Q&A: New Seattle Parks leader talks homelessness, public safety

Since Anthony-Paul Diaz took the helm of Seattle Parks and Recreation this month, he’s been impressed by how cherished the city’s park system is by residents, visitors and even travel vloggers.

“When you look at Seattle from above, even when you’re flying in, I feel like it’s just one big park,” he said. “All the little cities and neighborhoods are just little villages in this big park.”

In September, Mayor Bruce Harrell named “AP” Diaz as his nominee for Seattle Parks superintendent. Confirmation by the Seattle City Council is awaited; in the meantime, Diaz is working as interim superintendent.

After graduating from Georgetown University and Loyola Law School, the Los Angeles native served as city attorney in L.A.’s civil attorney’s office and as general counsel for the L.A. Department of Parks and Recreation. Most recently, he was the assistant general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.

Diaz is leading Seattle Parks at a time when parks have increasingly intersected with issues of homelessness and public safety. Seattle Parks is also expanding after City Council members voted to nearly double the parks tax rate to fund new rangers as well as facility improvements.

Harrell has made it clear, while campaigning and in office, that he intends to keep parks clear of homeless encampments.

“We do not want our park system to be de facto housing,” he said last month at a news conference announcing Diaz as his pick for superintendent.

The following interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

I’d like to hear a bit about your background in L.A. What was the biggest lesson you learned about homelessness from your last job?

Parks serve a unique place in society. They are spaces that have been dedicated for recreational activity, for open space and should be welcoming, safe and accessible for everyone. People really enjoy their parks and they’re vital to their everyday sense of well-being for children, adults and seniors. 

However, in a major city, you also have to be cognizant that the impacts of people experiencing homelessness can weave into the park system. What I learned in Los Angeles is that homelessness is a huge issue and there’s no one right approach to dealing with this issue. 

You really need to have a collaborative approach with people that understand the issues behind homelessness, people that can work with the community and know the frustrations of what it’s like to live on the streets. There’s also a real voice of community concern and public safety. When cities and societies don’t face these huge crises together, they just manifest over time and then it’s really hard to improve conditions.

During your time in L.A., there was a large encampment removal at Echo Park. Protesters were arrested and research showed few people in long-term housing a year later. How will that experience inform Seattle Parks’ approach to homeless encampments? 

What we’ve learned from those situations is that communication early is really important with all groups, advocates and those experiencing homelessness. If actions were to occur in Seattle parks, there would be a process, and we really want to take time to ensure that there were resources offered. We can never guarantee what individuals may look like a year after being placed, but the hope is that if you have strong, committed providers, even if you’re helping a few groups of people get off the streets and into more primitive housing or into jobs, that’s improving society. 

I also think it’s important to take time in any abatement or cleanup to understand that there’s going to be many sides on each issue and that you’re never going to be able to please all people all the time. If you’re leading in grace, empathy and love, I think you’re going to have much better results than just trying to solve the problem in a silo.

What do you think successful outreach looks like ahead of a removal?

Accessible outreach looks like starting that communication and that outreach ahead of time with the providers and the people that really understand the issues. They know how to communicate, they know how to convey a message that perhaps is less alarming if delivered by another entity or agency. I think what we’ve learned as a society is that if you do not have the right people delivering messages, it can really give false expectations and just proliferate mixed messages, which aren’t necessarily the goal of a cleanup or an abatement.

In an ideal world, how early, specifically how many months or weeks, does that communication start?

I think there’s no specific number. I think it depends on the location and on the magnitude of what issues present. What I like about our city’s approach is that through the unified care team, people are doing outreach ahead of time and doing investigations to help inform the city’s approach. 

So in some areas where individuals might need a translator or have more debris, you might want to start the communication weeks ahead. In other areas, you might want to start it sooner. There are standardized guidelines that should be followed, but there’s no one approach to communicating with individuals.

Earlier this year, a conversation was leaked when Harrell told police “no one has a right to camp out in a park where our children are supposed to play,” and that he is “not supposed to see freaking syringes in a park.” Do you agree? 

I’m not familiar with those statements but I do believe, and I know, that the city’s approach to parks is always to create safe and accessible places. When I look back on the original design of Seattle Parks, which dates back to the Olmsted legacy, the plan for the park system was not intended ever for any city to be de facto housing, or de facto areas for graffiti, or de facto areas for bulky item disposal. 

There are proper places for those things in our city and I think we have an obligation to ensure public safety. So it’s a big challenge for our city but it’s one that really has proved to be successful. I’ve been very impressed with the state of the downtown core area of Seattle and some parts that I’ve seen, which had really improved since the height of the pandemic. 

It’s well-documented that Seattle doesn’t have enough resources to shelter every person facing homelessness. In that shortage, many people look to parks to survive. Do you think the city and King County should be doing more to provide resources? 

It’s a big issue and as a city, we must come together to find alternative solutions. The county, the city, the state, working together to identify areas for tiny homes, transitional housing or nontraditional uses of spaces and bridge housing, are all positive examples of a way that a city could contribute.

I know that our local and state leaders are working to address this issue and we in Parks want to be as supportive as possible. Those right and proper places for housing exist in the city, especially for those who need them. If we can work together to find these spaces, then it relieves burdens on other parts of the city.

I think that finding housing and more opportunities for jobs is a collective responsibility. I think under the mayor’s One Seattle vision, he envisions a government that’s working together and doing less finger-pointing. Departments should not be engaging in statements like “This is not my responsibility,” or “I have no role to play in this issue.”

Can you talk a bit about your vision for the increase in park rangers? Some have called it a promising alternative to policing. Others say rangers will lead to more interactions between homeless people and the criminal legal system. 

I believe park rangers have the ability to be unique park ambassadors. Park rangers when properly staffed will be the first line of interaction with the community. I envision a park ranger program that’s also environmental caretakers, stewards, educators. They can enhance the park system so they should not be viewed as people that are coming in to create a state of unease.

They will be leading children on tours of our parks. They’ll be educating about flora and fauna, so this notion that park rangers are to be feared is not in line with the vision that I have.

In what situations do you think it would be appropriate for rangers to escalate a situation to police? 

First and foremost, I’m thankful that our Seattle Police Department understands the unique challenges of parks, and they ultimately have the responsibility for responding to crime threats in a park. Depending on the level of response, they’re well-trained and equipped to do that for our city. 

Park rangers will have great communication with our police department so that hopefully, they can have early communication and if they spot an issue, they can alert any authority.

Do you think park rangers should be able to write tickets or carry pepper spray?

I am not sure of all the functions that the rangers will undertake. I want to take time to review the current policies and protocols for park rangers and to do things that are in alignment with the current structure but also that work well with our police department, which is primary source of responsibility for responding to serious crime.

The plan is to hire around 26 rangers. What’s the plan for distributing them geographically? 

Our focus is to enhance the downtown core under the model that has been approved and presented. But I think in time as we grow the ranger program, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t look at or figure out solutions to utilizing park rangers in all parts of the city. 

Are there any projects you are particularly excited about?

I’m very much excited about the capital projects that are going to come as a result of the park district funding that has just recently been approved. That includes renovations of existing facilities, new parks, enhancements to aquatic centers, to comfort stations, but also the sort of unexplored possibility of partnerships, installations of art or creative festivals and community events.

The homelessness crisis has sparked debate about who public spaces like parks are for. Who are they for? Does that include people surviving in them?”

I believe parks are essential infrastructure just as important as bridges and highways. During the pandemic, they have proved themselves as a place of respite as a place of wellness, rejuvenation, regeneration and, again, we have a duty to provide safe and welcoming spaces for everyone. 

There’s appropriate uses of our park that sometimes call for our parks to be places of free speech and public forums and we should support that vast activation of our spaces.

Homelessness is an important challenge that affects parks without a doubt, but at the end of the day, I believe that our city is smart enough and well equipped to come up with creative solutions to the problem which to me include temporary bridge housing, job resources, access to health care and food. I believe parks play a role in that and that everything we do needs to be cloaked under grace and also with a commitment to public safety.