Good afternoon, I'm Council Member Dan Strauss, elected by the people of Magnolia, Fremont, Finney, Green Lake, Greenwood, Crown Hill, Ballard, many other micro-neighborhoods.
It's an honor to get to represent the entire City of Seattle.
I'm joined here with Council President.
We just wanted to make ourselves available.
We know that the mayor vetoed part of the Vehicle Residency Assistance Program legislation, and so I just wanted to be available to answer your questions.
I just want to start though with the proposal that she vetoed yesterday was a very balanced proposal.
It both gives a place for people who live in their vehicles a way to remain in their vehicles until we're able to give them a better way forward.
while also having pretty firm and straightforward, easy to understand regulations about one type of vehicle.
And nowhere in any of this legislation does it make it illegal to live in a vehicle, does not make it illegal to live in an RV, it simply regulates the type of vehicle.
I've been in conversations with the mayor since at least February.
Vividly remember having a conversation with her, even offering to pass my binder across the table.
Ryan, if you want to put that up here, I'll take.
Anyone else need a microphone up here?
Yeah, thank you.
Sorry, I'm just, there we go.
Fourth wall broken.
Sorry, since February, you know, I vividly remember offering to pass the binder across the table to her to say, this is something that I'm working on, would love your input.
And since July, I've been in conversations with her office about how to implement this program.
I have heard concerns from everyday people about the worst case scenarios.
What are the unintended consequences of this legislation?
And I just have said to everyone since then and through today, those are concerns that I share and those concerns that have been raised to me are things that I have been on the record about needing to address and willing to address.
I've heard concerns from departments over the course of my conversation since January.
Those are also concerns that I share and concerns that I look to address again through the work group that was in the legislation that was vetoed.
This is why we have that work group baked into the legislation to say if there are plans that need to change between now and March 1st we have a way to address that.
I've been on the record saying that if we need to have legislative changes that I'm here to make those.
And that's why I say it's disingenuous to say I'm vetoing this bill for a work group because the work group was already baked into the legislation.
It's exactly what the legislation does.
Sorry, I'm gonna move some of these microphones.
And that's why at the center of this conversation is leadership.
We have to hear and address all of the concerns brought up by advocates, everyday people, and departments.
And everything from my plan, as I've said before, and to the mayor and her team, is that everything's negotiable.
And that's why we have a check and adjust period until March 1st, 31st, where we're willing to bring the changes that need to be made.
Because what we all know is that the status quo is not working today.
And doing nothing is not an option.
If the mayor wants a workgroup, she's already had 60 days to come up with a workgroup plan.
If she wants a workgroup, I expect that workgroup plan to be delivered before January 1st.
The mayor has also sat on the funds for contracted outreach to do their work She has been sitting on these funds all year.
And since July and August, when I've been in direct conversations with the mayor's team about deploying these funds, they have not deployed the funds for contracted outreach to help people living in their vehicles.
And this is with Glassyard Commons opening this month.
That means that we have not done the staffing that needs to be done for these contracted outreach teams.
We have not provided them the resources to help people with minor repairs, gasoline, or getting the registration in their name.
The mayor sat on this money.
The need to, and if we had a city team to do this, I wouldn't need contracted outreach to have more resources.
We don't have a city team.
We rely on two contracts for contracted outreach.
I have been explicit about the need to get additional funding into their hands to be ready for Glassyard Commons opening, and the mayor sat on this money.
I've this year put the mayor's priorities ahead of mine.
One of the reasons that this legislation was delayed in coming out was because I prioritized getting her budget funding for a shelter expansion this year and for her FAS signing authority.
I had a commitment from her to work together until that was reversed at the last minute.
She could have been doing any of this since day one.
Where has she been?
She could have been deploying the funding needed to help people on the streets today, but hasn't done so.
I'm asking, where has she been?
The executive order that she's discussing today is essentially a copy and paste from my legislation.
She doesn't need to veto the legislation to be able to do this work group.
We must provide people with a solution that is compassionate.
And we need to have firm boundaries of what is unacceptable behavior in our public space.
I'm glad that she's got a framework for alternative proposal.
My question is where's the collaboration been?
I learned about it on sound side.
David Cromann asked some good questions.
It's been since February that I've been in discussion with her.
It's been since August since I've been talking implementation.
And since passage, we've again continued the conversation about where we can compromise, what needs to be adjusted.
But where has she been this whole time?
My plan is compassionate and has firm boundaries.
And I guess I just want to say, nobody wants to take somebody's home.
Nobody wants to make somebody worse off.
And if it took 11 months of my work for the mayor to pay attention to one of the most critical issues in our community today, then that's a success for me.
And that's a success for the legislative branch.
Right now, we need leadership, not wishy-washy work groups.
Thank you.
Do you want to say anything?
Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
I'm here to help also answer any questions about the process, which people know that the process is once the mayor vetoes it, it can come back to council and we can decide within five to 30 days if we're going to take that legislation up.
So I'll be talking with Councilmember Strauss about that and just understanding what all levers we have.
But I'm going to tell you this, the main goal that we have, and I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for his work on this, because it was actually when we had legislation that came down excuse me not came down but transmitted to council we wanted to make sure that we focused on the shelter legislation that the mayor had put and prioritized that was a consensus across the board for all council members and that's what we did we didn't slow walk it we found sponsors we made sure it got to the proper committees and we made sure we accelerated that because we knew how important that is and so I really want to thank Councilmember Strauss on this because he also He also proposed a car lot, RV car lot in this legislation that I'm supporting as well.
So looking forward to answering questions.
I'll let him take over, but I'm here to answer anything about the process as well.
Thank you.
Is there one to be a vote to our chairs on vote for the new veto, or does Chancellor Rusaka's announcement today kind of, but I bought them out.
I'm gonna be requesting a vote, but we'll see how process plays out.
I think it needs to be done within 14 days is my understanding within 30 days my my proposals get this done with now and it's important to do so because and let me and here's the reason why
This workgroup that was proposed today was only done because we voted a piece of legislation in.
If I had asked nicely to have a workgroup completed, the mayor would have said no.
When I look at this without having firm boundaries of saying we need to have something implemented by date certain, then no work is going to be done.
Again, the mayor's had all year.
She's had 60 days even since I introduced this bill in August.
She's had 60 days to come up with an alternative plan.
She told me she wouldn't veto the bill and then she did.
At this point, I can't trust her word.
The D5 voters absolutely have every way of engaging in the process that every Seattleite does.
You know, when I look at...
Yeah, if you look at the last elected official from D5, I think that would be a question for her of how would she vote in this way?
But where we are right now is every voter in the city of Seattle has equal access to engaging with their legislator and the community process.
I'm gonna go Guy and then right here.
There are some folks, especially advocates, who, you know, oppose the legislation and are concerned that it was happening around the same time as budget season, so it was hard to, like, make people aware about some of the potential, you know, legal risks and other issues with the legislation.
Why did you decide to kind of schedule it in within the budget season instead of waiting until next year or after the season to, like, increase with it?
Yeah, my goal here was to have this legislation adopted in June ahead of the mid-year supplemental because the most important thing in this whole package is getting those resources out to our contracted outreach.
Those resources have been delayed.
One of the reasons why that delay occurred was because I put the mayor's priorities ahead of mine because getting more shelter expansion is absolutely critical.
So there's a number of places where those delays came from.
I didn't want it overlapping with budget.
I wanted it done in June.
I have two questions.
One, from upstairs, some of the concern was the enforcement of the RD program, which is, what are your thoughts on those concerns?
And two, you just said, you can't trust Marbles' work.
Do you feel blindsided by this?
I feel like her word has been disingenuous.
There have been a number of times that she's broken the promises that she's made to me, or the commitments that she's made to me.
And that's why I say I can't trust her word anymore.
It's not just one interaction.
It's been several, and it's been a pattern over time.
Your first question, sorry.
Oh, the first question is, like, the concerns, some of the other concerns, or the R&D, or, like, just enforcement.
Like, SPD had concerns about it in other agencies, didn't you?
I think all of the concerns are super valid.
And that's the work that we have to do to address.
And that's why I say her executive order is a copy and paste from my legislation, because it's looking to address the exact same things.
And that's where collaboration apparently fell apart on her end.
I've had an open door this whole time.
And to hear about it on sound side and then receive a 4 p.m.
call, it just felt disingenuous.
Yeah, I don't think people in all due respect on that question.
I don't think people are concerned about that because when they see the government, they just see city council and the mayor and they just want people to deliver on basic things, safety, public safety, making sure our sidewalks are clean, parks,
making sure kids can go to school safe all these pieces and so I've been addressing our relationship throughout the year and I think people just don't care about that they want us just to focus on the issues they want to focus on getting people inside off the streets especially in RVs and making sure that vulnerable folks can be safe so I respect your question but I think people want us to focus on the issues I mean what issues are you addressing Yeah, all of the above.
Public safety, we're addressing making sure that kids can go to school safe, making sure that people aren't walking through parks and experiencing really unfortunate things that happen to them, making sure our buses run on time, potholes are filled.
It's just the basics, and I think that's really important.
That's what people want to hear.
They don't want to hear about us fighting with the mayor, but they do want to hear honest answers about how are we interacting, how are we getting stuff done together, and this is part of the process.
I respect the mayor tremendously for her leadership on a lot of things, and this is just a part of the democratic process that we have.
Thank you.
I'll just also say we need a City Hall that works together and that's why I put together the legislation in the way that I did to create that space and time to work together there's that's why this legislation's effective date was delayed until April 31st I believe it was and April 30th because there's not 31 days in April and that's also why the we wrote into the code the warning period for 90 days the mayor also could have extended that warning time without legislation but I want to take Stephanie's question
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well and so really directly the mayor would not have done a workgroup or worked to address this issue without us passing legislation I knew that from the way that she has operated here at City Hall and that is why I knew and I still know today that if we don't have a firm deadline, if we don't have a firm boundary to say we are going to work and accomplish this work within this period of time, I don't believe it's going to get done.
And just in the way, it's been more than 60 days since I introduced this legislation.
She has had more than 60 days to develop the plan and the framework that she's talking about today.
Do you have a follow-up?
Yeah, so would you, like you said, it's very similar to what you proposed.
Could you get behind what she's doing?
Is it something you're so passionate about?
I expect to see the report by January 1st.
It's in the back, behind you guys.
Something we heard upstairs was the concern of people living in RVs missing this one-time census, and then they effectively can't climb on the street for longer than two hours.
Do you see those revisions needed to be made to the permit permit to minimize that risk?
Can you see that as
Yeah, so right now, and for the last one and a half to two years, there have been zero places for people who live in their vehicles to come inside to.
The last safe lot that was open was open on the boundary of my district.
I kind of call it my district because it's so close to the boundary.
It's literally a block outside my district.
The last two safe lots have been in my neighborhood.
it is really critical that we have a place for people who live in their RVs and their vehicles to go.
And it is also really critical for us to have firm boundaries of saying, and so for the, I think the example that you're talking about If somebody is living in their RV after the one-time census and they're not able to use the permit system, then they should be prioritized to get into the safe lots or into shelter storage.
Something that's been overlooked in this conversation is the shelter storage.
Right now, if somebody lives in there or has an RV, they can't access any of our shelter or any of our housing because none of our shelter and none of our housing comes with parking.
That's because we have made the policy choice that building units of shelter and housing is a higher priority than building parking spaces.
So my shelter storage legislation also expands all of the places for people to come inside to.
I know Council President's been talking about family homelessness quite a bit.
I don't know if you want to say anything there, but it is critical that anyone in that position that was used as an example, that we have a place for them to get inside to because leaving them on the streets today is not acceptable.
Did you want to say anything about family homelessness?
I do.
I'll be really quick because this is really important.
During the shelter legislation that was transmitted to council, there wasn't an earmark specifically for family and minor children for the shelter and that is one thing that we pass at council because we know that there's 2,000 plus families that are within the McKinney-Vento program in Seattle Public School who are experiencing homelessness right now and that was important and that's why we provisode and it's in the chairs package 2.4 million to specifically family and minor children to be able to access shelter and that's going to continue to be the top of mind because I know that some of the things that people have talked about, well, what if a family becomes homeless?
I want them prioritized to be in that shelter or in that RV car lot, that safe lot that they can have.
because right now nowhere shape or form has that been a priority and council took that in as a priority to make sure that our families and our children are safe and they have safe places to go.
I think it's unacceptable.
I got families that are sleeping at Cal Anderson to go to Lowell School.
I got families that are jumping around.
There's a family in the CD right now that is jumping around from sofa to sofa with three kids in Seattle Public Schools in the McKinney-Vento program.
who cannot find shelter because you get between 40 to 60 calls every day.
And so that's the priority of mine, making sure that our families and kids and I want to thank the chair for also adding that in the chairs package as well.
Thank you.
I see in the pink purple.
Did you have a question?
I just want to clarify, you said you have the Maestro's and Shelter Valley.
Is that the one that's a pickleball for it now?
That's right.
So that's District 6-7 Inner Bay.
Sorry.
Yeah, I see Packer, and I'm going to ask on other questions, then I'll come back for a second question.
Yeah, can you address the legal risks and whether you're concerned about potential litigation around this, around the Homestead Act, and eventually getting this tied up in New Forest for months and months?
Yeah, if you tow somebody's house, that's illegal.
That's the legal risk, which is why we shouldn't tow people's houses.
I don't know if there's anything more to say.
Like, there is a way to build implementation plans that ensure you don't tow people's homes.
I don't know.
Like, there has been an RV in Ballard that has, on the windshield, in reverse, so you see it when you're on the inside, that says, waiting for death.
We're not here to leave the people in their RVs who are waiting for death.
We're not here to leave them on the streets.
And we absolutely have to get everyone inside that we can.
But the legal risks are if somebody tows somebody's house, which we shouldn't do.
It's just that simple.
And I don't understand why that clarity is hard for some folks to understand.
not if you do it right and that's what I mean and that's where like the implementation where the rubber meets the road is so so critical like you can have safeguards in there to ensure that we're not towing people's homes and that we are minimized and that for the people who have RVs on the street that are not living in them that are using them for other purposes whether it's hoarding or otherwise That's what this legislation is designed for.
It very clearly is designed to give people who live in their vehicles a path to remain and be probably more stable than they are today.
All right, Eric and Guy and then I think we'll take any last questions and then we'll be done.
Upstairs we learned that the one-night count is probably going to show on 2,500 people living in RVs in the county.
And so obviously 92 units, maybe 90 more, that's less than a tenth of the capacity.
So I just want you to address that.
You proposed a system that would create a towing possibility for all those other people.
So how do you see that working?
And what's so critical is that we have a Seattle census, not a King County census, so that we know how many people are living in their vehicles in the city of Seattle today.
The permit process, that permitting opportunity is to say, if you are living in your vehicle on city streets today, we are going to care for you while we get all of these shelter resources stood up.
You didn't bring up the shelter storage, which is another opportunity to bring people inside.
You also didn't bring up the second safe lot that I'm funding through the budget.
No, the 92 units is at glassyards.
We've just funded another 75 to 92. That's 145. From past, and I don't believe the numbers, from past numbers that I've seen, they ranged 145 RVs on Seattle streets.
And so I don't trust them.
I think it's an undercount, but let's just play it out.
If you have two shelter safe lots that account for all of the RVs that people are living on the city streets, then we have a place for them to go.
And because I am concerned that it's an undercount, that's why I proposed the permit process.
To say, if you are living on the streets today, we are going to care for you today.
Yeah.
I guess this is a question kind of about the framing and language.
Yeah.
So like this is always being proposed as a permit plan, but it's effectively, when it plays out, it's more like a game.
So I'm wondering why you frame it this way.
And the same thing with the term accountability and holding people accountable when you're actually talking about it.
like a lot of poor people can't afford to live in a house and punishing a whole lot for like a small minority that are causing crime or issues so I'm wondering why you kind of framed this language to kind of soften the impact
For people who are down and out that need our help, we need to provide a pathway for them to receive our help.
It's that simple.
So for folks who are poor and down and out and maybe have drug use issues or maybe have mental health issues, my plan sets up a framework to support them and to help them.
what you heard me talking about from boundaries are for folks who are not poor, not down and out, who are either hoarding vehicles on our streets or using large oversized vehicles for different purposes.
When you ask me about why am I framing it two different ways, what I also love about this media availability is I've seen different headlines from about every single person here, which I love you all, which is like, it's either a ban, which it's not, it's regulations, or it's a permit process.
Depending on whichever perspective you want to promote, that is highlighted as the leading narrative.
But the reality is that the bill does both.
It creates a permit plan and a permit process and it provides regulations of what types of vehicles can be on our roadway today.
Do you have a follow-up?
I'll give you a follow-up and then one more.
So, yes, and.
If you are living in your RV anytime from here until the end of eternity, we need to have a safe lot spot open for you to come inside to.
The throughput is really critical.
But what I think, I mean, must have gotten lost in my legislation, is that one of the aspects of shelter storage is to provide overnight parking for folks who need it.
So if you're a traveling nurse, then you will likely need to find private property that you can park your RV on.
If you are a truck driver trying to get to the port, my proposal provides funding and the legal ability for us to have an overnight parking spot for you that's not on city streets.
So it is not banning this type of behavior.
It's saying this type of behavior needs to be on private property or in a city program.
One more question.
The money that I have been working to secure since 2021 needs to be retained for addressing and helping people who live in their vehicles.
The City of Seattle has programs for family homelessness, single men, single women, people who are
heavily addicted to substances, people who need sober housing, we've got wet housing, we've got youth homelessness programs.
We have zero programs on the streets today addressing and helping people who live in their vehicles, no matter what type of vehicle it is. and so I am going to be very strong about no matter how we land this plane, the money that I have been working to reserve since 2021 needs to be used for vehicle residents only.
A lot and one of the most concerning things that I've heard from advocates is that there are other, I have heard we shouldn't be spending money on helping vehicle residents because we need to help other types of people and that's really offensive to me.
How much is that?
I can get you the exact numbers in just a minute.
Last question here and then we're going to wrap.
I'm curious if you guys have discussed this possible ripple effect.
King County Council member Raiden Dunn said this legislation with Bush RVs into other parts of King County, unincorporated parts of King County where there may be not, there aren't as many resources to help people experiencing all this place.
Have you guys had any discussions like that about where people turn to if they can't park in city limits?
I haven't talked to Councilmember Dunn but his proposal is half-baked and I say that because he only has regulations and he has no supportive elements.
He is containing nothing to help people get into a better place in their life.
That's what this plan does.
It provides the support and the services to stabilize human beings while having clear regulations for people to abide by.
King County, all of the other cities in King County need to do more to address homelessness.
They push their homelessness solutions and problems on the back of the City of Seattle.
We are doing more than they are, and I'm not going to stop, but it's not appropriate for them to pass the buck.
Thank you all for coming down.