In a recent debate regarding homelessness and public safety in Seattle, candidates Nelson and Foster presented contrasting views on how best to tackle the city’s ongoing challenges.
Nelson emphasized the importance of collaboration between the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and the city’s response to homelessness. She criticized the lack of a real-time list of available shelters for outreach workers, advocating for measures to prevent waste of public resources while individuals sleep outside.
Serving on the King County Regional Homelessness Authority Board, Nelson voiced concerns about the organization’s effectiveness and the necessity for immediate shelter solutions rather than long-term housing projects. She highlighted the pressing need to get people off the streets quickly and questioned spending on building purchases over urgent shelter needs.
On the other hand, Foster called for an increase in shelter capacity, citing a city-owned property that has faced delays for two years. She advocated for simplifying processes for tiny home shelters, noting that non-congregate options have shown better acceptance among those in need.
Both candidates agreed on the value of the Community Assisted Response and Engagement (CARE) Team, with Foster proposing that the team be able to respond independently of the Seattle Police Department (SPD). Drawing from her experience with the CARE team, Foster highlighted the professionals’ backgrounds and their role in connecting people with essential services.
Nelson mirrored Foster’s viewpoint about the CARE team’s role but pointed out the lack of evaluation on the types of calls they receive, advocating for their independence from SPD to free up officers’ time.
In discussing strategies to combat drug dealing, sex trafficking, and prostitution, Nelson emphasized the importance of the Stay out of Drug Areas (SODA) and Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution (SOAP) initiatives. She described these measures as necessary steps to ensure community safety without relying solely on incarceration.
Foster responded by highlighting the Phố Đẹp action plan created by the Little Saigon community, advocating for place-based interventions rather than merely implementing SOAP and SODA zones. She stressed that these strategies had previously failed and were not effective in connecting individuals with the necessary services.
On the topic of expanding surveillance cameras in high-crime areas, Foster expressed skepticism, referencing opposition from the city’s Community Police Commission and civil rights organizations. She raised concerns about privacy issues and the potential overreach of federal authorities under the Trump administration.
Nelson expressed her support for local taxes, pointing out her backing of the B and O tax and the forthcoming public safety tax. Nelson aimed to ensure any new taxes would be thoughtfully allocated to improve addiction recovery services and stabilize homeless response systems.
The conversation shifted to past proposals such as a municipal capital gains tax, which Foster supported, arguing for diverse and progressive revenue streams to secure more funding for critical services. In contrast, Nelson questioned the projected revenue from such taxes and emphasized that budgeting should be based on demonstrated outcomes rather than on potential revenue increases.
Both candidates had differing views on utilizing JumpStart tax income to address budget shortages. Nelson described voting to amend uses of this tax to avoid cuts in services or personnel, while Foster suggested that a capital gains tax could strengthen the general fund’s ability to provide critical services for housing and climate change.
Amid discussions about the transparency of public council meetings, Nelson argued for the need for order during meetings that are disrupted. She sought a balance between allowing public comment and ensuring the council could proceed with its business without significant interruptions.
Conversely, Foster criticized the move towards private Zoom sessions for public council meetings, insisting on the importance of First Amendment rights and the need for open dialogue even in dissent.
In a rapid-fire segment at the end of the debate, both candidates provided quick responses on various topics, including their stance on funding for the Seattle Police Department and their perceptions of who should lead the city as mayor.
While Foster supported additional funding for SPD, Nelson echoed that sentiment, indicating her belief in necessary public safety measures. When asked whom they would take President Donald Trump to see in Seattle, Foster envisioned a tour showcasing community vibrancy and small businesses, while Nelson preferred a more scenic bike ride through the city’s neighborhoods.
Overall, the debate showcased the candidates’ different approaches to pressing issues like homelessness, public safety, and community engagement as Seattle navigates its complex socio-economic challenges.
image source from：kuow
