Open your ballot. Grab a pen. Then pause — and think about the Seattle you want to see.
A city where police are empowered to arrest people for using drugs — or where drug arrests are discouraged? Where businesses like Amazon are shielded from tax increases — or taxed more? Where apartments sprout along transit lines — or can grow almost anywhere?
Those questions and others are at stake in the Nov. 7 election, which will remake the nine-member Seattle City Council and help determine for years to come how the city handles homelessness, growth, crime and taxes.
All seven of the district seats are in play, only three incumbents are running and every race is competitive, with wealthy donors and interest groups pouring money into political ads.
The election could end up affecting an eighth seat, because citywide Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda is running for a county position. If Mosqueda wins at the county, but stays in her city seat through the end of the year (that’s her plan), then the new City Council will appoint her temporary replacement.
The contenders paint their political ideas about Seattle’s problems in shades of blue. But there are real choices for voters to make in this city of contrasts, where shiny new towers loom above rain-soaked tents and corporate titans rub shoulders with independent shops.
The matchups are Maren Costa and Rob Saka in District 1; incumbent Tammy Morales and Tanya Woo in District 2; Joy Hollingsworth and Alex Hudson in District 3; Ron Davis and Maritza Rivera in District 4; Cathy Moore and ChrisTiana ObeySumner in District 5; incumbent Dan Strauss and Pete Hanning in District 6; incumbent Andrew Lewis and Bob Kettle in District 7.
The results could give Mayor Bruce Harrell a stronger or weaker hand, given that Harrell has endorsed Saka, Hollingsworth, Rivera, Moore and Strauss.
Here are some major decisions that the winners will face:
How to reduce homelessness
Next month will mark eight years since Seattle proclaimed an official state of emergency over homelessness. But the crisis is still accelerating, which will put the next council under pressure. Whereas at least 124 homeless people died in King County in 2015, at least 299 died this year through September, according to a preliminary tally of deaths investigated by the King County Medical Examiner’s Office.
“This is the worst it’s ever been,” and whether the next council turns the tide may depend on who gets elected, said Anitra Freeman, from Women in Black, which hosts monthly vigils.
“There are lots of good people and good programs getting people out of homelessness every day, but more people keep becoming homeless,” due to a lack of affordable housing, among other things, Freeman said.
All the candidates say the city should use tax dollars to move people indoors and connect them with services. So, how should voters distinguish between the contenders? Freeman points to encampment removals as “an indicator” of which candidates are serious about solutions.
“You’re going to have all the economic consequences of people living and dying outside, or you’re going to build housing and shelter,” she said, arguing the city should weave a stronger safety net. “You’re going to pay, one way or the other.”
Those who object to removals call them costly and counterproductive because they often push people down the street, rather than into housing. Proponents say the removals keep the public realm safe for everyone and can shepherd people into housing when done slowly and smartly.
Saka, Woo, Rivera, Strauss, Hanning, Kettle and Lewis have said they support the city’s current approach to removals, with some nuances. Costa, Morales, Davis and ObeySumner have said they don’t, again with some nuances. Hudson, Hollingsworth and Moore have hedged.
Where to direct growth
State law says the council must update Seattle’s comprehensive plan next year. That may sound wonky. But the update will guide how and where the city grows for at least a decade.
“Making your voice heard is really important, because this is going to have such an impact on the city’s future,” said Radhika Nair, an urban planner and member of the Seattle Planning Commission, speaking in her personal capacity rather than on behalf of the commission.
Since 1994, Seattle has grown using iterations of the “urban village” strategy, which directs new apartments, businesses and public services to about two dozen neighborhood hubs while restricting development elsewhere. The strategy hasn’t kept housing costs from soaring, stopped displacement or achieved Seattle’s climate goals, so the city is exploring alternatives.
They may differ on the details, but Saka, Woo, Hollingsworth, Moore, Hanning, Lewis and Kettle have in one place or another all said they support the concept of Alternative 5, which might expand some existing urban villages and create new neighborhood nodes while also allowing somewhat more density near transit, near large parks and across neighborhoods.
Costa, Morales, Hudson, Davis and ObeySumner have all said they support going beyond Alternative 5 to a potential Alternative 6 (not currently being studied), which might allow apartments in most places, with anti-displacement rules and incentives for affordable housing. Strauss says he supports “the biggest, boldest plan possible,” without naming an alternative, while Rivera has said she opposes the elimination of single-family zoning and wants gradual changes, with community input.
Some change is inevitable, because a new state law says Seattle must soon allow at least four housing units per lot on most blocks. But the council election will matter, nonetheless. So, Nair said, voters should ask themselves questions like, “Do you want your kids to be able to afford to live in Seattle?” and “Do you want to be able to walk to things like a corner store?”
What police should do
The existing council set Seattle on a new course last month by passing a law that guides police officers to make arrests in some cases for public drug use and possession. But drugs like fentanyl aren’t going away anytime soon, and the political winds directing the city’s approach could change direction, depending on the outcome of the Nov. 7 election.
The new law says Seattle can prosecute arrests for public drug use, with officers told to consider whether users are posing threats to others. Costa, Saka, Woo, Hollingsworth, Rivera, Moore, Hanning, Strauss, Kettle and Lewis all say they support it, with caveats for some. Costa and Lewis opposed a previous version. Davis has been a maybe, depending on how it’s implemented.
Morales, Hudson and ObeySumner have opposed the law, calling it ineffective and wrong, especially without more services and treatment.
The candidates mostly agree that Seattle should lead with services for drug users and hire non-police responders for such work while also hiring more police to deal with other crimes. The tricky part for the next council will be how to divide the city’s limited dollars between those aims.
“There’s definitely a need” for non-police responders “and there always has been, because public safety is such an intersectional issue,” said Jim Pugel, a former police chief who ran for council in District 7 in 2019, arguing the city’s challenge is to get the balance right.
Costa, Saka, Woo, Hollingsworth, Rivera, Moore, Strauss, Hanning, Kettle and Lewis support Mayor Harrell’s plan to add about 500 police officers, arguing a force of about 1,400 would reach 911 calls quicker.
ObeySumner opposes Harrell’s plan and generally doesn’t think the city should add more officers. Davis thinks Harrell’s plan is unrealistic, though he supports police hiring. Hudson says Seattle should focus its resources on non-police alternatives. Morales doesn’t want to discuss growing the force until its 1,190 existing positions are filled.
How to pay for it all
For much of the past decade, Seattle enjoyed record tax revenues, which paid for increased spending in many areas. But the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that trajectory. Now that federal relief dollars have ebbed, the city is staring down a projected shortfall of about $500 million in 2025 and 2026, setting the stage for the next council to either boost taxes or make cuts.
A “revenue stabilization” work group set up by the current council discussed the situation this year and released an analysis of potential options without arriving at a consensus path forward on the complicated matter, said former state Sen. David Frockt, who served on the panel.
“There was a debate in this work group about whether we were talking about a budget problem or a tax problem,” Frockt said, predicting the debate will continue to rage next year.
Saka, Woo, Hollingsworth, Rivera, Hanning, Strauss, Kettle and Lewis have stopped short of pledging to increase existing taxes or add new ones, saying the city should start by looking for ways to trim spending. They also want to close budget gaps by loosening restrictions on how Seattle spends revenue from its existing payroll tax, and they argue the city could collect more revenue with its existing taxes by promoting business development.
Costa, Morales, Hudson, Davis, Moore and ObeySumner have said they don’t expect the city to find enough savings to offset the projected shortfall. They’ve said they’d likely support one or more new options studied by the revenue work group, like a capital-gains tax, a CEO tax, a tax on high earners or a tax on vacant properties, rather than carry out deep budget cuts.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said Bob Kettle has hedged on the city’s approach to encampment removals. Kettle has said he supports the approach.
FULL COVERAGE | Key Washington 2023 general election results
The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.