I'm your host, Brian Calinan.
How is the city council reacting to a possible extension of the federal oversight of the Seattle Police Department?
What's the city doing about an alarming spike in hate crimes?
And what are the goals of Seattle's newest council member before his term ends this fall?
Council members Pacheco and Herbold and Council President Harrell answer these questions and the ones you're sending in, too, next on Council Edition.
Of course, we are under a consent decree, so what the judge says, we have to get it done.
The city council has no role in making deployment decisions for the police department.
It's important that we address these issues because, you know, one hate crime is one hate crime too much.
All that and more, coming up next on City Inside Out, Council Edition.
And here we are with Councilmembers Pacheco, Herbold, and Council President Harrell.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I know it's been a very busy time.
And Councilmember Pacheco, you are first up.
Welcome to the Council.
Thank you.
And also welcome to the first show on Seattle Channel here.
In terms of settling into the job, I know you've really hit the ground running here.
You had constituents in your district asking about upzoning, homelessness, safe injection sites before you even walked in the door.
What do you hope to accomplish in these next six months you have this position?
What are some concrete goals do you think you'll be able to reach?
Well, I'm hoping to really just stay engaged in the district.
So much of what I've really been trying to do, especially the first month, is spending time listening to constituents about what those budget needs are going to be for the fall.
I think that's the biggest priority, the biggest responsibility that I've inherited.
Secondly, how my experiences at the Seattle Foundation, the Seattle Police Foundation, or in education, can be helpful in a service to our city.
As well as try to work with my colleagues to try to address the issues that are most pressing in our city.
Okay, a lot still ahead.
Thank you for addressing that.
We have a lot of ground to cover today, so I'd let these guys talk about how great a job you're doing, but I want to jump to this if I could.
Council President Harrell, some really big news regarding the consent decree process the Seattle Police Department's going through.
The federal judge now saying There are some problems with officer accountability.
He's saying not much has changed from the days when officers were actually using excessive force, according to the Justice Department.
So the judge is saying make some changes before July 15th.
Is that possible?
Does that mean you have to reopen the contract with police that was just signed?
What can you tell us?
Yes, it is possible.
And while I don't want to say it's disappointing that Judge Robart went as deep as he did on these issues, I think it was great.
And I think Councilmember Gonzalez and the mayor addressed it, that We need to fix anything on our accountability system where things are brought out.
He specifically talked about the subpoena power, perhaps what he saw as a limiting of the subpoena power by the OPA.
He talked about the 180-day deadline by which investigations will occur.
I mean, he did a deep dive.
He mentioned specifically Adly Shepard, an officer who had hit a woman in the face and how he could be reinstated.
So we welcome that.
And so, yes, we'll talk to SPOG and we'll talk to stakeholders and the public and get it done.
So we're committed to accountability, the mayor and the council.
And so and I want to say outside of that discussion, is one of the concerns I've always had with the consent decree is I don't want the police department as a whole to unwillingly accept accountability.
I'm looking for that cultural change where they will say, yes, this is a new way of doing things, but I'm going to take that because it's going to make us better.
And quite candidly, I'm not quite feeling that in some of the discussions, particularly during the labor issues, but that's part of the process.
So I'm confident we'll get a better labor negotiation discussion going and to the satisfaction of Judge Robart.
Do you think you have to reopen that police contract?
Well, we're talking to the law department now and, you know, I'm a member of the Labor Relations Policy Committee.
And so that's the kind of thing where we are looking at.
There are some legal issues associated with that.
But again, you know, the legal issue is really what trumps what trumps the negotiations and of course we are under a consent decree so what the judge says we have to get it done.
So I think that gave us some ammunition if you will, that's probably the worst pun of the day, some ammunition for trying to go back and talk to Spock about getting these things done.
You know he's asking the questions that really need to be asked about how could, you know on that Adlai Shepherd, I saw an interview with him and I was I don't want to denigrate this person, he's probably a fine human being, but I'll talk about his actions.
I found those actions somewhat, I'll say undesirable, and I think that the judge looking at that level of detail is good.
Looking at what we're doing and who we have on our force.
Lisa, what did you want to add?
Yeah, just to add to this, I think what the judge has come forward with with the ruling is what many of us were concerned with when we passed the SPOG contract.
When we passed the SPOG contract, we did so because we supported the increases in officers' wages.
We supported just the basic idea of making sure that they have a contract, which they hadn't.
Hadn't had one for many years, right.
But we were also really concerned that the changes in the accountability agreement, or accountability ordinance that we had fought for, would result in the judge basically putting us out of compliance again.
And so I think, whereas many of us were hoping six months ago that Spog would see that we have a real strong shared interest, and hoped that they would see that without the court saying so, without the judge saying so, my hope is that with the judge making this ruling, that it becomes very, very clear that the city and Spog share a common interest in resolving these issues.
but does that two-year clock that I know started back last year when the judge said that the SPD is in full and effective compliance with the consent decree, does that get reset here?
That's a concern, I think, with this in play.
I think that's, as I understand it, that's up to the judge.
Yeah, that's a big piece of it.
Councilmember Pacheco, this of course is a process that's been going on for the past seven years, long before you joined the council, but you've got some background when it comes to local law enforcement.
I wanted to talk about that, your interactions with police and your contributions to this process.
Well, I mean, my role at the Police Foundation was building community partnerships for the Seattle Police Department, for the different precincts.
So I know there's a lot of good work that gets done by the Police Department.
Having said that, you have a lot of, you've historically have had a lot of community angst about the issues of law enforcement.
I myself was a victim of a wrongful arrest.
And, you know, so much of that experience is such where we have to get this right because it disproportionately, we know it disproportionately impacts young men of color.
And it impacted me in some capacity with regards to what happened to me.
So being mindful of how we do it and do it right so that we can be the national model that I think sets the way.
Yeah, that's a big piece of this.
Bruce I'm gonna stick with police issues if I could I want to talk about emphasis patrols for the SPD Mayor Durkin's put this in place pre-summer SPD patrols seven neighborhoods officers working with crews from SDOT City Light other agencies Focusing on broken sidewalks and streetlights and other issues too.
Sounds great.
But the issue is location We've gotten in a few different notes on this one Glenn writes this via Twitter three shootings in CD the Central District while Mayor Jenny's SPD emphasis patrols are are costing taxpayers overtime pay so wealthy homeowners in Fremont and Ballard can feel they're being listened to about a decrease in violent crime in their neighborhoods.
Glenn, putting a little sauce on that one, but your thoughts about these emphasis patrols.
So what we've asked the executive to do, first of all, I support the concept of emphasis patrols is certainly not new.
We've seen them used year after year and at times where we have to do this and we have to use our resources to, I'll call them the hot spots.
Yeah.
What we've asked the executive to do is just try to tell us what data went into those decisions.
The council wasn't privy to that, at least I wasn't privy to where these different locations were.
In fact, they seem to have changed after the first announcement to the second announcement.
So I'm not sure what goes on into that.
But I do know that under this chief, Chief Best, that they've done, I think, a pretty good job of opening up all the data.
So the information is there.
This notion that the cup, the city as a whole will favor one neighborhood over another neighborhood, wealth over poor neighborhoods, I do not subscribe to that.
I think that under our race and social justice initiative, we try to do a very good job in making sure we look at all of the issues.
And so we're hopeful that these were a result of sort of a mathematical result of where they should go, where they should be.
And that's the conversation we're having now.
Now, I'll have to say that I was a little disappointed that I wasn't part of that discussion as to whether where they should go.
And perhaps there were a sense of information, perhaps we were, you know, for whatever reason, because we could have addressed, I think, as the council body of the government, these kinds of issues that this reader had, and I don't think we were put in a position to do that.
At least your thoughts.
I know you've been calling for patrols like this for some time.
Now there's going to be one in South Park, which is in your district there.
Do you have concerns about how these neighborhoods were chosen?
Well, I share Councilmember Harrell's concerns that these be data-driven decisions.
The City Council has no role in making deployment decisions for the police department.
Actually, according to the charter, those are decisions that are made by the police chief, as they should be.
Good point.
the department came to city council to talk about the emphasis patrols, they were pretty clear that it was a combination of data and anecdotal information.
And so for me, really, the question is, well, what's the balance there?
Are you really making, primarily making your decision on data, or is anecdotal information of some very vocal constituents tipping the scale away from data.
And I think it's really, it's an important question.
You're right.
I am a strong supporter of the types of emphasis patrols that increase visibility of police.
I think visibility of police, for instance, through bike patrols is really, really effective in crime prevention.
And it's something that I've worked with the community, both in in South Park on getting bike patrols in the past, as well as emphasis patrols to focus on certain types of crimes like I've done in the Alki neighborhood around noise and modified mufflers.
Councilmember Herbold made me think of the point that in one of Councilmember Gonzalez's responses to the announcement of the emphasis patrols, I thought there were some great questions that were asked.
And one was precisely, what kinds of crimes will this result in being charged as a result?
I mean, is it going to be an increase of jaywalking tickets, or are we looking at other types of crimes?
And so it's that kind of public discussion that I think we need to know, and I didn't find that kind of detail in the announcements, and this is an open dialogue, so we're having these discussions now.
Right, important point.
Abel, your thoughts here?
Well, I was gonna say, I ask these questions in the committee, which were with regards to not just my district, but just thinking about how we're doing them in a much more holistic fashion.
We have two light rail stations that will open up in the district.
The perception, the perceived crime rate, and the real crime rates, We're in the north end, highest in the U district.
And so, you know, to Lisa's point, you know, if we're relying on data, then I want to make sure that we're leaning heavily on the data that says we're trying to address this in a manner that is not just constitutional policing, but also effective policing and doing it and reinforcing the investments we made with regards to our light rails or with regards to trying to provide new housing and so forth so that folks feel safe as well.
Lisa, please.
Just a quick follow-up, too.
Your point is really well taken when you consider the types of crime, too, when you're looking at the data.
We've said a lot about the fact that crime citywide is only up 2.3 percent and that mirrors the population gain.
But when you tease out the types of crime, the crime against persons is actually up 9 percent.
And so when we are shifting our focus to address the types of nuisance crimes, quality of life crimes that we see on the streets, I have to ask myself how does that impact our ability to address really serious crimes.
And then that gets right back to our recruitment needs for the department.
We need more officers to get back to basics on answering 911 calls and doing the kind of proactive policing that will result in the reduction of serious crime.
And I'm going to talk to you about crime once again in a second, but Abel, I wanted to make sure I brought up with you this idea of trying to protect these different transit stops or whatever else.
This is an issue of perceived crime that a lot of people in your district and others, they want to feel safe around those areas.
As Seattle builds out, there are new housing developments, new transit stops or whatever else.
You want to make sure that people feel safe there as well, right?
Right.
I mean, we know that public safety is an important element of making a vibrant community.
Yeah.
And so...
And it touches on transportation and housing, yeah.
Correct.
And so thinking about just from, with regards to where we get the data, in my district, at the heart of District 4 is the University of Washington.
It's both an economic engine, but it's also where there's a young population who we know is not likely to use the Find It Fix It app.
And so being mindful of that in terms of regards to just how that impacts who's reporting, you know, what's being said and what's being done is something that I'm trying to keep an eye on.
Okay, thank you for that.
Lisa, back to you for this public safety issue with hate crimes.
You asked for a study on this.
You've now found, the council has found, that hate-related incidents, including crimes, are up 400% since 2012. What do you make of that number and the other number that jumped out at me, fewer than 40 convictions on these types of incidents over the last five years?
So when you take a look at the increase in hate crimes in Seattle, you also need to take a further look out to the state.
It's not just happening here in Seattle.
Actually, Washington state has had the largest increase in hate crimes in the nation.
And that's why one of the suggestions of the city auditor is to try to create a regional body that is looking at these issues.
But yeah, 400% over the last 2014, several years, that is a huge increase.
Some people say, well, that's because SPD is doing more to help ensure that those crimes are being reported.
And that's absolutely true.
This is the second hate crime report of two that have been done since I've been a council member.
The first really focused on the kinds of things that SPD could be doing to increase reporting.
And so we're partially seeing some of the results of it.
But nevertheless, when looked in a national context, something is happening here.
that isn't happening as much throughout the rest of the country.
Again, you even look at what's happening in the rest of the country within the context of the hateful rhetoric coming out of the executive, out of the president's office.
It's no wonder that we're seeing this.
As far as what's happening on the enforcement side of things, We here in Seattle have a limited ability to prosecute hate crimes.
We can only do so for the protected classes that only we in Seattle have.
The other protected classes that the rest of the state has, it's only the county can prosecute those.
And so only the county could prosecute them if they're a felony.
So if they rise to the level of being a misdemeanor offense that was prompted because of bias associated with things like race, sexual orientation, gender expression, the things that the entire state has identified as protected classes, we actually can't do anything about those things.
So it's a it's a strange conundrum that we've tried to address.
Something that's I think, really important to understand is, it's not like the city attorney wants to go and prosecute hate crimes by themselves.
This is what's called a a special allegation that is placed on top of a prosecution for another crime.
So it's not going to result in any greater numbers of prosecutions than we see now.
And so the disparity that we see in the criminal justice system, that is a real thing.
People have expressed concern about that.
And there is disparity in the offender population of the people who are committing hate crimes.
But we have to remember that 100% of the victims of hate crimes are members of protected classes.
That's a very important point.
And I'd like for some other comments on this.
Abel, one of the very troubling parts of this study told me reports involving racial bias have increased more than those involving sexual orientation or religion.
I know you've done a lot of work with communities of color in Seattle.
Your take on this report, what you're saying.
First, I want to applaud the work that Councilmember Herbal was doing with regards to just, this is one of those many issues that I've kind of just dropped myself in the middle of a conversation that's been ongoing for a while.
Many years, yes.
But I think to kind of bring this conversation a bit full circle to the issues of accountability and policing and so forth, so much of I think our civic discourse now is about just how we don't trust the institutions of government, like police, like our criminal justice system and so forth.
And we're having, I think, robust conversations about what we can make changes to those systems so that we can move the conversation forward on how to best address hate crimes, so that we can move the conversation forward on emphasis patrols and so forth.
And so I hope that, you know, as we're having these conversations, we're mindful of the community angst, but also saying, you know, we're gonna do our best to really move the conversation forward because it's important that we address these issues because, you know, one hate crime is one hate crime too much.
Got it.
Bruce, any thoughts on this?
These numbers were really shocking to me.
Well, I have some strong opinions on it, but I don't know the data behind it.
My strong opinions are this, is that from a kid that grew up in these streets in Seattle in the 60s, I don't know if the incidents have increased and it's just whether we are tracking it more and we're looking at the data.
And I'll use police violence as a good example.
that when the Rodney King tape had come out, people were saying, wow, this is so egregious.
This is happening in our country.
And I said, what has happened in our country is the advent of cell phones with cameras, that this kind of misconduct has been going on for decades and decades.
And so with respect to hate crimes, I don't know if there's something in the water that is causing people to act on them more differently.
It seems to me that we are now a little smarter on tracking the data.
And because I think it's always been there, and quite a few people are here in Seattle.
Yes, here in Seattle, as a matter of fact.
So I'm not shocked, and I think people in my situation aren't shocked, but I think we are tracking it more.
But I preface my comments by saying I'm trying to do a deeper dive into the data because Quite candidly, a lot of us aren't shocked.
Like, okay, well, we're tracking it now.
Right, right, right.
And there's a lot more still ahead on that.
Thank you all.
Lisa, please.
Thank you.
I think it's also important to recognize that while there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system, and that is also evident in the offender population in hate crimes, there's also racial disparity as it relates specifically to white people prosecuted.
77% of the people prosecuted for hate crimes in King County were white people.
And we've got about 66% of the population.
So I think that's a really important thing to note.
Also, it's frustrating to me as somebody who's really trying to do something about this issue, because we hired a researcher from the University of Washington, and he noted that what we see as the greatest increases include increases in Capitol Hill against LGBT people, and then interestingly, but for people with lived experiences, not surprisingly, clusters of hate crimes against people of color in areas that border primarily white areas.
And so, you know, on one hand, we had two weeks ago the mayor sending the council a letter saying, hurry up and vote on this, because, you know, I introduced this legislation back in July.
And then the other hand, we have folks in the community saying, hold up, don't vote on this legislation.
And many of those same folks, folks like the Gender Justice League, they also just went to Olympia last month, and voted to support a hate crimes law that increases penalties from $10,000 to $100,000.
But my bill, it specifically says the penalties should be restorative justice.
So it's, you know, it's important that we that we recognize that these conversations are happening within the context of mistrust.
But I also think we have to be consistent on on what our principles are around the enforcement of this stuff.
Thank you for that.
April, I'm going to head back to you.
Major milestone here, a hearing examiner has sided with the city in the work to build more accessory dwelling units or ADUs.
A long legal battle over this has been going on.
It appears that the city can start moving on allowing for more ADUs this summer.
So two tweets to help raise some issues here, if I may.
First, this is a good way to help destroy what urban wildlife habitat is left and help finally convert Seattle from a semi-green city to a gray city for developers who are only looking to skirt the rules.
There's one.
Here's another one.
Seattle's affordable housing crisis is an actual emergency.
So why hasn't any council member proposed emergency legislation to liberalize accessory dwelling unit rules to get more homes built at zero cost to the city?
Your thoughts about what's going on with ADUs right now.
So I've lived in two different ADUs.
When I was a graduate student in Wedgwood and then when I kind of began my career in Wallingford.
So I look, I've been a strong proponent of trying to expand just homeowner access to building ADUs.
And so I'm looking at this conversation of how do we get to just having more.
We know in district, both in, not just my district, but throughout many other districts in District 3, just the need for student housing.
It's an affordable option for a lot of students, a lot of young people.
Folks, we know we haven't built enough housing.
We know we have a shortage.
So moving that conversation forward is going to be a priority for me.
I know it's going to be a priority for Councilmember O'Brien.
And so, but I, you know, I think it's why we, homeowners who are, who I hear from within the district who are concerned about losing their character of the neighborhood.
I want to be as much of an ally in leaving those concerns and saying, look, we're listening, and it's because we're listening and because people are unable to afford living in the city that we're trying to, I'm saying engage, and I want to be as much in carrying you forward and helping you move forward the conversation about affordability.
Got it.
Lisa, the environmental impact statement on this said the city would build about 2,500 more accessory dwelling units over the next decade, see about 500 fewer houses torn down.
What sort of impact is that going to have on our housing crisis?
Well I think that's a really important point and one that I care deeply about is that the point of the environmental impact statement, the point they're making is it's going to, the ADU legislation will actually reduce the amount of displacement that we currently see because it will have more people who currently live on the property using the new authority to develop an additional unit on the property rather than selling it to a speculator who then will come in and tear down the housing and build something that nobody can afford.
So I found that a really interesting finding and it was a topic that I am keenly aware of and concerned of and it really did a lot to address some of my concerns.
The bottom line is the feeling through the conclusion of the analysis is that there will be less speculation if this legislation was passed than what we're currently seeing.
The other thing that this legislation helps address, something that we hear a lot of complaints about in some of these single-family neighborhoods are the McMansions.
There is also analysis that shows that there'll be fewer of those under this bill as well.
Right, right, because of that lot size piece of it.
Thank you.
Bruce, I wanted to continue on the affordable housing line.
We got a tweet in about this that I want to throw in looking at even more options like rent stabilization.
Here's the tweet coming at you.
If rent stabilization were legalized in Olympia, should it be implemented in Seattle?
If so, specifically, what would it look like?
Thanks for the tweet.
I just wanted to know, just to branch out on the conversation a little bit here.
So I would like, first of all, we already have some form of rent stabilization through our House Boat Equity Ordinance.
And so we look at that and we regulate the rates.
I would like local control.
I'd like the city to be able to look at that and do it on a very granular basis.
Now, what that final product looks like, that's a longer discussion.
We know that in many cities it did not work well at all, and there were development of slums, and landlords were not reinvesting money.
We don't want that to occur.
But I do think that, I'm just for local control in both real estate and other forms.
Gun regulation would be another add-on, local control.
So I just think that the one-size-fits-all on this issue doesn't work, and I think we need relief from Olympia on that issue.
Thanks.
Bruce, I'm going to stick with you.
We have some final thought time here.
Let's try to keep these quick if we can.
Facial recognition technology.
State lawmakers talking about it.
San Francisco has outright banned it.
Is having this type of technology the right idea in Seattle?
I know you're starting to talk about it.
Pass.
Okay.
What do you got?
We have a surveillance ordinance and we have the privacy groups and it scares me a little bit just having, but the technology is there and so I just think again as we use it, I'm all for exploring it, but we have to have so many safeguards such that it's not misused and that goes with any form of technology that will result in surveillance.
So it comes with a lot of safeguards.
Thanks very much.
Lisa, quick update, Showbox Theater, what's going on?
Give us the next couple months if you can tell us.
As far as what we have on deck, we have a June 4th public hearing here at the City Council for a six-month extension on the temporary placement of the showbox into the Pike Place Market Historic District.
Okay.
By having the showbox within the district, it puts some significant limitations on both the use of the property as well as any changes that could be made to the property, so it's sort of our safeguard.
while we continue these conversations about the future of the market.
And then also on the 5th, the Landmarks Board is having their public hearing to landmark the property.
Landmark is a little different than the Historic District, but it also provides a certain amount of security for not so much the use of the property, but the structure of the property.
And I'll be going a little later on today to go down to the show box for an event they have gearing up for the Land Works Preservation Board meeting.
All right, keep us posted on that.
Abel, let you wrap up.
You appear to be the bravest council member of them all on the e-scooters demonstration a couple weeks ago, riding it on the street there.
Your thoughts, what needs to happen to get these types of vehicles on the streets and making them safe?
Well, first, I was excited to see the council, I'm sorry, the mayor's position on scooters evolve.
You know, but I think it also draws more awareness about just the need for us to build the infrastructure to support it so that the scooters can use the same infrastructure as our bicycles.
But, you know, it's trying to move the conversation forward with working with the company so that we can provide those safeguards.
for both the city, but also thinking about how we just begin to pilot.
We won't know unless we try, and so at this point, let's move forward on trying.
Okay, all right.
Thank you all for your input here.
Lightning Fast Show, I really appreciate your input here, and we'll see you next time on Council Edition.