Meeting JSON
Layered meeting payload combining source, parsed, summary, and hindsight references.
Meeting JSON
JSON
x178195
generated inline viewer output
Seattle City Council
JSON view
{
"city": "seattle",
"canonicalVideoId": "x178195",
"source": {
"meeting": {
"fileName": "x178195.json",
"path": "data/cities/seattle/source/meetings/x178195.json",
"sourceStem": "x178195",
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"x178195.json"
],
"metadata": {
"videoId": "x178195",
"title": "Council Edition: Solomon & Strauss on vacancy, taxes & public safety",
"date": "2025-07-27",
"duration": 0,
"committee": "Public Safety",
"videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x178195",
"subtitleUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/documents/seattlechannel/closedcaption/2025/CIOCE_july25_3342507.srt",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/images//images/seattlechannel/videos/2025/CouncilEdition_July2025_Straussweb.jpg",
"rawData": {
"mediaUrl": "https://video.seattle.gov/media/news/CIOCE_july25_3342507.mp4"
},
"transcriptSource": "official-subtitles"
}
},
"transcript": {
"fileName": "2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt",
"path": "data/cities/seattle/source/transcripts/2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt",
"sourceStem": "2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195",
"size": 55979,
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt"
],
"rawHash": "80e4f5a6dfa591281d90ee797d1dc7a3a194f473e7c8577db30cd2a1b5d25b7e",
"textHash": "f971f4eec18e235869032d16e78631dead5248a0f00f815a942594a84e58ad39",
"entryCount": 697,
"wordCount": 5081,
"speakerCount": 0,
"speakers": [],
"urls": {
"srt": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x178195.srt",
"text": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x178195.txt"
}
}
},
"parsed": {
"persistedAt": "2026-04-14T03:49:53.094Z",
"canonicalVideoId": "x178195",
"meeting": {
"title": "Council Edition: Solomon & Strauss on vacancy, taxes & public safety",
"date": "2025-07-27",
"committee": "Public Safety",
"videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x178195",
"sourceVideoId": "x178195",
"sourceFileName": "x178195.json",
"metadataVariantCount": 1,
"metadataVariantIds": [
"x178195"
]
},
"transcript": {
"sourceFileName": "2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt",
"sourcePath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/seattle/source/transcripts/2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt",
"variantCount": 1,
"variantFiles": [
"2025-07-27_public-safety_x178195.srt"
],
"entryCount": 697,
"wordCount": 5081,
"speakerCount": 0,
"speakers": [],
"hash": "f971f4eec18e235869032d16e78631dead5248a0f00f815a942594a84e58ad39"
},
"tags": [
"city:seattle",
"org:seattle-city-council",
"meeting:x178195",
"committee:public-safety",
"year:2025",
"month:2025-07",
"date:2025-07-27"
],
"text": "-Hello. I'm your host, Brian Callanan.\nA vacancy on the Seattle City Council\nhas set off a fast-paced replacement process,\nbut a familiar name may provide some answers.\nAnd there's no shortage of questions,\nas the council considers a major change to the city's\nbusiness tax structure.\nPlus, there's a new sales tax proposal intended\nto provide a boost to public safety.\nI'm with council members Mark Solomon and Dan Strauss\nto consider these issues and the questions you're sending in too.\nThat's next on \"City Inside Out Council Edition.\"\n-This Shield proposal is providing relief\nfor them to be able to be successful in a city\nthat is rapidly becoming unaffordable.\n-I never thought I'd be in a position\nto want to protect our country from our federal government.\n-All that and more.\nComing up next on \"City Inside Out Council Edition\".\n♪♪\n♪♪\nWelcome once again to \"City Inside Out Council Edition\"\nhere on the Seattle Channel.\nI'm Brian Callanan and for this episode we have with us\nMark Solomon, council member from the district two area\nof Southeast Seattle there. Very glad you're here.\nAlso, the council's land use chair.\nThanks for being here, Council Member Solomon.\n-Thank you very much.\n-Also, we have with us Council Member Dan Strauss\nfrom district six, from Green Lake out to Bauer,\nparts of Magnolia in northwest Seattle there.\nHe's also chair of the finance,\nNative Communities and Tribal Governments Committee.\nGood to see you again, Council Member Strauss.\n-Always good to see you, Brian.\n-All right. Let's jump into it here.\nI'm talking to you right in the middle of the council's process\nto find a replacement for Council Member Moore,\nwho stepped down from her position unexpectedly.\nJuly 7th was her last day.\nA few viewers have some questions\nabout what kind of candidate you are looking\nto fill this vacancy, including Lab who writes this.\nLab, thanks for the email.\nThere are a lot of questions in there, as it turns out.\nBut Council Member Strauss,\nyou've got 22 candidates to choose from,\none of whom happens to be former council president\nand D5 representative Debora Juarez.\nHow do you answer this question?\n-Which question?\n-Right. There's a ton of them there.\n-Yeah, I mean, so caretaker, I'll take from the top,\nwhich is, you know, I've gone back and forth\nover the last couple appointments about\nwhether caretaker is is a good thing or not.\nI don't think --\n-Meaning someone who wouldn't run for the job afterwards?\n-Right. I don't know that there's a perfect answer there.\nI think this one's different\nthan the last two appointments that we've had.\nThat it'll be 16 months instead of just a few months.\n-Right, right.\n-Mark to my right is just... is a caretaker,\nand he's been a joy to work with.\nSo, you know, there's not a a right answer about caretaker.\nAnswering the question about budgeting and\npolicy and experience, or have they run before?\nThere is the need to understand budgeting\nand how a city bureaucracy works\nbecause there's not a lot of lead time\nbefore we get into budget.\n-Yeah, it's a couple of months here, right?\n-Just right around the corner.\nAnd it's rare for a city council to appoint a council member.\nIt's even more rare to do it two years in a row,\nand it's even more rare to do it two years in a row\nand have two appointees at the same time.\n-Right, right.\nSo having experience is important,\nand that means knowing the blocks.\nYou know, in my conversation today,\nhighlighting that Holman is very different than Crown Hill.\n-Sure. Right.\n-I mean, Licton Springs and Northgate\nare a quarter mile away from each other,\n-and they're very different. -That's right.\nBlue Ridge is very different than Matthews Beach.\nI need to...in Meadowbrook is very different than Broadview.\n-Right? -Right. Right. Right.\n-I need somebody to know the streets, know the blocks.\nKnow the issues and know D5 inside and out.\n-So it sounds like Debora Juarez has the job\nor what do you think?\n-No, I mean,\nwhat I just described could have been a number of people.\n-Okay. -Right.\nYou know, Jed Bradley didn't make it to the finalists,\nbut he has budgeting experience in for the UW,\nwhich has a larger budget than -- than we do.\nLulu Jenks has great on-the-ground knowledge of\nacross Lake City.\nTalking to Julie King,\nshe -- she understands what's going on in Aurora.\nShe understands the West. She understands the East.\nI mean, there are a lot of really good candidates\nthat we have to look at right now.\n-All right. Fair enough.\nCouncil Member Solomon,\nas Council Member Strauss pointed out,\nyou've been through this appointment process here.\nYou joined the council back in January\nwhen Councilmember Morales stepped down.\nAnd I've talked to a few people\nwho really think Council President Juarez,\nif she didn't get the job, they'd be shocked.\nBut I do want to make sure I ask the question of\nhow you're going through this process?\n-Well, I will acknowledge\nthat there are a number of qualified candidates,\nand I appreciate everyone\nwho's put their name forward to be part of this process.\nAnd when I think about what we have in front of us,\nwhen we are looking at budget,\nwhen we're looking at comp plan,\nwhen we're looking at BNO and shield law.\nWe're looking at the myriad of issues,\nnot the least of which is our budget constraints,\nand not only the city's budget constraints,\nbut the fact that we really can't count on the feds\nfor anything that we're going to do with the city\nand the monies that have been promised ain't coming.\nThey're just... they're not, right?\nSo in addition to having some experience\nof how this body works, how the city functions,\nthose are some of the things I'm looking for.\nBut more importantly for me, I'm looking for heart, right?\nI'm not so concerned about a person's pedigree, resume,\nor even their agenda about what they want to accomplish.\nI want to know what's in here, right?\nWhat is their passion?\nWhat drives them to want to serve on this body?\nYou know, to get a sense of their why.\nAnd I want to marry that why\nwith what are you bringing to the table?\n-Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.\nAnd we're going to see this happen\nin the next couple of weeks here.\nSo I appreciate the input here.\nWhoever you do, appoint one decision\nthat will be in front of them very likely soon\nafter they're sworn in as this Seattle Shield proposal\nwhich you brought up here,\nwhich voters would have to approve.\nJust some background here.\nThis was sponsored by Council Member Rink,\nwhich changed the city's business and operation\ntax structure, the BNO tax there.\nAbout 90% of businesses in Seattle\nwould owe less than they do today.\nBut companies with higher gross receipts would pay more.\nThis would raise about $90 million.\nAgain, if voters approve it.\nAnd this is expected to shield the city from some of these cuts\nto federal funding for human services\nyou're talking about here.\nThis is expected from the Trump administration.\nCouncil Member Solomon, your thoughts on Seattle Shield?\n-When I look at this as a... I look at it as a creative way\nto again shield us from what is coming\nor what has already occurred.\nAnd realizing that there are some concerns,\nwhat is the impact going to be on those large employers?\nWe know that it's going to benefit\nor should benefit our smaller employers,\n-our small mom-and-pop shops. -Sure. Right. Love it.\n-One of the things I've heard loud and clear\nin talking to our business community partners\nis one of the ways\nthat we can hopefully reduce the number of vacant storefronts\nis to give them, give those businesses some kind of relief\nand maybe BNO is the way we can do that.\nSo how do we increase our basic tax structure\nour basic occupancy rate,\nmake it easier for businesses to actually be in this space.\n-Okay.\n-But I also have heard concerns about,\nokay, what is this going to do to,\nyou know, the larger employers, the big ones?\nAre there adverse impacts?\nAre there unintended consequences?\nSo those are things that, you know,\nwe're going to have to weigh.\n-Okay, let me bring in one of those critiques, if I could.\nAnd Council Member Strauss, I'll put you in here.\nJon Scholes, the CEO and president\nof the Downtown Seattle Association,\nhas a lot of concerns about this.\nHe wrote this a few weeks ago.\nHow do you respond to that, to that pushback?\n-It feels extreme. That statement feels extreme.\nAnd I think one of the most important parts\nof this piece of legislation, again, I'm not the sponsor.\nI'm the chair of the budget committee.\nAnd this is something that will go before voters too.\n-Right. -Is that it goes before voters.\nIt has a sunset.\nAnd there are also, we need to protect our port economy\nbecause the port makes up a third of our sales and use tax.\nThe port maintains a steady level of economic activity\nwhen tech is doing well and when tech is doing poorly.\nWhen we overlook our port,\nand when we overlook the -- the bedrock\nof what our finances are based on, it can create problems.\n-All right.\n-But, you know,\nthe Downtown Seattle Association and Jon himself\nhas come to city council requesting more revenue\nthrough rate increases.\nThey just requested permission for kiosks\nthat will generate money for them.\n-Yes.\n-Because again,\nwhat I've heard from them is that things are more expensive.\nCosts are rising. We want to expand the mid.\nThese are all things that I agree with.\n-They're down -- They're downtown and --\n-And that's why I never said anything\nlike what he just said about the DSA requesting more funding.\n-Okay. All right. Fair enough.\nThank you for responding to that piece.\nFive council members,\nincluding both of you signed on to a letter\nthat had signatures from city and state officials\nall around the state here\nin support of progressive revenue measures\nlike Seattle Shield.\nIt also called out President Trump's\nBig Beautiful Bill as a national disaster.\nPlus, it called out our state's governor.\nHere's an excerpt.\nThis was a concern for the council.\nI know Council President Nelson did not sign on to this\nbecause of the way it called out Governor Ferguson there.\nShe and Council Member Kettle,\nCouncil Member Rivera didn't join in on supporting this.\nCan you talk to me -- talk to me, Council Member Solomon,\nabout why it was important for you to sign on to this letter.\nYou know...\nI didn't think I was going to go there.\nGo here, but I will.\nI served in the US military.\nI served to protect and defend this country,\nto uphold our values.\nI never thought I'd be in a position\nto want to protect our country from our federal government.\nAnd that's where I see we are now.\nAnd I may not necessarily agree with the characterization\nor calling out of Governor Ferguson,\nbut I cannot idly stand by\nand see what's happening on the federal level\nand how it's going to be impacting us here\nand stay silent.\n-Council Member Strauss,\nI know this this letter had some different feelings\non the council here.\nWhat were your thoughts about it?\nWhy did you sign on to it?\n-Yeah, you know, I probably...I had some concerns\nabout going after the governor so -- so critically.\nAnd at the same time,\nthe governor reduced the funding for the right of way\nhomeless services that we rely on in this city.\nThat back to the shield law.\nThe shield proposal is that is looking to shield us from cuts\nthat are happening at the state and federal level.\nSo when we're in a downturn economic situation\nwith our budget as we are,\nI'll come back to why I signed on to the letter.\n-Yeah, please.\n-I have three levers that I can pull to address the budget,\nwhich is I can create efficiencies,\nI can make reductions, or I can make new revenue.\nWe just closed a $250 million hole last year\nwhere we ran this, we ran this same exercise.\n-Right. -Got to April.\nForecast was downturned.\nWe're back in the same position,\nbut we've just run the exercise a moment ago.\n-Yeah. -Right?\nAnd so why did I sign on to that,\neven though I probably wouldn't have used\nthat pointed language at the governor,\nis because we need to make a statement that we're together.\n-Got it. -We're all in this together.\n-Thank you.\nAnd it was -- it was a letter\nthat had broad support from across the state.\n-Yeah. Yeah. It's important.\nJust with Seattle Shield,\nit does have to go before voters.\nAnd we're talking about $90 million,\nwhich I know would be very important\nto fill the budget hole you're thinking about.\n-90 million net.\nAnd and that's what I want to focus again on,\nis because 90% of businesses in Seattle\nare going to be zeroed out from their BNO tax.\nAnd there's a small adjustment that is made for businesses\nthat are grossing the most, right?\nAnd the majority, or maybe not the majority,\nbut this is also helping\nthose smallest businesses find tax relief.\nWhen I was having the conversation\nwith the smallest businesses,\nand when I say smallest, I mean 50 or 40 or fewer employees.\nSo the restaurant that...\nI actually call them owner, owner occu -- owner operator.\n-Sure. Yeah. -Owner operated.\n-Yeah, yeah. Yes, I get it.\n-Because they're not hiring someone that's --\n-I understand.\n-To manage their business. -Yeah, I get.\n-This Shield proposal is providing relief\nfor them to be able to be successful in a city\nthat is rapidly becoming unaffordable.\n-Got it.\nIn terms of the revenue that is raised, though,\n$90 million looks pretty nice,\nI would imagine when we're talking about a --\nabout a budget deficit here.\nIf it doesn't pass,\nwhat kind of position does that put Seattle in?\n-So your words, it looks nice, right?\nBut again I'm looking at a $250 million hole.\n-90 million is not 250 million. -That's correct.\n-Right, so that -- that leaves another hole\n-that needs to be filled. -Okay.\n-And it is through there\nthat we we have to look at efficiencies,\nbecause the budget exercise that we started last year\nwas a multi-year budget exercise to look at efficiencies.\nBecause not all efficiencies can be found and implemented\nin a single year. But they do run out a lot.\nYou know, we took the low- hanging fruit last year.\nAnd as you saw at the Select Budget Committee yesterday,\nDirector Ben Noble of Central Staff,\nhe's the only person that has held the director of CBO,\ndirector of central staff and director of the forecast office.\n-Right, right.\n-You know, his reminder to council members yesterday\nwas every year this exercise of efficiencies comes forward,\nthis exercise of reductions.\nAnd at the end of the day,\nmost folks don't have the stomach\nfor those cuts and reductions,\nbecause at the other end of that reduction is a working family.\nIt's an individual.\nWe laid -- we laid city employees off last year.\nThis year, actually for the first time since 2008.\nPeople take, you know,\nand when I was talking to business leaders about this,\nthey said, \"Yeah, that's normal.\"\nAnd I said, \"Yes, that's normal for the private sector.\"\n-Okay.\n-If Microsoft's not laying people off every few years,\nyou kind of wonder, is there something going on in Redmond?\n-Sure.\n-People take government jobs because not for the pay,\nbecause they're getting paid less.\nFor the benefits and for the stability and security.\nAnd so to lay off city employees is a really big deal.\nGranted, you know, we had about 180 pockets last...\n-I don't have my exact notes -- -That's all right.\n-In front of me, so about 180 pockets last year.\nThat was about 77 that were filled.\nWhen I received the budget, we gave an extra six months\nbecause laying somebody off on January 1st\nversus June 30th is a psychological impact\nof being the darkest time of the year.\nIt also has an impact on people's Hanukkah\n-or Christmas presents. -Okay, sure. Yeah, yeah.\nRight.\n-But by giving that additional time,\nmany found other jobs.\nSome got out-of-class employments.\nAnd I believe that we had fewer than 20 actually laid off.\nI don't have the numbers right in front of me,\nbut to come from 180 down to 100\njust by giving a little bit more time.\n-Okay. -That's important.\nBut again, if we're going through this exercise again,\ndo people have the stomach for it?\n-Yeah, that's going to be the test here.\nAnd those were Director Ben Nobles' words.\n-I know that's going to be the test coming up here if I could.\n-Please. -If I could follow up on that?\nYou know, the idea of or, you know, looking at efficiencies,\nlooking at, you know, the responsibility of our body,\nI feel, is to ask the question, what are we spending?\nWhat are we spending it on,\nand what are we getting for that spending?\nWhat are the actual results?\nAnd if what we're spending is not getting us\nwhere we need to go, then maybe we change\nor alter where those dollars are going,\nso we get the results that we actually want.\nYeah, definitely, let's promote those efficiencies.\nLet's promote that accountability.\nLet's -- Let's look at our outcomes to make sure\nthat our spending is aligning\nwith what we actually want to achieve.\n-Got it. Thanks.\nI want to try to cover some more ground here if I can.\nThere's another revenue piece\nI want to bring up with you, if I could.\nThe 2025 state legislative session,\nlawmakers authorized cities and counties\nto collect a 0.1% sales tax\nthat would go towards criminal justice expenses.\nCouncil President Nelson has been talking about this,\nsupportive of this, wants at least 25% of this money.\nIf indeed the council does do this\ntowards addiction treatment services.\nCouncil Member Strauss,\nI know you've heard from critics\nwho say a sales tax is regressive.\nIt is,\nbut it puts a bigger burden on lower income people there.\nOn the other hand, it could bring in $35 million,\nthis tax increase could\nto a city budget that could need some help.\nWhat's your position on this new sales tax?\nWhere should the money go? Some thoughts about this.\n-All options are on the table to close a $250 million hole.\n-Okay. -That's the answer.\nYou know what council president's promoted,\nthose services that she's promoting are good services\n-that need to be funded. -Okay.\n-She's not proposing the 1% sales tax.\n-Okay. 0.1%. -0.1%.\nShe is not proposing new revenue.\nShe's proposing new spending.\n-Right.\nAnd she's not doing so in concert with the rest\nof the budget and understanding what the more macro issues are.\n-Okay, okay.\nAnd so, I'm all for funding those important\nwhat I consider medical services\nthat are treating addiction and substance use\nand their interaction with homelessness.\nThose things must be funded.\nBut she's not proposing a new revenue source.\nShe's proposing new spending\nwhile also not identifying\nwhere efficiencies or reductions are happening.\nBut that's also because all of that\nis supposed to take place in the budget process.\n-And I did want to get to this idea,\nthough, of this 0.1% sales tax piece.\nIs it something that you support?\nWould you like to see the council bring\nin these kind of dollars?\nThat's kind of where I was going with this.\n-The council needs to bring in the dollars.\nAnd, you know, to the point that's been made.\nYes, a sales tax is regressive.\nIt's going to hit those on the lower economic ladder\n-harder than anybody else. -Yeah.\n-Yet what other levers do we have?\nWhat other buckets do we have?\nWe can only, you know, go to the property tax so often.\nYou can only go to the other revenue sources\nwe have available. Perhaps a state income tax.\n-Yeah. -We're kind of hamstrung, right?\nWhat I see in terms of taking a portion\nof that 1% that's been or 0.1% that's being proposed\nand linking it to those prevention services,\nthose treatment services, those addiction services.\nYou know, I think about it from my public-safety lens.\nAnd look at what crime is happening out there in the city,\nout there on the streets\nand how much of it is fueled by addiction?\n-Sure. -There's a direct correlation.\nYou know, how much of our unsheltered population\nis dealing with substance abuse,\ndealing with untreated mental health issues.\n-There's a correlation. -Okay.\n-So at some point we got to tackle that.\nAnd you know, we have to acknowledge\nthat there is a link between those.\n-Okay, okay.\nI know this discussion is going to continue\nand I'm looking forward to that budget discussion for sure.\nHitting the mailbag here once again,\nif I could, Council Member Strauss.\nEric's got a question for you\nabout the Neighborhood Street Fund,\nwhich directs money from the levee\nto move Seattle towards projects supported directly\nby the community. Eric writes this.\nSome background here.\nStay Healthy Streets reduces\nor closes off streets to car traffic.\nIt's meant to encourage more walking and biking.\nSome people really like it.\nEric doesn't have to be a fan.\nCouncil Member Strauss, some thoughts\nabout the Neighborhood Street Fund, if you could.\n-You know, one of the other things\nthat we did in this last round of budgeting\nis we put to the side a council district fund.\n-Yeah.\n-So I go back and I look at, you know,\nwhen district councils or district community councils,\nI was I was a member of the Ballard District Council before\nit was -- before it stopped receiving city funding\nand before it stopped functioning.\n-Existing, yeah.\n-It was based out of the Ballad Service Center,\nwhich was a Department of Neighborhoods' building\n-that became an FAS sub tenant. -Okay. All right.\n-And that's now where I have my office.\n-Oh, I got it. Okay. -Right?\nAnd so I occupy the space that that district council used to\nby being present with my community,\nby finding out what their needs are,\nby being able to sometimes bring presentations\nto have town halls.\nI've got, I think, let's see,\nI've got four hours of office hours right after this.\n-Right there. -Okay.\n-And in a similar way to the Neighborhood Street Fund\nand the council district funds,\nI will be looking at what are the different things\nin the district that we need to fund.\n-Okay. -Right.\nAnd that's separate and aside\nfrom all of the things that SDOT does.\n-Okay, okay.\n-And so, you know, roundabouts.\nI can't get SDOT to put in a roundabout\nto save my life. I swear to God.\n-That's tough. Okay. -You know, and --\n-You're a council member. Come on, right?\n-And like, I'm sure SDOT's going to watch this.\nEverything that I've said in our private meetings,\nI'm saying on the record, which is like,\nyou know, I've got five roundabouts\nthat neighbors have been asking about for years.\nI've got one on 62nd and 2nd that the guy David\nhas been asking since before\nMike O'Brian was a council member.\n-What's the holdup? What's up?\n-They won't do it. -Oh, okay.\n-Right, and so sometimes they'll say there's no funding.\nAnd then I'll say, \"Okay, so I've got the funding.\"\nAnd they'll say, \"Well, there's not a program to do that.\"\nAnd so, you know, this council district fund\nis how I am saying, \"What are we doing here?\"\nBut, you know, in my most recent meeting with them,\nthey said, \"Well, you know,\nfive roundabouts might take up the whole $2 million.\n-And I said, \"Come on. Come on.\" -Okay, all right.\nAnd they're like, \"Well, what about drainage?\nWhat about the the the ramps around the corner?\"\nAnd it's just kind of like if you're not going to --\nif you're not going to slow down, cut through traffic...\n-Yeah. -...on side streets.\n-Yeah. -You have to put in speed bumps.\nYou have to put in a stop sign,\nor you have to put in a roundabout.\nI don't care, but the answer can't be no.\n-Okay. All right. Thank you.\nThank you for sharing that piece of it.\nCouncil Member Solomon,\nwe got a whole other letter coming in here.\nA question about urban growth in Seattle\nfrom Kyle, who writes this.\nThe background here, alternative five is this proposal\nto add a lot more density to the city via the comprehensive plan.\nThe council is working through that right now.\nI know we're talking about the vacancy here as well,\nbut Council Member Solomon, how would you answer this question?\nI really want to try to focus on this comp plan.\n-Okay. Well, when I look at the comp plan,\nwhen I think about the city,\nwe need more density and we need it throughout the city,\nnot just in certain neighborhoods.\nBecause when I think about D2, we have density.\nI don't need necessarily more density.\nI want that density to be shared in other districts.\nAt the same time, I'm looking at affordability.\nHow many of the units that are actually in my district\nare affordable units?\nAnd something that is keeping me up at night\nis when we think about our housing providers,\nespecially those that are tax credit properties,\nyou know, not the market rate stuff.\nYou know, those who are at 6% AMI and lower.\nSome of our providers are selling off their assets\nto just balance their books,\nwhich makes me worry about what's going to happen\nto the affordable housing units in my district\n-if those providers go under. -Yeah. Right.\n-So I'm that's why I'm looking at more affordability,\nmore units, more density, and more parts of the city\n-at more levels of AMI. -Got it.\n-I need I need units at 30 AMI and lower.\n-Not 90 AMI and higher. -Okay. Got it.\n-And so again, that's one of the things that's driving\nsome of the efforts I'm involved in right now\nis to, number one, keep people housed.\nYou know, reduce displacement,\nand allow our affordable housing providers to continue\nto provide affordable housing.\n-Got it. Thank you.\n-Those are central to the things that I'm looking at right now.\n-And I'm sure that's going to be part of the process\nin bringing in a new council member, too.\nI've got time to ask one more question of you both.\nAnd Council Member Strauss,\nI wanted to make sure I asked you the council just passed\na measure meant to speed up the construction\nor make it easier for Sound Transit to bring in light rail.\nYou serve on the Sound Transit Board as well as\nthe city council.\nDoes this mean the line to Ballard is open in next week,\nor what are we talking about here?\n-Well, I sure hope so. -Wouldn't that be neat? Yeah.\n-But no, Sound Transit is going through an enterprise process\nright now because the long range financial plan is out of sync.\nAnd in the past,\nwhen Sound Transit has addressed this budget issue,\nthey have just done realignments,\nwhich means things get delayed\nor things get taken off the table.\nAnd that has not been good for the agency or our region.\nWhich is why I'm heartened to know\nthat through this enterprise initiative,\nwe're looking at the operations and maintenance,\nwe're looking at the design.\nHow can we make the capital construction go\n-more efficiently? -Okay.\n-And then what has to happen for, you know, any realignment.\nBut the city's part in this is if we did not pass this,\nthen Sound Transit would have sucked up a lot of time,\nand a lot of money, and a lot of appeal process\nover permitting the entire line piece by piece.\n-Yeah. Okay.\n-By packaging the entire line into sets of permits,\nit doesn't reduce anyone's ability to appeal.\n-It just streamlines it. -Got it.\n-It doesn't reduce any of the environmental factors.\nIn fact, I think it actually increases them\nbecause we're going to start planting trees\n-before we cut them. -Right.\n-So by packaging what is usually independent permits,\nwe're able to have a better,\nmore comprehensive view on the whole thing\nas well as save money and save time.\n-Got it.\nI only have a few seconds,\nbut I do want to touch on the presentation\nyou made recently about crime prevention\nthrough environmental design or CPTED.\nThis idea that communities can design buildings and spaces.\nThey can reduce the fear of crime, end crime.\nI only have the 30-second version,\nbut I know this is important to you.\nIt's part of your professional background.\nWhat do you want the council to do with this?\n-Codify it. -Okay. Okay.\nMake it part of the city code. Okay.\n-Yeah, and one of the things we're looking at is,\nyou know, we're doing some design review\nlike some interim legislation\nthat puts CPTED requirements into the design review.\nIt's like, okay, if you're going to build something,\nconsider these elements before you, you know,\nbefore you draft your final product.\nAnd do it before the 60% phase, you know,\nso that you actually can, you know, make those changes\nbefore it's like, \"It's too late to actually make these changes.\nIt's going to be too expensive.\"\nConsider these things in the design phase\nearly on in the concept phase.\nSo it's actually much easier to implement.\n-Got it. There's Ted Talks and there's CPTED talks.\nAppreciate you breaking that down.\nCouncil Member Mark Solomon, Council Member Dan Strauss,\nthanks for joining me. Brian Callanan here with you.\nAnd we'll see you next time on \"Council Edition\".\n♪♪\n♪♪\n♪♪"
},
"summary": null,
"hindsight": null,
"urls": {
"meeting": "/seattle/meeting/x178195",
"raw": "/seattle/api/meeting/x178195/raw.json",
"sourceMeeting": "/seattle/api/source/meeting/x178195.json"
}
}