On Monday, Rep. Shaun Scott led a town hall meeting advocating for a crisis care center in Capitol Hill, amidst community resistance.
The proposed project seeks to establish a 24/7 walk-in mental health crisis center in a district that has experienced significant pushback from some local businesses and residents.
While some community members are expressing concerns, advocates, including Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, emphasize the urgent need for enhanced mental health services.
Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell has opted to defer to King County regarding the center’s establishment, without officially endorsing the Capitol Hill initiative.
Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, representing District 3 where the center would be located, has amplified critical voices in the community, advocating for greater deliberation before the proposed site at Broadway and Union Street is approved.
The debate over the crisis care center comes at a pivotal time in Seattle, particularly as the mayor approaches a reelection campaign, competing against candidate Katie Wilson, who endorses the crisis center and prioritizes strengthening the social safety net.
In November 2023, King County voters approved a crisis care center levy, with a notable majority of 57% supporting the measure, which includes raising property taxes to finance the establishment of five behavioral health crisis care centers accessible to all residents.
These centers are specifically designed to address behavioral health crises, according to Kelly Rider, director of the King County Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS).
Rider articulated the difference between bodily injuries and mental health crises: “When you break your arm, you know where to go. When you have a behavioral health crisis, we currently lack walk-in support, day or night.”
The centers are structured to offer three levels of care, including a walk-in urgent care clinic to triage and connect individuals with appropriate treatments, a 23-hour observation lounge alternative to emergency rooms, and short-term stabilization units for patients needing acute care.
Earlier this year, Connections Kirkland was designated as King County’s inaugural crisis care center, serving the North King County area.
In January, a purchase agreement for $50 million was initiated for the former Polyclinic building in Capitol Hill, positioning it as the second site for a crisis care center tailored for the central Seattle region.
If finalized, the county is expected to complete the acquisition deal by year-end.
Rider elaborated that the decision to utilize the old Polyclinic was based on its prime location, ease of access to public transport, proximity to hospitals, and existing medical facility configuration, enabling quicker operational readiness.
Local opposition surfaced earlier this year, prompting some residents and business owners to express discontent with the proposed site.
A letter sent to Councilmember Hollingsworth highlighted the community’s saturation with mental health and drug-related issues, arguing the new facility would worsen an already unstable atmosphere rife with violence and drug activity.
Interestingly, one local business owner, Steven Severin, publicly stated that he never consented to support the letter against the center.
Contrastingly, supporters of the site surfaced with two optimistic letters advocating for the crisis center’s location, underscoring the urgent need to address the community’s mental health challenges.
In a resolution passed by the 43rd Legislative District Democrats, a robust majority endorsed establishing the crisis care center in Capitol Hill, with chair Ryan Driscoll noting an influx of 230 supportive letters sent to local lawmakers.
In response to the concerns raised by constituents, Hollingsworth urged for more transparency and public engagement surrounding the crisis center’s placement.
She detailed four key requests: disclosing the sale agreement timetable, implementing a thorough public engagement process by DCHS, evaluating alternative locations in collaboration with the City Council and Mayor’s Office, and conducting evening neighborhood discussions to address community sentiments more directly.
Local hospitals generally support the proposed crisis care center, perceiving it as an essential enhancement to the existing behavioral health service continuum.
Amy Dodgion, involved in behavioral health at Swedish hospitals, stated that area hospitals unanimously endorse the initiative, viewing it as a much-needed solution for patients facing mental health crises that do not require immediate emergency care.
Dodgion elaborated on how the crisis care centers would alleviate pressures on emergency departments by providing timely care and community resource connection for those beginning to experience behavioral health crises.
This town hall attracted significant community engagement, with many attendees eager to voice their support and concerns.
Scott conveyed the collaborative nature of governance and the general demand for increased behavioral health services in both his district and statewide, affirming the importance of the crisis care center in rejuvenating the Capitol Hill community.
Emphasizing a legacy of inclusivity, Scott voiced excitement about the center’s potential, framing it as a pushback against the historical exclusion in the area.
Rinck expressed her eagerness for the center to facilitate better access to mental health services, particularly at a time when federal policies may undermine key support systems like Medicaid and food assistance.
In her remarks, Rinck highlighted the growing necessity for local initiatives in light of federal legislative decisions that risk leaving vulnerable populations without the support they need.
Rider recognized the demand for more engagement from the community during the Q&A session, signifying a shift towards increased transparency and dialogue following initial criticism.
Concerns about neighborhood safety were raised, to which Scott assured attendees that the center could positively impact public safety by promptly addressing mental health issues within the community.
Additionally, Rider emphasized how the new center would maintain an active presence in the neighborhood, transforming the old Polyclinic into a vibrant community resource.
Looking ahead, Hudson articulated a strong message about the urgency for action, reinforcing that municipal delays are a significant threat to the community, which has been clear about its dire needs.
Currently, the county is nearing the conclusion of the due diligence phase to assess the viability of the site, while community outreach efforts continue.
Engagement with residents remains open, and those interested in contributing input can still reach out via email to [email protected].
Before the plan is fully realized, King County also requires formal documentation of support from the City of Seattle, though specifics regarding which city official needs to provide this remain uncertain.
The Urbanist’s inquiry to the Mayor’s Office for an update regarding backing for the project was met with no response.
Subsequently, the proposal must be presented to the King County Council for consideration.
Scott noted that behavioral health represents one of the most pressing concerns for voters, underscoring the political imperative to advance the project rather than allow it to stall due to bureaucratic delays.
Rider expressed ongoing confidence in the crisis care center initiative, maintaining that the local tax funding would sustain operations despite potential changes to federal Medicaid support.
Moreover, the levy aims not only to create these five centers but also to promote additional residential treatment options and bolster the behavioral health workforce, with the centers being the priority.
Recently, the county has solicited proposals from providers to partner with on these crisis care centers, marking substantial progress in the project timeline.
Rider concluded by reflecting on a broader hope for enhanced behavioral health services, recognizing a societal shift toward reducing stigma and increasing demand for governmental support.
Overall, the town hall underscored both the community’s strong support for necessary mental health services and the challenges that come with implementing such initiatives in a contested environment.
As discussions continue, it remains to be seen how local governance will navigate these crucial decisions impacting the well-being of Capitol Hill residents.
image source from：theurbanist
