Sigh. This guest piece by a "tech entrepreneur" in @UrbanistOrg takes at face value the campaigns' "unlikely bedfellows" narrative, misrepresents how the mandatory minimum spend would work... https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/04/27/op-ed-how-to-improve-compassion-seattles-charter-amendment/

...misunderstands what the "2000 units" required by the initiative actually would be (far from the permanent apartments the writer thinks would be built, it actually includes mass shelter in places like the Navigation Center)

... and completely buys into the old Tim Burgess-backed notion that withholding contracted funds if agencies fail to meet city-imposed performance metrics is an effective way to guarantee better services. It also casually suggests the lack of ANY new funds isn't that big a deal.

The piece also claims the proposed amendment sets "refreshing limits" on sweeps, which it doesn't. The rules remain basically the same, but would now be enshrined in the city's constitution and given new justification because after all, we GAVE them "housing."

Sure, there's aspirational language about cultural appropriateness and individualized placements, but that's what the city argues it's doing already. Aspirations aren't action and gauzy words about really helping people this time aren't commitments.

The writer does seem to be aware that allowing the city to clear encampments they decree are harming the use of "public space" is almost infinitely broad, but again: That's the problem with the current policy, and this doesn't fix it.

Meanwhile, sweeps are continuing to happen. The next one, at Gilman Playfield in Ballard, would be 100% permitted under this charter amendment.

I'm open to arguments that this measure should pass because it would make some small measure of difference or because it's better than other alternatives. What bothers me are arguments that ignore the city's history with laws like this and the plain text of the proposal.