Rights of Council.

legislation without any amendments, no verification of indigent status, and no subject to appropriation, which I think the subject to appropriation also makes it not a serious right to counsel.

I think we need to make the right to counsel universal.

Any kind of subjection to appropriation opens us up to star funding while pretending to protect renters.

I think Instead of city officials congratulating themselves and their so-called city family, and I suspect that city family doesn't extend far, we need to protect full right to council for all tenants.

And instead of talking about our city family, the question is, which side do you stand on?

Improvements or big landlords?

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Matthew Smith followed by Evan Whiter-Sam.

Matthew, welcome.

Matthew Smith, if you're with us, remember to hit star six.

Oh, can you hear me now?

We can.

Thank you.

My name is Matt Smith.

I'm a renter from District 2. I'm speaking in favor of Council Member Sawant's right to council legislation.

There's been overwhelming support for this legislation without any means testing or other loopholes.

I echo calls from other people for any council members planning to offer amendments to withdraw those amendments and pass the original bill as it was written.

That also goes for this new surprise amendment from Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson voted against this legislation in committee.

I think everyone should see this for what it is, which is a transparent attempt to gut this legislation.

There were a lot of nice words at the beginning of the call about equity.

That's happening at the same time that we have record homelessness in Seattle and a looming threat of mass eviction.

We need a real action for renters.

So if you want to offer more than nice words, you'll listen to these organizations, listen to council member Sawant and the movement pass this legislation without means testing or any exclusion.

Congratulations to the movement for pushing it this far.

Thank you for calling in.

Next is Evan, followed by Michelle Lucas.

Evan, please.

Hello, my name is Evan Wiederspan in District 2, and I'm calling in to ask that you support Council Bill 120007 and provide free right to cancel for all renters with no means testing.

I am a Seattle homeowner who rents out a portion of my home to tenants, and I strongly support this bill.

Renters who face potential eviction are already in an extremely difficult financial position, and we cannot expect them to be able to gather the needed legal resources to defend themselves against landlords with far more resources.

I also oppose adding means testing to this bill.

It only served to add roadblocks for those who need the support the most.

People who can afford their own legal defense don't rely on public defenders.

They just get their own lawyer.

That's not even a situation.

Please pass the right to counsel without any means testing or loopholes.

Thank you.

Next up is Michelle Lucas, followed by Sarah Gonser.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Michelle Lucas, and I'm the Directing Attorney of the Tenet Law Center of Catholic Community Services.

I'm also a D3 resident and a renter, and I support the Rights of Council Bill, including Council President Gonzalez's Amendment No. 3. Legal services should be as barrier-free as possible, but they also need to be legally sound under our state's constitution and instituted in a manner that targets those most in need.

When we design policies that purport to include everyone, often the poorest, most impacted members of our community are still left behind.

When we carefully focus assistance on those most in need, everyone benefits from being part of a stronger, more resilient community.

Amendment number three is necessary to ensure that limited resources are focused on renters facing the most hardship.

It does this without creating additional barriers as organizations providing eviction defense already have to do some level of income screening.

The amendment creates a low threshold without burdensome requirements.

Amendment number three helps guarantee the right to counsel will withstand legal challenges so tenants can actually benefit from these protections.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Sarah Gonzer followed by Jake Laundrie.

Hi, my name's Sarah and I'm a renter in Cap Hill and I'm here in support of Council Member Sawant's right to council legislation without means testing loopholes or Council Member Peterson's secret amendment that would water this legislation down.

Studies done across the country have shown that the cost of providing legal aid is significantly less than what it costs to provide shelters, emergency health care, and other services associated with increased homelessness.

Making the right to counsel universal to all tenants facing eviction costs a fraction of what the city spends on the police budget and what it costs to provide homeless services.

Individuals facing eviction can rarely afford legal representation, whereas we know the big landlords evicting these tenants have no problem hiring the most expensive legal aid.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Jake Laundrie, followed by Gabriel Mahan.

Hi, I'm Jake Laundrie.

I'm a renter in D6, an activist for Teamsters 117 Drivers Union, an IATSE Local 15 member, as well as a volunteer who's organized with Share the City's Intensity Collective.

I'm speaking today in favor of the bill, recurrent right to council bill without any means testing.

We guarantee free lawyers to people facing the trauma of imprisonment.

And we know that 90 percent of evictions here result in the trauma of homelessness.

So this is really a moral question about how do we support people facing trauma?

Do cops means test people before reading them their Miranda rights?

No.

And means testing is shown to dissuade and put up barriers to the people who need it the most.

I've seen this firsthand, watching driver after driver decide not to apply for unemployment or other vital covid assistance that they're totally eligible for.

because they don't have the privilege or the time or the privilege of English as their first language to navigate more means testing paperwork.

And so many drivers turn down means testing aid because they have been influenced by these.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Gabriel Mayhem followed by Carol Forney.

Go ahead, Gabriel.

Just remember to press star six so we can hear you.

There we go.

Go ahead.

Gabriel, why don't you hit star six one more time?

We had you and then you went away.

Okay, did we lose Gabriel?

Can IT let me know if he's still with us?

The caller is there.

Okay.

So Gabriel, if you can hit star six, we did have you a minute ago.

One more time, star six.

Can y'all hear me?

Yep, now I can hear you.

Go ahead.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, my name is Gabriel and I'm a renter and tech worker living in District 3, and I'm calling in support of Councilmember Swann's call for the right of attendance to legal counsel.

It really goes without saying that the right to a lawyer is one of the most fundamental rights of the accused in a functioning democracy, and I am strongly opposed to watering down this right through loopholes.

Restrictions are mean testings and I'm especially opposed to making those rights subject to some sort of complicated budget appropriation.

Our democratic rights should not be conditional to arcane loopholes or budgetary minutia.

Council Member Peterson, is it true?

Are you really going to restrict the democratic right to legal representation at the last minute through a secret amendment?

The city has a moral obligation to ensure that citizens are not thrown out of their homes with just cause and the assertion that we need means testing To avoid abuse of this fundamental right just doesn't make sense.

I want to thank the Office of the Councilperson for the People's Budget Movement and all my neighbors who signed the petition and members of the coalition more generally for bringing this legislation to the table and ceaselessly advocating for working people.

Okay, I understand that we might actually have Charlotte Thistle on the line with us now.

So Charlotte, I'm going to see if we can have some success here.

Charlotte, if you're with us, hit star six.

Still not having any luck.

We'll try to come back to Charlotte again.

Can you hear me?

We can finally hear you.

There we go.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Thank you so much.

I'm a single mom and a homeowner.

I rent out rooms in my house.

My annual income is less than $25,000, including the rental income.

I have rented to people who make more than I do.

So I just want to know, if you're going to give free lawyers to tenants facing eviction, what about a homeowner who needs to evict a dangerous person or anyone from a room or an accessory dwelling unit on our property?

Will we get free lawyers too?

Because if we don't, that means the city is taking sides in a civil dispute, and I do not even see how that can be legal.

Would you provide free lawyers to fathers in a custody dispute, but not mothers?

or vice versa, this policy makes no more sense.

Vote no, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Charlotte.

And thanks for your patience as we work through those technology issues.

Appreciate you hanging in there.

Next up is Carol Forney, followed by Sonia Ponath.

Carol, please.

Hi, my name is Carol Forney, and I'm calling from the Wheel Shelter at Trinity.

And I believe that people under the threat of eviction have a right to an attorney.

Thank you.

Thanks for calling in, Carol.

Next up is Sonia, followed by Rao Talasila.

Go ahead, Sonia.

Sonia, if you're with us, just remember to hit star six so we can hear you.

Okay, it's finally worked.

Okay.

Hi, it's Sonia Ponaf.

I support Councilmember Swann's legislation.

I'm against any means testing, which is humiliating, heartless, and absolutely gratuitous.

It is really unfortunate that the Catholic Community Services lawyer is repeating talking points from the establishment, when even the Renner defense attorneys agree that any type of means testing is bad.

This program will be funded by public revenues.

And the reason corporate landlords are against this is because they intensely dislike any change in power that exists between ordinary workers and renters and the corporations.

And they are terrified when the balance of power shifts one iota in favor of working people.

Contrary to what we've heard from some small landlords, allowing a tenant a right to cancel will not be a direct cause of some of them selling their properties.

And they will have this provided for them.

People suffer many reasons.

The primary one is they cannot compete with the deep pockets of the corporate landlord.

Corporate landlords are not in the business of providing homes.

They're in the business of making money, and as a result, must exploit someone's housing need for greater profits.

Please pass this without...

Thank you for calling in.

Next up is Ralph, followed by Lisa Owen.

And Ra, if you're with us, just make sure you hit star six so we can hear you.

Okay, one more time, hit star six.

Okay, looks like we might be having some technology difficulties, so let's go to Lisa Owen, and then we'll try Ra one more time.

Lisa, please.

I'm sorry, Lisa had to leave.

Okay, so that sounds like Anitra.

Okay, so let's go to Anitra Freeman and then Katherine Dawson.

Okay, yes.

I'm Anita Freeman.

I'm speaking from the wheel shelter at Trinity.

We are women in black stand vigil whenever somebody homeless dies outside or by violence in King County.

We know that homeless people die at an average age of 48. And that eviction extremely raises the risk of homelessness.

So eviction is basically the threat of a death sentence.

Anybody under the threat of a death sentence has a right to counsel.

I do not understand this idea of means testing.

Honest.

Anybody with the means to hire a lawyer probably isn't at risk of rent.

and is going to hire their own lawyer anyway.

Don't spend more money on a process that is completely unnecessary.

Thank you.

Next up is Catherine Dawson.

Go ahead, Catherine.

Just press star six so we can hear you.

Oh, thanks.

Hi.

Yes.

My name is Catherine Dawson.

I'm a Seattle resident, and I'm calling to voice my support for the right to counsel legislation that's been put forward by council members to want.

It's important because it offers protection for people facing eviction without an additional barrier of means testing.

I do strongly oppose any amendment that would tie the right to counsel to budget appropriation.

I hope that Council Member Peterson does not water down these protections as a surprise amendment.

Any person facing eviction should have the right to an attorney without jumping through hoops.

We know corporate landlords exert disproportional power in Seattle and can always afford lawyers.

We also know that working people can be devastated by eviction and that that impact is not distributed equally, right?

People with marginalized identities, including people who are LGBTQ+, BIPOC, disabled, neurodiverse, mentally ill, more.

are more likely to face evictions and houselessness.

And so it's a social justice issue, like the person before me spoke to.

Eviction sets off a cascade of obstacles that make it more difficult to get stability.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, for continuing to fight for working people.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Let's try Rao one more time.

Rao, if you're with us, please press star six after you've heard the prompt.

You have been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Rao Talasella.

I'm a new resident in Seattle.

I'm a homeowner in District 6. So I do, I do agree that people who are actually deserving need some help.

But on the other hand, you also have to think about the small land and landlords also, right?

So you cannot be unfair to the other one.

So I'm kind of I'm not sure about saying yes or no.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Folks, I'm going to do one more sweep here of the sheet to see folks who are both registered and present.

I am not seeing any other folks who are both registered and present on my spreadsheet.

We're going to go ahead and close out public comment period and dig into other items of business on the agenda.

So next up is payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the title?

Council Bill 120-022, appropriate in mind to pay certain claims for the week of March 15th, 2021 through March 19th, 2021 and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you so much.

I moved to pass Council Bill 12022. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any additional comments?

Hearing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Straus.

Council Member Straus.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

I reported the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, Agenda 1, Council Bill 120-007, relating to residential evictions guaranteeing the right to legal counsel regardless of ability to pay for any residential renter in Seattle responding to an unlawful detainer suit, and adding a new section 22.206.195 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with Council Members Sawant, Morales, and Lewis in favor and Council Member Peterson opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Sawant, you are chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee's report.

Thank you.

Every eviction is an act of violence.

An act of violence against the renters who are traumatized, displaced, suddenly forced into daily survival mode.

Many evictions are a blow against children who are forced to move away from schools and friends, and against the adults who are forced away from community and social support systems.

Every eviction adds to our community's misery and suffering.

and it accelerates racist gentrification.

This bill would guarantee the right to counsel, that is a right to a lawyer, to any renter in Seattle facing eviction.

In other words, if your landlord attempts to evict you, you have the right to a lawyer being with you, defending you in court, just like people have the right to an attorney if they're accused of a crime.

This bill commits the city of Seattle to contract for all the legal representation needed so that eviction defense attorneys can defend every renter without exception facing eviction who needs the help.

Before the pandemic, about 1200 renters in Seattle faced eviction every year.

Even during the pandemic, with the moratorium in place, landlords have filed more than 300 eviction cases with the court as they are exploiting loopholes in the moratorium.

Many more tenants than can be officially measured, on top of that, are constantly evicted from their homes when landlords threaten to evict because tenants are understandably intimidated when they get an eviction notice because they know that the eviction system in Seattle is completely stacked against them.

And they just move out and undertake greater precariousness in housing in order to avoid the whole experience of going to court or not going to court and getting evicted.

This is especially true for Black community members who are given eviction notices at three times the rates for other tenants.

Without this right-to-counsel legislation, we can expect a tsunami of evictions once the city and state moratoriums expire, as renters will still be struggling under the double blows of the capitalist recession and the COVID health crisis and will be burdened with debt.

And this legislation will not be enough by itself.

We will need a lot more.

We know that eviction destroys communities, wrecks households, and even kills.

The 2018 report losing home, the human cost of eviction in Seattle found that 87.5%, nearly nine out of 10 renters who are evicted end up homeless.

In their study of 2017 evictions, the authors of the report, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association found that some tenants even died shortly after being evicted.

According to the eviction lab at Princeton University, despite the pandemic and the eviction moratoriums, landlords have filed 272,612 evictions since March last year in just the 27 cities that the eviction lab has been tracking.

Growing evidence, they say, shows that more and more evictions are not driven by so-called mom-and-pop landlords struggling to balance their personal checkbooks.

Since the CDC eviction moratoriums took effect last September, evictions by corporate landlords have actually been steadily increasing.

Research by the Private Equity Stakeholders Project, a research and advocacy organization, has tracked nearly 50,000 evictions by corporate landlords in select counties in six states since the beginning of September last year and found that corporate landlords are responsible for the majority and sometimes the overwhelming majority of evictions.

Seattle is no exception to this.

Major corporate landlords are the main evictors in our city.

The most evicting landlord in 2019 was Goodman Real Estate, a corporation with $2.5 billion, that is billion with a B, worth of property holdings in the US and Canada.

Other major evictors include regional giant Epic Asset Management and national landlord Kona Management Corporation.

The American Civil Liberties Union found that nationally, 90% of landlords are represented in eviction code, while only 10% of tenants are.

Can you imagine as a struggling tenant facing eviction, perhaps because you just lost your low-wage job, going up against the likes of attorneys from Goodman Real Estate?

Our Right to Council legislation will give these tenants at least a fighting chance in court when they have to go up against these greedy corporate landlords and their greedy lawyers.

And the impact from the Right to Council, as we have seen in cities around the country that have passed similar legislation, is absolutely astounding.

With a lawyer, far fewer people are evicted.

This is because unjust evictions are overturned in court, and it is because eviction defense attorneys can and do help connect people with social services when they are needed.

The Housing Justice Project in Seattle, for example, works closely with Homebase, which administers rental assistance funds so that they can help people pay their back rent and then present that to a judge to prevent the eviction.

Statistically, even for people who are ultimately evicted, having an attorney still improves the outcomes with renters saddled with less crushing debts.

All of this is not the end of the story.

It is also because when there is a universal right for renters to have a trained attorney with them in court, that gives corporate landlords pause from issuing eviction notices in the first place.

In New York, the rate of eviction filings dropped by a stunning 30% since their right to counsel legislation passed because landlords now know that they can no longer use the courts to bully renters who have no legal help.

They're going to go up against a trained attorney.

These are all the primary reasons to support the right to counsel because of the human impact of evictions on renters and the progressive outcome overall for our society by reducing housing instability and homelessness, not to mention the racial component of this, giving universal right to counsel is a Black Lives Matter issue.

But even through the narrow lens of the city's finances, the right to counsel is sensible.

The Housing Justice Project, for example, has estimated that guaranteeing the right to counsel will cost approximately $750,000 in a normal year.

And by a normal year, I mean a year without an eviction moratorium.

Compare that to the cost of the courts and the sheriff carrying out an eviction and the cost of homeless services because 9 out of 10 evicted people become homeless.

It is orders of magnitude more expensive not to pass universal right to counsel.

I appreciate the co-sponsorship of Council Members Lewis and Morales, and I urge all Council Members to support this legislation without watering it down with one loophole or another loophole.

It is essential to defend the rights of renters in Seattle by offering universal right to counsel for all renters who need legal assistance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Okay, so we are going to go ahead and consider several amendments.

My suggestion is that we debate and vote on each amendment before we make comments on the legislation as a whole.

If that's acceptable to folks, I'd like to go ahead and proceed in that manner.

And then, Councilor Solante, as sponsor of the bill, you will have the last word, as is required under the council rules.

You'll have the last word on the bill before we close out, or in closing out debate, you'll have the last word on the bill.

So just want to sort of say that out front, as is customary.

So let's go ahead and deal with the amendments, if that's OK with you, Councilor Solante.

Okay, I'm getting a head nod, so I'm going to go ahead and go.

First up, let's go ahead and do them in order of the number of amendments listed on the agenda.

So that means the first amendment is Amendment 1, which is being advanced by Councilmember Herbold.

So I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to make her motion for consideration and debate of Amendment 1. Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 12007 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Okay, it's been moved and thank you so much Council Member Juarez.

It's been moved and seconded.

To amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1, Council Member Herbold, you are recognized in order to address Amendment 1.

Thank you so much.

So this amendment would specify that an attorney organization that the Department of Constructions and Inspections would contract with, that that organization should have experience providing legal representation to tenants.

This amendment was suggested by an advocate who has deep experience working with tenants in the city of Seattle.

In this individual's experience, they wrote that there are many legal aid organizations that might just provide advice about notices.

Or, on the other hand, might only represent tenants in some very narrow circumstances.

This bill isn't a funding mechanism, but it is important, I think, that the council include in our intention that this bill for future funding that would support this policy be made available only to those organizations willing to represent tenants in a courtroom in the broad circumstances that this bill contemplates.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Any comments or questions on Amendment 1?

Council Member Silwant, please.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

This amendment provides clarifying language that is consistent with the intent of the legislation and I will be voting yes.

Great, thank you so much.

Any other comments or questions on Amendment 1?

Hearing no additional comments on Amendment 1, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council.

Council Member Herbold, I understand you are the sponsor of Amendment 2, so I'm going to hand it back over to you to make that motion and to solicit a second.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 12007 as presented on Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson for the second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 2. Council Member Herbold, back to you to describe the amendment.

Thank you so much.

This is an amendment regarding future reporting obligations and as described this morning in Council Briefings Meeting, the amendment would require that the organization with whom the city contracts will provide reporting on numbers of cases for representation that occurs outside of the initial appearance or show cause hearing.

Most cases, vast majority of cases, are resolved at the initial appearance or show cause hearing.

In fact, the last year for which we have data, in 2018, only 11 cases of a total of nearly 9,000 cases actually went to trial.

But we know that We had some really important and transformational statewide and local eviction law reforms.

And it's quite possible, given that those reforms inherently give tenants, and largely tenants who are subject to eviction for nonpayment of rent, give them a basis to oppose their eviction in court for the first time.

And so it's possible that there have been larger numbers of cases that are actually going to trial rather than being resolved in this initial show cause hearing.

And cases that go to trial are going to take more resources in order to continue the process.

the funding of this really important right to counsel policy.

And so this amendment would require that the providers providing the service include this information as a report, as required by the contract, and inform the council in the future about whether further legislative changes need to be made to address any issues that could be brought on by a future increase in the need for representation throughout the period of a longer trial.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 2?

Seeing and hearing no additional comments on Amendment 2, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2. Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and the bill has now includes amendment two as well.

So I'm going to go ahead and move now to amendment three, which is my amendment, which is my amendment.

I move to amend the council bill one, two, 0007 as presented on Amendment 3 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3. I will, as sponsor of the amendment, address it and then we will open the floor for additional comments and discussion of the amendment.

Colleagues, as I mentioned this morning during Council briefing, I was interested in pursuing a amendment that accomplished two things.

One, that made the bill legally defensible and a more workable bill that would actually bring to fruition the right to counsel to those tenants who need it the most.

And secondarily, I have a strong interest in supporting this policy and ensuring access to legal aid for those tenants who need it the most.

And so my office pursued this particular amendment, which accomplishes a few simple things.

So first of all, this bill adds a recital to acknowledge that the council's intent to minimize, that the council has an intent to minimize as many barriers as possible to accessing council for those who need it.

Second, Amendment 3 establishes that any tenant residing in Seattle has the right to legal counsel free of charge if the tenant meets a simple indigency standard.

This indigency standard is modeled on the same standard utilized in the Immigrant Legal Defense Fund, which was unanimously adopted by the City Council in 2016. The definition of indigency focuses on the inability to afford an attorney at any point during an unlawful detainer lawsuit.

Third, this amendment allows the contracted legal service providers to establish the process and manner by which to verify indigency.

This is a common practice that is similar to the steps taken by service providers in other circumstances, such as the self-certification process that was approved in the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Bill last year.

In that example, the tenant simply needs to sign a form at their appearance in eviction court that could be as simple as saying, I cannot afford an attorney and then signing that form and being therefore immediately eligible for receiving free legal aid.

So we are not talking about a process by which by which a tenant is going to have to present a mountain full of paperwork in order to prove that they're indigent.

It is as simple as the process that we currently have in place for the Legal Defense Fund, which is a self attestation or certification that you indeed cannot pay for your own attorney in this unlawful detainer action.

I believe this is very simple.

I believe that most individuals need the access to legal aid are going to be able to easily, simply, and in collaboration with legal service providers who have a strong interest in providing legal services to those individuals is going to be able to accomplish the council's underlying policy goals here of making sure that we have access to legal aid for those who need it the most.

So again, I believe that this language is is going to minimize legal risks of having this law survive a legal challenge, which, again, I believe is almost going to certainly happen, while also providing access to a right to counsel to those that need it.

This amendment, again, as a reminder, is modeled after the Immigrant Legal Defense Fund that the City Council unanimously passed in 2016. In that case, we also included an indigent standard And again, in the three years of existence, the Deportation Defense Fund has helped hundreds of immigrants and refugees fighting deportation proceedings while having no administrative burden or chilling effect on those seeking services as a result of the indigent standard and the self-certification process.

In that context, again, this was unanimously supported.

by the City Council at the time in the Legal Defense Fund.

So I would today ask for your support in voting in favor of Amendment 3. All right, we have some comments here.

So we're going to open up the floor.

First up is Council Member Herbold, followed by Council Member Morales.

Council Member Herbold.

You're not on mute, actually.

You're ready to go.

Can't win.

All right.

Well, thank you, Council President Gonzalez, for bringing forward this amendment to make this bill stronger.

This amendment is not an example of means testing.

Legal services providers can simply ask renters to sign a statement that they are eligible for this service, and after doing so, they are immediately entitled to representation.

There is no test.

for anyone to have to produce documents and wait for the test to be graded.

It is not means testing.

Means testing is a method for determining whether someone qualifies for financial assistance to obtain a service or good.

And it looks at the means or monetary resources that that individual has available to them to pay for a particular service or good.

Then it determines that the person's access to financial assistance is based on their ability to pay for it.

Again, this amendment does not require means testing.

This amendment will make the right stronger for eligible renters, stronger to resist legal challenge from those who do not want anyone to have the right.

Just one person receiving a free attorney when they have sufficient funds to pay for an attorney could bring the hard-earned right to counsel law down.

I do not want to take that risk.

This amendment ensures that the greatest number and those most in need are eligible to receive assistance when facing eviction with the most minimal of requirements.

I've seen data that means testing can be a barrier to services.

I have not seen any data that a self-attestation of poverty is a barrier to services.

No one is caving to big landlords or creating loopholes to reduce the number of people.

who have access to the right to counsel that this policy serves.

Nor are we watering anything down.

We are trying to pass a bill to ensure that tenants can remain housed when they are unaware of their rights or don't have the resources to stand up for their rights.

And that's why it's so important that we ensure that this legislation can stand up to legal challenges.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Morales is next and then Councilmember Solano.

Thank you.

I don't have much more to add than what Councilmember Herbold just said.

It is basically the case that right now, legal service providers already ask a simple question about one's ability to pay.

And this amendment doesn't add requirements for detailed income information.

It is simply codifying what is actually happening in practice.

and leaves to the providers decisions about how to set parameters for how to determine that.

So I don't think that it creates any additional barrier.

It just codifies some of the things that are already happening.

And I intend to support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Sawant.

I oppose this amendment to insert means testing or any other kind of requirement for people to have to qualify for the right to counsel.

I believe the right to counsel should be universally available for those who need it.

Just because it has been a standard used in a previous legislation is not a good enough reason to reproduce it in this legislation.

Council members may not want to call it means testing.

You can call it happy joy testing if you want, but it is still means testing in reality.

It is asking people to go through some kind of hoop, jump through some kind of hoop before they qualify.

People should be able to have universal rights.

I also do not agree with the idea that this amendment makes the legislation quote unquote legally defensible eviction defense attorneys themselves have made it very clear that such amendments are not needed to make this legislation legally defensible at the end of the day.

What makes any law passed strong, progressive law passed strong against legal challenges by corporations, by the wealthy, by corporate landlords, is a fighting united movement of working people, renters, and everyone who wants to have and live in an affordable and just city.

The right to have a lawyer to prevent eviction should be available for every renter facing eviction, just like all the best public services.

There is no means test to use the public roads.

They are available for everyone.

There is no means test for public education or for the fire department.

There is no means just to use the lights of the streetlights.

Federally, social security is available to everyone, rich and poor.

And because of that, it has endured for 86 years, almost a century, despite repeated attempts to dismantle it by the ruling class, both Republican and Democratic administrations.

And because these crucial public services are not means tested, nobody is shamed or humiliated for using them.

Across the spectrum of social services, any means testing, even the least invasive aspects or types, has the effect of preventing some of the most vulnerable people from using the service.

Let's be clear.

The reason this means testing amendment from City Council Democrats is not as bad or invasive or onerous as it could have been is because the renters' rights and socialist activist movement who organized to when this legislation said loudly that we oppose means testing, and we voiced our position in a unified manner, which made our collective voice so powerful.

I wanted to say thank you to B-Seattle, Tenants Union, Socialist Alternative, the ACLU, the Housing Justice Project, Real Change, Transit Writers Union, and many others for speaking against any kind of means testing.

We saw that organizing in public comment today, which has made it very clear the harm that means testing can do and has exposed the light of day attempts by Democrats to bring far worse amendments.

However, even when the process of applying is not onerous, people are hesitant about using any kind of means to services because, as I said, they feel humiliated or they are not sure they are eligible or they have misconceptions about how difficult the application will be.

The reality of eviction court in King County, as 13 organizations have pointed out in their letter, shows that the eviction process in Washington makes the use of any kind of test unworkable.

Unlike criminal proceedings, this is designed to be very quick and occur in as little as three weeks from the time a tenant misses a rental payment.

Unlike a criminal proceeding, which is much longer and involves multiple court dates, Most tenants have only one court date.

For that one court date, we should not, as a legislature, be putting any barriers, however less onerous, however less invasive.

Means testing has always been used politically by pro-big business politicians, both Republican and Democrat, for over 40 years to divide and conquer and make it easy to dismantle the programs or at least gut them in the future.

One reason why Democratic former President Bill Clinton was able to destroy welfare in 1996 was because when it was set up in the first place decades before then, it was set up with means testing in the first place.

Throughout the existence of these means-tested programs, there have been wildly false rumors about people abusing them.

These complete fabrications were used by Clinton, along with legislators of both political parties, to gut the welfare programs.

The most important reason to reject this means-testing amendment is because of the missed opportunity to set a better precedent than has been set in the past.

Council President Gonzalez referred to other means-tested services in Seattle and We've seen this before.

We've heard this before.

But this city council is populated by self-described progressive Democrats.

There is one socialist rather than Seattle watering down local renter protections to match the concessions that are being made elsewhere or were made in the past.

My question is, why aren't progressive Democrats supporting the legislation without any watering down, without any means testing, however less invasive it may be, and then use that precedent to demand that legislators at Olympia, for example, follow suit and pass a strong law?

Finally, I want to also emphasize that all these allusions to legal concerns are not acceptable because, as I said, and I wanted to reiterate it, renters' rights attorneys themselves have roundly rejected it.

Renters' rights attorneys want a bill that stands up in court.

They are not in the business of wanting the legislature like the City Council to pass laws that won't stand up in court.

They absolutely want a bill to stand up in court.

It is not in their interest to create any legal vulnerabilities and they have strongly supported this legislation without any watering down.

The idea that means testing is necessary is an idea that is only ever foisted on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have heard from community members many examples of programs to give handouts to the rich and powerful that have no means testing whatsoever, whether onerous or not.

There is none.

There was no means test required for the Seattle Mariners to prove They needed financial support for their stadium.

There was no means test for landlords to get compensation from the city through other legislation.

There was no means test when the city paid tens of millions to the wealthy waterfront businesses to compensate the interruption of their sidewalk access during the seawall construction.

There was no means test when the city invested almost half a billion rebuilding the streets around Mercer to accommodate Amazon's campus.

There was no means testing when Washington State gave Boeing executives and major shareholders a $9 billion corporate tax handout in 2013. There is no means test for elected officials in Seattle to pay themselves exorbitant six-digit salaries.

Means testing is not needed in this legislation because people in eviction court are already at the absolute end of their resources.

If they had any money for attorneys, they would have paid their rent in the first place and not got eviction notices.

Means testing is not legally necessary.

Means testing can do real harm by creating obstacles for people in desperate need for help.

And it opens the door to further weakening of the legislation in the future.

And we have the opportunity to set a strong precedent against this today.

So I urge council members to vote no on this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

And next up is Council Member Juarez and then Council Member Estrada.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you very much.

I want to first of all thank Council Member Hurdle and President Gonzalez for their comments.

You've been hearing me say some of this since March 4th.

So this ordinance as originally written without eligibility criteria is arguably a gift of public funds and therefore violate state law.

So in order to remedy this legal flaw and this vulnerability, because we already know that preventing homelessness is a fundamental governmental purpose, which we all agree on.

Today we have eligibility criteria.

where someone can self-attest that they are in fact indeed indigenous.

So what we do is we looked at other programs where we have a right to counsel in the civil arena, not the criminal arena.

And we looked at the Northwest Justice Project and the Tenant Law Center and Council President, as she shared, proposed, which we all voted on in 2016, the Immigrant Legal Defense Fund, which was passed, the simple, eligibility requirement.

I'm kind of tired of going back and forth about means testing and eligibility, but I will state this just for the record.

Everything Council Member Sawant said about means testing is true, but that's not what we have in front of us.

Means testing is a requirement that applicants for any type of government public assistance submit to an investigation of their funds and resources, that they actually have to provide documentation to show that they're indigent.

The means test originated as a method of limiting payment of public assistance to those truly in need in order to reduce the cost of such programs to taxpayers.

Means testing was used to limit payment of public assistance to those truly in need.

More often than not, it is weaponized.

As a former public defender and as a former person at Evergreen Legal Services that represented people in court for unlawful detainer, that is what we looked at.

We did not have means testing.

We made sure that you had legal counsel.

or unlawful detainer, and for the issues that were in front of us today.

The eligibility criteria, thank you, Council President, which she brought forward, talks about or actually is very succinct, and it addresses the issue of what anyone may qualify for by simply saying that they're indigent.

They choose that they want to participate, and by choosing that they want to participate, they show that they're, in fact, an indigent.

Keep saying that, poor.

So the eligibility criteria allows and permits governments to provide a benefit that promotes the public good and determines that such criteria, such as indigency.

is why we would move forward to make sure.

And I wanna make another point that I agree with Council Member Herbold had raised.

My main concern about allowing everybody, anybody like the Oprah show to have a lawyer all the time, every time is that then those truly in need that don't have money that are truly indigent are not gonna get legal counsel because there's only so much money in the last three years we have put in the budget and we have all passed which Council Member Sawant has always voted no on.

I'd say almost to the tune of a million dollars in the last three years, please correct me if I'm wrong, for people to have legal counsel during eviction when we have put forward money in the budget to ensure that there's money there for people who are being wrongfully evicted have legal counsel.

So what I'm trying to say is that we are moving forward on an important piece of legislation that is going to be permanent in which people must just say that they are indeed in need of legal assistance and they can choose to participate in the program.

You know, it's just kind of disheartening that sometimes when you just try to do good things, I don't think I'm in the back pocket of slumlords or big corporations.

I still don't know what a progressive Democrat is to some degree.

I'm not against the homelessness.

I'm certainly not against the poor as a former public defender as well.

And as attorney for 35 years, I can say this is pretty straightforward.

And we're just trying to do a good thing.

So thank you.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I just want to thank Council Member Sawant for bringing this forward.

This is the first time I've had a chance to sort of talk about this legislation.

I was looking forward to voting on it a few weeks ago and I'm glad that this is moving forward today.

So thank you for bringing this forward.

I know cities across the country are also looking to do similar things, so I appreciate the work that's gone into this legislation.

I think the outrage that has been expressed about means testing is absolutely right.

I think the ire that we all feel that I've expressed before when we talked about this legislation about means testing and income testing is 100% accurate.

I have spent a long time fighting against means testing in the state legislature, especially when I worked to implement Apple Health, especially Apple Health for Kids about a dozen years ago.

At that point, means testing, as Councilmember Juarez just said, was being weaponized to try to prevent immigrant kiddos from being added to the rules for eligibility for Apple Health at the time.

and that is why I have and continue to fight against means testing.

I think that it's important to me to have understood the discussion today and the briefing from the Council President on this amendment in the context of the Immigrant Legal Defense Fund Ordinance that it was based off of.

As I understand this amendment in front of us, the legal organization will accept self-attestation, simply saying, an individual can simply say, they don't have the means to afford an attorney.

I know a lot of folks who are struggling right now working month to month, many people out of work or still trying to pay their own rent and child care.

And the concept of having to pay an attorney on top of that, a lot of people are going to say that they can't afford an attorney.

So basically, someone self-attesting that they can't afford an attorney meets the criteria here.

that the organization, the legal assistance organization, is not going to ask for income verification, not going to look at any monetary resources, and as I think Councilmember Herbold said, not comply with a test of any kind.

So I think that this is a big distinction from the types of means testing that I have fought in the past.

Self-attestation is what we've actually fought for in many cases as an alternative to means testing so that people can get the services that they're eligible for and in this case that we've determined a right to.

I appreciate that there is clarification that there's no documentation required at the time of application or later.

And as I checked in with a handful of legal assistance folks across the city who are currently helping and have previously helped, they noted that this is really important because it's been a longstanding approved process by including federal entities like the Legal Services Corporation to avoid undermining attorney-client privilege and that relationship.

to make sure that they just accept from the client at the point of service that they are not able to pay for an attorney, that any additional type of barrier would be a barrier to the intake and could not be a functional process.

So they are very much opposed to means testing.

but have been working under this existing model of self-attestation and believe that it is the, you know, that this is not an additional barrier.

I understand that the standard is not a test now or an application later, and that's a very important clarification that I wanted to put out there because Just like I think means testing can have a chilling effect on whether or not someone applies for services, I also don't want there to be any confusion out there when this bill passes.

I'm going to knock on wood.

When this bill passes, I don't want there to be any confusion out there about folks coming and signing up.

There is no test.

At the very least, it sounds like there's going to be a piece of paper that's signed.

and we want to make sure folks get access to those services, and I don't want there to be a chilling effect from any debate.

We can debate, but ultimately this legislation is going to pass, and I look forward to supporting the final legislation, and we'll be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Are there any other comments on Amendment 3?

Council Member Lewis, please.

Thank you, Madam President.

I couldn't figure out how to do the little digital raise hand today for some reason, so I did it the old-fashioned way.

So thank you for recognizing me here for a moment.

I will be supporting your amendment today.

My colleagues have already made a lot of the comments that I would have, but I do want to emphasize a few more that I think are instructive and important.

uh...

you know i i do want to add that another distinction between the self-attestation and means testing is that this will not incur uh...

procedural costs since we are not doing financial screenings and uh...

investigations into people's financial background to do a self-advocate attestation uh...

which i think is a critical thing to note that means testing and one of the big arguments in addition to what we've already discussed here today on the impact it can have on people seeking services, the deterrence effect it can have on people seeking services.

It also would have incurred real costs to the city in buying the software for half a million dollars, hiring an FTE at a cost of over $100,000.

A model of self-attestation does not do that and also can kick in procedurally at the point when people will need this legal assistance and will not require a delay or a rescheduling of these tenant-related eviction proceedings.

So it doesn't come with those logistical and financial costs that means testing would have come with, in addition to all the other horrible things about means testing that we have already discussed extensively in this session.

I do also just want to acknowledge that my appreciation for Council President Gonzales in bringing forward a proposal that is structured to provide the very minimum of potential hurdle while addressing the very real substantive impacts I don't want to violate the Fight Club rules of executive session, but I will just say all of us were in that executive session.

I think that it is important that we center the guidance and advice of the team that successfully defeated vigorous legal actions against just-cause eviction, against first-in-time protections, against the various eviction moratoriums this council has enacted, and I believe that it was, I appreciate Council President's diligence in working with that team, working with us on the council to craft something that will still provide this vital service to everyone who will need it, while at the same time strengthening this law against the challenges that we know will come from deep-pocketed and very well-resourced landlord interests that will sue to try to get rid of it.

So with that, Madam President, I don't have any additional comments and appreciate your leadership in bringing this forward, as well as the comments of my colleagues similarly speaking to this.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Are there any additional comments on Amendment 3?

Okay, Council Member Salant.

Thank you.

I just wanted to specifically address the question of self-attestation.

I do not agree that self-attestation will not be a barrier because that's not what the data indicates at all.

For example, according to Seattle City Light, the official enrollment number for the utility discount program, which is for low-income people who cannot afford to pay their full utility bills, the enrollment numbers as of the end of February is 42,094.

and customers and they are currently estimating, the department is currently estimating the number of eligible households is at 90,000.

So that means that Seattle's utility discount program has enrolled less than 50% of the estimated eligible households.

It used to be even worse than that.

It used to be under 20% when I first took office and became the chair of the energy committee and we fought to improve it.

And the city now auto enrolls people who live in Seattle Housing Authority.

and other low-income housing.

This was part of our effort from our movement to make it an opt-out and rather than opt-in program.

But that was not enough.

So now the application process has been made simpler, which, of course, I support making any obstacle simpler.

But now there's a simple self-certification so that people can self-certify their income.

But still, the enrollment remains at less than 50% years later.

And there are many other examples, but I chose this one because it is close to ours.

You know, it's right here in the city of Seattle.

And so when the evidence does not show that self-attestation will not be a barrier, I don't know how council members can claim that it won't be a barrier because it will.

Thank you.

Hey, are there any additional comments or questions on Amendment 3?

Otherwise, because I'm the sponsor, I get the last word on it.

So just last call on Amendment 3. OK, I'm going to make some closing remarks here.

I do want to thank you all for the conversation and the debate around Amendment 3 and your consideration of adopting Amendment 3. There's a few things I want to clarify in response to some of Council Member Sawant's comments on Amendment 3 that I do think are are not entirely accurate.

One, I do not believe that lawyers representing tenants are going to humiliate tenants as a result of the passage of Amendment 3. There were some comments made that somehow a self-attestation was going to result in humiliation, but let's remember that the people who are asking the questions about eligibility and about accessing legal services are the very the very people we're relying to represent those individuals.

And I believe that they are going to put forward consistent with their current processes, something that is compassionate, that is not embarrassing, and that will fulfill their mission of making sure that as many tenants as possible have access to free legal services when needed during eviction proceedings.

Second, there's been a There has been a creation of comparisons between access to water, light, and roadways to legal aid services that pay for a lawyer, and I believe this is a false equivalency and should be rejected for that reason.

Third, this is not a means test.

We have a constitutional obligation to not engage in the gift of public funds.

This applies to every single action and determination and decision we make as a city council.

That obligation flows again from the Washington State Constitution.

I believe that Amendment 3 focuses our limited resources on those who most need access to free legal services and eviction proceedings, and I believe that even with the inclusion of Amendment 3, those individuals who need representation for free and eviction proceedings will in fact be able to receive those services.

Fourth, There's been a lot of remarks by Council Member Sawant about this setting a precedent that would not otherwise be set if we pass the base bill without Amendment 3. However, only an amendment to the Washington State's Constitution would allow for the state legislature to avoid the realities of the duties related to the gift of public funds.

In other words, this obligation related to public to avoiding the gift of public funds applies equally to the Washington State Legislature as it does to us.

There is no such effort at the state to amend the Constitution to allow for a different standard related to how we allocate and appropriate taxpayer dollars at the local, regional, or state effort.

That is exactly why Senate Bill 5160, which is specifically designed to address the eviction cliff that we are all facing, includes an indigency requirement to create a statewide right to counsel.

And lastly, fifth, there's been an analogy created between the indigency standard that we're about to consider adopting in Amendment 3 to the provisions provided for in the utility discount program.

A simple Google of utility discount program Seattle request enrollment brings up the enrollment form that an individual would have to fill out in order to determine whether or not they're eligible.

Unlike the UDP program, my amendment does not, for example, include the disclosure of what is the expected or estimated monthly income for your household before taxes.

In fact, if you look at the UDP eligibility enrollment form, there is a question that requires disclosure of the expected or estimated monthly income for your household before taxes.

That requirement is not included in Amendment 3. Only a self attestation that you cannot afford attorney will be asked in order to determine legal eligibility under this particular program.

So again, I think that there is there is not a a clean comparison between the UDP.

The UDP certainly requires much more than a self-certification and attestation of not being able to afford, for example, in that case, paying your bill.

So I will close out debate there and appreciate, again, your all's consideration of adopting Amendment 3 and am excited about voting on this bill to finally, once and for all, create a right to counsel for tenants in the city of Seattle and look forward to doing that very soon here.

So without further ado, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3. Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

No.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council.

Council Member Peterson, I'm going to hand it over to you to make your motion for, I believe it's amendment four.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 120007 as presented as amendment four on today's agenda.

Seven.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment four.

Council Member Peterson, I'm going to hand it back over to you to walk us through your amendment.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be brief.

This Amendment No. 4 on today's agenda, as I mentioned at Council briefing, would advise one of the recitals in the bill to clarify that the Executive Department should conduct an open request for proposals process for awarding these tax dollars, rather than making a direct award to a single attorney organization without an open process.

This amendment will provide a grace period of a year and a half to continue with the existing contract.

Then the request for proposals process would occur.

And that comports with best practices in awarding ongoing contracts to provide additional opportunities to attorney organizations, which could include the existing one as well as others, that would like consideration for providing these important legal services.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Any comments or questions on Amendment 4?

Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I always try to make sure that no one is surprised by my vote since I want to give a chance to let other folks know I did have a chance to check in with Councilmember Peterson, and I apologize that I didn't ask some of the questions during the morning briefing this morning.

I am not in favor of this amendment simply because I think it might be more in the weeds than necessary for SDCI.

I think that while it's advisory, they clearly can take it under advisement, but it's not directing them.

It is not necessary given what I understand is that they go through a process for their RFPs on a fairly regular basis.

And I also think that there's a level of urgency around the relation, the trust relation that hopefully a contracting entity would have with referral entities or with folks who work with those who might need services.

So I appreciate where you're coming from with this because I do think it's important for those I know that we have a lot of contracts to go out, but I understand that SCCI already has something similar in the works.

I'm going to be voting no on this today, but I appreciate the intent from where you came from.

However, I'm voting no because it is overly prescriptive of how the department, the Department of Construction Inspections, contracts out these services and does not reflect the reality of eviction court in Seattle.

In the bill that my office has proposed, the base bill, it says that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection, or SDCI, which is the city department responsible for enforcing renters' rights, is responsible for contracting with an organization to defend renters facing eviction.

Our bill then gives parameters for what makes an organization a good choice to provide these services.

We want attorneys with experience defending renters in court against eviction.

We want an organization that works out of the King County Courthouse so that renters in eviction court can be met by an attorney when they show up.

The reality is there is the, the, the, the housing justice project is the only organization like that right now in Seattle.

And as they will themselves tell you there aren't many private firms or any at all, perhaps.

and very few around the country that provide this kind of service, which is defending renters against eviction.

The Housing Justice Project attorneys are dedicated and they do their best they can to support renters.

That is why the whereas clause we propose states that SDCI should continue contracting with SJP unless another organization becomes better qualified.

The legislation currently includes that language, unless another organization becomes better qualified.

We recognize that we do not know who will be defending renters in 10 years, 20 years, maybe it will be a shaping, maybe it will be some organization that doesn't exist right now.

The department is empowered by the legislation to make that decision we do not require that they the department contract SGP, but we do acknowledge the role that they are playing right now.

whether SDCI uses an RFP or an RFQ or renews existing contracts, none of this needs to be prescribed in the legislation.

I do want to stress again that because this amendment changes only a whereas clause, it does not change any functional part of the legislation.

However, I do think it's unnecessary and overly prescriptive.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So I think the language in the existing recital about a future organization potentially becoming better qualified, that that determination could be made by an RFP.

I don't know what other way a department would have to make that determination if it was not for an open competitive process to determine who is most qualified.

Given that this is only a recital, it's only providing the council's a policy preference.

And given that it's important to Council Member Peterson, and given that I would hope that with this amendment we could get his support for the bill, and I think that's important that the council speak with unanimity when there is unanimity, and when there's disagreement about small recitals, I would say that let's not focus on where our differences are, let's try to focus on where we have agreement.

I would support the recital as proposed.

Thank you.

Any other comments on amendment four?

Okay.

a different rubric.

It's a recital.

It's not part of the law.

I appreciate the intent with which it's brought forward and intend to support it for that reason.

So Council Member Peterson, anything else to add?

No, thank you.

I appreciate the ability to bring this forward and for the robust discussion.

Thank you so much.

All right, we're closing out debate now that the sponsor of the amendment has had the last word.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4. Mosqueda?

No.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

No.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yep.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

No.

President Gonzalez.

Hi.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and the amended bill is before the council.

Okay folks that exhausts our amendments as we know them and now we have a bill that's in front of us and is amended.

Again, Council Member Salant will have the last word on the bill as the prime sponsor of the bill, but I am asking for folks who might want to speak on the bill now.

Council Member Peterson, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to thank the Council President for her leadership on this to help us, to give us more time and to her substantive amendment that passed today.

to enact laws strong enough to survive scrutiny so that we can actually help our most vulnerable neighbors.

Policymakers sometimes need the time to think through the various ramifications.

And because we took the time in this case, we were able to consider and approve sensible amendments to make this legislation better.

So I am able to update my vote to a yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Technology.

Thanks, colleagues.

I just want to reiterate, I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation to bring all tenants representation in eviction cases and really appreciate today's discussion.

It's true that any renter can face eviction and a tenant should know that they have support during one of the hardest times in their life and that support shouldn't be contingent on a public health emergency or any other limitations.

We know that prior to the pandemic, tenants were already facing tough odds in eviction court if they didn't have legal representation.

And as eviction moratorium are lifted across the region and the public emergency is in our rearview mirror, we know that many of our neighbors will be in tough situations again.

At the moment, those lucky enough to know about programs like the Housing Justice Project or the Tenant Law Center know that legal representation can be the difference between remaining housed and creating a plan to have to live in your car.

And folks shouldn't have to feel lucky to access limited free legal representation.

As I said before, the landlord-tenant relationship is unbalanced, and the right to counsel goes a long way toward providing tenants with some protection and putting them on equal footing with landlords.

And I'm proud to sponsor this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Are there any other comments?

Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson again for bringing forward your amendment.

I am very happy to hear your comments as well and along with what Councilmember Herbold said.

I always do want to strive for where we can highlight the unanimity and the collaborative work on council and I am very excited to be able to support this legislation today, including with the amendments that were passed today.

I think that it puts us on more solid legal ground.

I think there's a tremendous amount to celebrate as Seattle, again, is going to be looked at as a national leader in this issue.

I was trying to look up the statistic just to remind myself, but on this morning's news, I believe it was on Democracy Now!

, I heard that around 20% of renters are still struggling to be able to pay rent, and the cliff for when those eviction moratoriums go away is very real and threatening.

We are working very hard to make sure that renters have dollars in hand.

And I want to reiterate rental assistance bill that we're considering next week is also a small landlord assistance bill, right?

Because it passes through and it's part of that support network that goes to our smallest landlords who are also being impacted by the consequences of COVID.

So I see it as a both and conversation.

Today's bill is truly something to be celebrated.

And for us to continue to reiterate to people that if you are facing eviction, you now have a right to counsel.

And we can say that with incredible pride in the city of Seattle.

Thank you all for all of your amendments that you brought forward today to make this legislation stronger.

And thanks to Councilmember Sawant and Morales and Aguilipe Lewis, who are the original co-sponsors as well of this legislation.

I am looking forward to passing it and to showing that unanimity across council for our united support.

And to do that, not just for renters who are facing eviction, but truly to provide a more stable local economy as we recover.

We cannot create a more equitable or stable economy if people continue to fall into homelessness.

And this is quite literally at the foundation, a economic stimulus for our local economy, as well as a humanitarian piece of legislation to make sure that people have access to housing.

and prevent them from falling into homelessness.

So very excited to support this and thank you all for your work on it.

I just want to ground the policy that we're making today in some quick facts from the losing home report that was commissioned out of my office in collaboration with the Seattle Women's Commission, the Northwest Justice Project, and Washington CAN.

And some of the findings include the fact that nearly 52% of tenants in eviction filings were people of color.

31.2% were black tenants, and this is an eviction rate of 4.5 times what would be expected based on their demographics in Seattle.

Women were more likely to be evicted over small amounts of money.

Of single-tenant households where a tenant owed $100 or less, 81% of those being evicted were women.

Tenants face steep financial costs resulting from an eviction.

The median court judgment was over $3,000, including rent owed, non-rent charges, and legal costs.

And nearly 86% of eviction filings were for non-payment of rent.

And of these, 52% were for one month or less in rent.

Tenants were required to pay attorney's fees, 91% of cases with a median charge of about $416.

And court costs, 92% of cases with a median charge of about $360.

So those stats are really focused, I think, on not just the basis for why we made changes to the eviction law, both in state law and in our own local law, In eviction cases that are related to non-payment of rent, now tenants have more of a right to make an argument about the conditions that lead to non-payment of rent cases.

But in order to make these arguments, to address these really heartbreaking findings from the losing home report, tenants need to have eviction prevention legal advice from trained attorneys in order to make the arguments for the application of the new rights that they have since 2019's changes in the state legislature and in city law as well.

So, again, just really wanting to bring it back to the inequities that we see in our eviction court system.

And, you know, we can't just always work on improving the laws and the rights, but we have to also address people's ability to stand up for them.

And I want to thank Councilmember Sawant and all of the tenant advocacy groups who have made that loud, that call loud and clear.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Are there any other comments on the bill as amended?

Council Member Lewis, please.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'll just make a couple of additional remarks to build on what my colleagues have already said.

For me, a big thing that was instructive early on to sign on as a co-sponsor to this critical legislation uh...

was the statistic out of new york which has a robust right to counsel on has for some time that eighty six percent of the people uh...

who were represented in an eviction proceeding uh...

avoided an eviction which suggests to me in the way that our eviction system is set up and the law around evictions and the courts and how these hearings are conducted and the traditional expectation of who does and does not have representation in those proceedings has led to thousands, hundreds of thousands nationally of illegal evictions.

that when you have counsel in the courtroom and an advocate that can stand with you to address the merits of the case that your landlord is bringing, tenants overwhelmingly have been able to stand up, and hopefully this will have a deterrent effect as that countervailing power in the courtroom for tenants becomes well known, that unmeritorious evictions will no longer be tolerated in Seattle and King County.

And this legislation could end up having a really profound impact and certainly has in other parts of the country.

And I really look forward to the impact that we're going to see in our neighbors who are tenants being able to live with a sense of security in reducing the number of our neighbors who fall into a state of homelessness and end up living in encampments and in vehicles.

I really look forward to the next phase here in making sure we have sufficient appropriation to sustain and build on this right going forward in a city that is majority renter and make sure that this right is vigorously well enforced.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Any other comments on the bill?

Okay, Councilmember Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you to the sponsor of this bill.

I'm very excited to vote yes.

This is going to have incredible benefits to many people who need legal representation in eviction proceedings.

We're going to see a cascading impact of net benefits because when people are able to be legally represented in legal proceedings, their rights and they are able to receive the advice that they need to make the decisions to their benefit.

So I just want to thank the sponsor and thank you, colleagues.

I'm excited to vote yes.

Thank you so much.

I don't see any other hands raised.

I also wanted to say thanks for an opportunity to consider this legislation in spite of our disagreement as it relates to Amendment 3. I still think that this is the right policy for the city.

I have long advocated for expansion and establishing legal aid programs in a lot of other areas and have, in fact, been very supportive of the prime sponsors and others efforts to add additional resources for the express purpose of legal aid and prevention of evictions in our community, and I think that that that need related to evictions and the need to have access to a lawyer is that much more important in this period of time where we know that we are facing a tsunami of evictions after the moratoriums are lifted, but before people are able to get back on good footing economically to be able to catch up on their rent.

This council has taken really important steps on other tenant protections that I think we are all proud of and appreciate the opportunity to have a bill that will be able to be implemented quickly and that will be legally defensible in a court of law.

So with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Council Member Salant for closing remarks, and then we will call the roll on this bill.

Thank you.

I'm very happy from the comments that council members have made that this bill is likely to pass unanimously.

With this legislation, Seattle is about to become the first city in Washington state that guarantees the right to counsel for renters facing eviction.

This victory belongs to the renters right and socialist movement, which my council office is proud to be a part of, and which understands that it takes a fighting strategy to overcome corporate landlords and politicians.

Seattle now joined New York, San Francisco, Boulder, Colorado, Newark, New Jersey, Baltimore, Maryland, among others, in prescribing legal rights for renters facing eviction.

Hundreds of community members and many community organizations deserve credit for this victory, particularly B-Seattle, Tenants Union of Washington State, UAW 4121, Socialist Alternative, the Book Workers Union, the Housing Justice Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, both the Washington State Affiliate and the National ACLU, Real Change, Transit Riders Union, Faith Action Network, and many others.

including the dozens of activists, specifically socialist alternative members, virtually all of whom are struggling workers and renters who collected 468 signatures from working people in our city who strongly support this legislation.

For the last seven years, our council office has served as a center of organizing for the renters' rights movement.

We've built powerful movements, fought for and won breakthrough renters' rights legislation like the law that bans rent increases in buildings where code violations exist, the ban on winter evictions, a cap on move-in fees.

We did all of this through collaboration and unity, collaboration and unity among ordinary people, workers, rank-and-file members, community organizations, and individual community members who have no power or influence by themselves but become strong when we organize together and fight back.

We have won unanimous votes repeatedly by fighting back as a movement.

We celebrate this victory but we also cannot become complacent because we know that the status quo is still heavily stacked against renters and in favor of corporate landlords.

Landlords have immense power, and in many cases, power over whether people can afford to remain housed.

That is why we still need a huge expansion of social housing by public revenues that tax big business.

So we need to increase the Amazon tax.

We need to make sure that renters' rights themselves continue to be strengthened.

That's why my office and the growing renters rights movement will not rest after today's passage of right to counsel.

Our movement will claim today's win as a win for the grassroots movement and will go forward to advance legislation to protect renters from default evictions.

Half of all evictions in Seattle happen by default, meaning the court automatically evicts the renter because they did not fill out the paperwork to request a hearing or did not attend the hearing.

And often it is the most vulnerable renters who are evicted by default, the renters most in need of legal support.

We have heard horror stories of people who are bedridden, who are in a coma, or who have dementia being evicted by default without even knowing it is happening.

My office is already also working on a moratorium on evictions of school children and their families during the months of the school year, as was suggested, importantly, by a school board member.

We have also been working on legislation requiring landlords to have to meet a just cause standard for all evictions by closing the current loophole that allows landlords to evict term lease tenants without cause.

We're also preparing to develop legislation creating standardized terms for renter leases.

The reality is the average renter in Seattle has no opportunity to negotiate or alter even the smallest part of their lease when they move into a house or apartment.

As a result, many leases have outrageous terms.

So we do need to continue to strengthen renters' rights, to have a full bill of renters' rights.

And even that will not be enough.

We will need to fight for rent control.

We will need to fight to cancel rent and mortgage and utility debt for those who are struggling because of income or job losses because of the pandemic and the recession.

So I congratulate everybody who fought to win this.

Let's keep going.

When we fight, we win.

Okay, colleagues, we're going to go ahead and call this to vote now.

Officially closed and I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, will the clerk please read items two through five into the record.

Item two through five, appointments 1842, 1843, and 14, excuse me, 1845 and 1846. Appointments of Devalina, Van Orgy, and Jess Wallach as members of the Greenwood D.L. Reset Court for term April 30th, 2022. Appointments of Matt Remley and Rachel Huntington as a member of the Greenwood D.L. Reset Court for term April 30th, 2028. The committee recommends that these appointments

Thank you so much, and Amelia, we were having a little bit of a hard time hearing you, so hopefully we can work on that before we read the next items into the record.

Okay, Councilor Solano, this is your committee work as well, so I'm going to hand it over to you to address these appointments.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear Amelia properly because of the disturbance.

Did she read out all items two through five?

She did.

So all items two through five are now read into the record.

So we have all of the appointments before us.

So you can address all of them.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

These are the first four appointments to the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

After the mayor twice cut the funding for the Green New Deal Oversight Board and our movement then twice fought back to restore that funding, the Office of Sustainability and Environment has now hired the Green New Deal Oversight Board advisor, and we have begun making appointments.

There are 19 seats on the Oversight Board, and today we are voting to confirm the first four of them.

Along with the Office of Sustainability and Environment, We have opened up a new application window for the remaining positions.

Any members of the public who would like to apply can do so by finding an application on the OSC website or on my council office blog.

Matt Rambley is being appointed to one of the eight positions of the Green New Deal Oversight Board reserved for leaders from impacted communities.

He's a courageous urban native organizer and climate activist and a founder of Mazaska Talks.

He was the initial author of Seattle's Indigenous People's Day Resolution, built the movement to divest from the financial institutions that fund the fossil fuel industry and helped build the struggle for Seattle to divest from Wells Fargo.

Rachel Heaton is being appointed to one of the two positions on the Green New Deal Oversight Board Reserve for local tribes.

She's a cultural editor for and enrolled member of the Muckleshoot tribe and is a descendant of the Duwamish people.

She is also a founding member of Mazaska Talks and is a courageous climate activist testifying around the world about the movement to defund the fossil fuel industry.

Debolina Banerjee is an organizer with Puget Sound SAGE and is being appointed to one of the positions reserved for representatives of environmental justice organizations.

She was an advocate for Seattle passing its Green New Deal resolution and Oversight Board ordinance in 2019. Jess Wallach is an organizer with 350 Seattle and is being appointed to one of the positions reserved for people with expertise in combating climate change.

She has helped organize demonstrations against financial institutions that invest in the fossil fuel industry.

All of them have vast experience building the movement for a Green New Deal and for a just transition to stop climate change.

The Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee unanimously recommends that the city council confirm these appointments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on any of these appointments?

Okay, it looks like there's no additional comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 1842 and 1843, 1845 and 1846.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record.

Report of the Transportation and Utilities Committee.

Agenda item six, Council Bill 12015, relating to the City Light Department, amending rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2021 and 2022. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

You are chair of the committee.

I'm going to hand it over to you for the committee report.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, at our Transportation and Utilities Committee on March 17, we unanimously accepted this Council Bill 120015 to reaffirm electricity rates for Seattle City Light.

Our city has become less affordable and utility bills are essentially regressive.

So our goal is to keep costs down so we can keep rates low.

Thankfully, during COVID, our city-owned utilities, both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities, have managed to keep rates steady to increase enrollment in our utility discount program and to waive late fees.

With this legislation, I'm pleased that City Light continues to prevent a net increase to electric bills this year.

Each customer's bill is composed of various electricity rates, pass-through power rates, and surcharges.

And through a combination of actions, we can continue to prevent an increase in bills this year.

In addition, Seattle City Light will be keeping their promise for next year, 2022, by sticking with the original rate path agreed to back in 2018 and possibly achieving a smaller increase if pass-through rates from Bonneville Power Administration come in lower.

I appreciate both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities focusing on affordability for our city residents.

I just want to thank my vice chair, Dan Strauss, for helping to provide more time for us to consider this bill.

Again, this bill was recommended universally by committee.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Council Member Strauss, please.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

I want to also express my gratitude to the City Light team who took over two and a half hours to brief me on a long list of questions going into the strategic plan, understanding that while we are codifying the 2022 rates today, that those are They were already endorsed within the last strategic plan.

So these were changes made long ago.

And I just again want to thank City Light for their amazing work to be able to keep rates as low as possible and to actually not increase rates this last year.

So thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you, Chair Peterson.

Looking forward to voting yes.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

Looks like there's no additional comments, so will the quick please call the role on the passage of the bill.

Hi.

Hi.

Yeah, it's just a free for all at this point.

Madam Clerk, we are unable to hear you, so perhaps.

You can come off of mute or somebody can come off of mute and call the roll.

Let me try this again, Madam President.

I'll be the clerk.

I'll call the roll.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yep.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf?

Okay, I promise we're going to get through this, folks.

We're going to do it together.

So will the clerk please read items 7 through 11 into the rec?

Agenda item seven through 11, appointments 1832 through 1836. Appointment and reappointment of Jasmine Arianna and William H. Southern as members Community Involvement Commission for term to May 31st, 2022. Reappointment and appointments of Emily Kim, Martha Lucas, and Julie Pham as members Community Involvement Commission for term to May 31st, 2021.

Thank you so much.

I move to confirm appointments 1832 through 1836. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

Council Member Strauss, you are sponsoring these amendments.

I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through, not amendments, appointments.

I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through these appointments.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

These five appointments are to the Community Involvement Commission, which advises the city on outreach and engagement activities.

The commission is made up of 16 members, seven appointed by the council and one from each district, seven appointed by the mayor and two appointed by the commission itself.

Jasmine is a council appointment for district one.

Jasmine is a 20 year resident of West Seattle and has more than 20 years of experience as a landscape architect.

Emily Kim is a mayoral appointment.

Emily is the director of social impact and community relations for Molly Moons and previously worked here at council for former council member Jean Godden.

Martha Lucas is a council appointment for District 4. Martha is a longtime Woodward resident with experience in health care management, public health, education, insurance, and caregiving.

She serves as co-chair of the Census Project for the Washington State Coalition of African Community Leaders.

Julie Pham is a mayoral appointment.

Julie is the co-owner of Northwest Vietnamese News and the vice president of community engagement and marketing for the Washington Technology Industry Association, WTIA.

Bill Southern is a council appointment for District 5. Bill has experience in media, public affairs, and community relations, including at Seattle Public Schools, Special Olympics, Washington, and as WSDOT's Public Affairs Director for the Northwest Region.

Thank you, Council President and colleagues.

I urge a yay vote.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, any additional comments on these appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 1832 through 1836. Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries, and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read items 12 through 16 into the record.

Attend items 12 through 16, appointments 1837 through 1841, reappointments of Jessica L. Jones, Stuart Niven, Sarah Reeder, Sherry Selch, and Michael Walton as members Urban Forestry Commission for term to March 31st, 2024.

Thank you so much.

I move to confirm appointments 1837 through 1841. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointments.

Council Member Strauss, these are your appointments.

I'm going to hand it back over to you.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, these five reappointments are to the Urban Forestry Commission.

Jessica Jones has 15 years of experience working on both environmental and public health.

Jessica currently works at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a program officer and previously worked for the World Bank.

Stuart Neven is a certified arborist and co-owner of Panor Arbor.

a tree care company.

Stewart also brings experience having practiced in Canada and Europe.

He's an ardent watchdog and often shares a wealth of knowledge and information that I regularly rely on.

I'm excited for Stewart to come back.

Sarah Redder works in the water group of WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff and has worked on urban stormwater management for more than a decade.

Shari has a background in environmental science with an experience in urban forest restoration and recently graduated from the Green Seattle Partnerships Master Steward Program.

And lastly, Michael Walton is a certified arborist with a background in horticulture, arboriculture, construction detailing, and irrigation.

Michael currently works at a local landscape architecture firm.

Thank you, Council President.

I urge a yea vote.

Thank you so much.

Are there any additional comments on these appointments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of appointments 1837 through 1840?

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries and the appointments are confirmed.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item 17 into the record.

A report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, agenda item 17, Council Bill 120021, relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Swedish Club, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

I'm gonna hand this back over to you as the chair of the committee.

Thank you, Council President.

Do I need to move or second this bill before it should be?

Thank you, I'm seeing a shaking hand no.

Nope, you can just speak to it, go ahead.

Wonderful.

Council Bill 12021 is the controls and incentives agreement for the Swedish club on Queen Anne, which has been designated as a landmark.

The agreement has been signed by the owner and approved by the landmarks preservation board.

Controls will be placed on the building exterior and a portion of the interior.

The landmarks designation applies to the building, which was constructed in 1959 in the surrounding alleyways, but not to either adjacent parking lot.

In the interest of time, I will reserve the remainder of my comments.

And if anyone is interested, we had a very good, robust discussion in committee.

It might seem as a non-assuming building, and it has an immense amount of history.

Christine Leander also spoke to the history of the Swedish Club, which the club being the social aspect also had a civics aspect that began Swedish Hospital here in Seattle.

Again, I'll reserve the remainder of my comments just to say I urge a yay vote and thank you to the Swedish Club of Seattle.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strouse.

Are there any additional comments on the bill?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yep.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

All right, other business.

Council Member Struss, I understand you have a request to be excused, so I'm gonna let you make that.

Thank you, Council President.

I would like to request to be excused from the April 12th, 2021 City Council meeting and City Council briefing.

Thank you so much.

If there's no objection, Council Member Struss will be excused from the April 12th, 12th City Council meeting and Council briefing.

All right.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Strauss is excused from the April 12th City Council meeting.

Is there any other business to come before the Council?

Hearing none, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on Monday, April 5th, 2021 at 2 o'clock p.m.

I hope that you all have a wonderful evening and we are adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.