Tim Burgess' City View

Where Are We Headed?

The challenges of policing in our country did not arise in a vacuum. They connect to a broad array of factors . . . They connect to the fact that in this country police shootings and police misconduct disproportionately affect Black people. The challenges connect, as well, to the shameful American legacy of slavery, to Jim Crow, to mass incarceration, to the “war on drugs,” to redlining, and to public schools that have and continue to fail Black children.

 

In this context, and at this time, it is important for someone in my position to say clearly — Black Lives Matter.

 

Black Lives Matter in policing.

 

Black Lives Matter in education.

 

Black Lives Matter in our economic system.

 

We must squarely face our history of racism and injustice, and, frankly, that’s something I don’t believe our country has truly done. We will know that we have when all people of color have equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, and never doubt their standing as Americans.

 

I spoke the above words in an address to the City Council on September 25, 2017, when I was serving as Seattle’s interim Mayor. Now, nearly three years later, here we are again grappling with the same challenges in policing and criminal justice.

Do You Want Tent Encampments Almost Everywhere in Seattle?

A shorter version of this article was first published in The Seattle Times earlier this afternoon.

 

Three Seattle City Council members — Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda, Kshama Sawant — want to permit tent encampments almost everywhere citywide.

 

This ill-conceived, very dangerous legislation (Council Bill 119796) would effectively allow camping across Seattle — including on sidewalks (if campers leave a 4-foot accessible pathway), planting strips, parks, open spaces and industrial lands.

 

Astonishingly, the council members even want to block police officers from removing encampments when someone calls police seeking removal of campers.

 

Key Step to Preserve Jobs and Springboard Our Economy

A shorter version of this article was first published at Crosscut on May 18, 2020, with my co-authors Gladys Gillis, owner of Starline Luxury Coaches in Seattle and immediate past chair of the national United Motor Coach Association and Jon Scholes, president and CEO of the Downtown Seattle Association.

 

On CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday, May 17, 2020, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell urged Congress to do much more to preserve jobs and prevent business bankruptcies. Powell also said the Federal Reserve still had lots of "ammunition" to act further, but additional Congressional action is urgently needed.

 

Last January, Seattle was smack in the middle of the first outbreak of the coronavirus. Now, nearly four months later, almost 37 million Americans across the country have lost their jobs.

The official unemployment rate for April hit 14.7%.

 

This staggering number will likely increase; some believe unemployment levels could reach 30%. That is higher than the unemployment peak of the Great Depression, in 1933, when 24.9% of American workers were without work.

 

Bill Gates Warned Us. Will We Finally Heed His Advice

While we are hunkered down at home, I’ve been thinking about why our country wasn’t at all prepared for this respiratory pandemic that is sweeping the globe.

 

Not being prepared is going to cost us a lot in human and economic costs. We've already seen how very painful and disruptive the coronavirus is going to be; it will be even more so if we minimize the counsel of scientists and public health experts.

 

Last night, I watched Bill Gates as he was interviewed by Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN. I learned that Gates warned us five years ago, in April 2015, that the United States—frankly, the whole world—was not prepared at all for a respiratory virus like we are experiencing today.

 

Here’s Bill Gates issuing his warning back in 2015 and his 5-step solution. The video runs just over 8 minutes. It's worth the time, for certain.

During last night’s CNN interview, Gates acknowledged that none of his 2015 recommendations have been fully implemented.

 

Why is this? Why is it so difficult for us to implement systems that will protect us?

 

In Gates’ analysis, the closest system to the public health response capability he has advocated is the military—they train, stage war games, have reserves that can be quickly mobilized, use technology wisely, and are constantly assessing system weaknesses and threats to our national security. Gates would like our public health system to do the same.

 

I guess we shouldn't be surprised at system failures. They are all around us, especially in government systems (or lack of them). Take the threat of climate change. Our response has been piecemeal, scattered, and inadequate. Take poverty. We have designed multiple programs to eliminate poverty, and spent billions, yet intergenerational poverty persists and families wanting help must navigate a confusing system labyrinth that most of us would give up on very quickly. Take education. We have failed to prepare many of our children for today's global economy, especially black and brown children, and education inequality rages on. Take criminal justice. We have been very slow to adopt reforms that could bring less crime and less punishment. Take homelessness. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in our region in recent years to solve the crisis of unsheltered people and yet haven't seemed to have made a dent.

 

On top of these failures—and, I'm sure, there are many others—we have allowed what I call a "peanut butter philosophy of politics" to reign supreme, causing great harm to the common good. This "peanut butter" style of governing spreads resources too thin, placing emphasis on keeping everyone happy and diluting any opposition to a given approach or program. So, rather than investing deeply to achieve significant change, we spread our investments—like thinly spreading peanut butter—across multiple programs and organizations, lessening the overall impact. Instead, we should carefully follow the science of what works, invest deeply in those proven approaches, and achieve much greater impact.

 

Here's an example. We know from nearly 50 years of academic research that high-quality preschool for three- and four-year old children can change a child's life outcomes—better education attainment, better health, higher earning power when entering the adult workforce, less criminal justice system involvement. We all would welcome these positive outcomes. Yet, in Washington state we invest only about 1 percent of our state budget in early learning programs. Washington ranks in the lower third of states in access to quality early learning programs. (Former State Representative Ruth Kagi and I wrote about the all important birth-to-five years in this piece in the Puget Sound Business Journal.)

 

Researchers at the University of Chicago, and others, have documented that investing in high-quality early learning efforts is the most important and best investment we can make for our children. Last year, these same researchers documented that these investments can eliminate intergenerational poverty. Who wouldn't want these outcomes? And, yet, we don't make the level of investment that's needed. That's because competing demands obscure our focus on achieving the greatest impact, so we invest thinly—spreading the peanut butter—and allow inequity to march on.

 

The challenge of spreading the peanut butter isn't about right and wrong, good ideas or bad. It's about the rigor of investing to achieve the greatest return, being keenly focused on the desired outcomes, and having the ability to say "no" to other good but less effective ideas. It's about elected leaders leading and insisting on accountability.

 

Bill Gates recognized a problem many years ago that we are now living through. He suggested practical steps to get ready. We didn't act as we should have. Let's not do the same with the other pressing social and political problems staring us in the face, especially those where we know what to do but can't seem to act effectively.

Caring for Seattle's Children

“Child poverty is an open sore on the American body politic. It is a moral failure for our nation that one-fifth of our children live in poverty,” so wrote Nicholas Kristof in Sunday’s New York Times.

Of course, he’s right. It is a disgrace that the “lottery of birth” has such devastating impact on our children, including right here in Seattle.

There is good news to report, however.

In Seattle, we have strategically assembled a “continuum of care” from birth to age five, implementing a strong series of proven, evidence-based solutions to help our kids have a strong and fair start and to make sure they are ready to thrive when they reach kindergarten. As the City Council prepares to vote on next year’s budget in the coming weeks, I’m asking my colleagues on the Council to strengthen this continuum of care even more.

Why is this so important?

Homeless Encampments: A Better Solution

Last night, I joined Mayor Murray, and Councilmembers Bagshaw and Juarez in announcing a much better solution to the challenges of ad hoc camp sites popping up across Seattle.

Here’s a very brief outline of what we announced:

1. City government will open up to four new authorized encampments similar to those already operating in Ballard, Interbay and at Othello in southeast Seattle. At least one of these encampments will be managed as a low-barrier facility, meaning individuals will not be automatically excluded because of chemical addiction, mental health issues or other typical barriers. While not a perfect solution, these organized and well-managed encampments are much better than ad hoc encampments in our parks, greenbelts or city sidewalks.
   
   
2. City government will increase street outreach and improve our approach. Outreach teams will prioritize moving people off the street and to safe indoor locations, including emergency shelter, rapid re-housing services, and permanent housing.
3. Ad hoc camp removal protocols will be changed to reflect a triage approach. Camp sites in parks or on sidewalks will still not be allowed and will be subject to immediate removal, as will sites where violence and serious criminal behavior is occurring. Other sites will only be removed if shelter or housing services are offered and declined. This triaging reflects a humane and balanced approach that allows us to appropriately address public health and safety concerns while recognizing that some ad hoc camping is likely to continue until the city addresses the necessary long-term fixes to our homelessness response.
4. Focus on housing first, a practical approach that began in Seattle many years ago that acknowledges that the best first step is to get people housed with minimal conditions or barriers. King County, United Way, All Home and city government have agreed to new strategic principles that emphasize the housing-first approach. Everything we do should be focused on moving people from the street into a warm, safe place.

The Mayor has indicated that he will provide more specific details to Council next week.

Homeless Encampments: An Update

It has been four weeks since my colleagues’ introduced legislation that would create a right to camp on public property throughout the city. I opposed introduction of this legislation.

This photograph was taken last Friday at University Playground on Northeast 50th Street. This particular park includes a children's playground, a tennis court and a sports field. This is not uncommon in city parks and playgrounds.

In this update, I want tell you what’s happened since, why it is so important for the people of Seattle to remain keenly engaged in the discussion, and efforts to change this legislation. This update gives my perspective on three important issues surrounding this proposed new law.

1. How this legislation will impact you, your family, and neighbors.
    
2. The elephant in the room that’s being ignored.
    
3. A much better solution.

The Impact on You, Your Family and Neighbors

As introduced on September 6, the proposed law establishes a new right to camp on public property across Seattle, including in our parks and greenbelts, and on sidewalks and planting strips. The law mandates that city government make public spaces available for camping in tents or vehicles. It creates complicated rules and processes that must be followed before anyone can be removed from a camping site. If anyone is removed, the city government must provide “adequate and accessible” long-term housing. Finally, if any of this process is violated, the proposed law establishes a $250 penalty per violation to be paid to the individual camper by city taxpayers.
 
Needless to say, this new law is not the balanced approach we all deserve, an approach that weighs and balances compassion with our public health and safety

Homeless Encampments: What Do You Think?

The City Council voted Tuesday afternoon to begin considering legislation (Council Bill 118794) that would, in my view, establish a new right for people struggling with homelessness to camp in tents or vehicles on public property across Seattle.

What do you think? Should the city government allow homeless camping throughout the city? Or, should we concentrate these campers in officially recognized and managed encampments at specific locations? Or, should we dramatically change our overall approach to homeless as I suggested in this August 5 opinion piece published in The Seattle Times?

My colleagues and I need to hear your opinion on these issues. Keep reading and you’ll find a link to each Councilmember’s and the Mayor’s email below.

I voted against the ordinance introduced on Tuesday and here’s why.

The proposed ordinance is not the balanced approach the people of Seattle deserve, an approach that carefully weighs and balances compassion with our public health and safety obligations. This ordinance tips this balance decidedly away from our public health and safety responsibilities and will do nothing to move people from homelessness to safe and appropriate housing.

As written, the ordinance essentially establishes for the first time a new right to camp in tents or vehicles on public space throughout the city, including in our parks and greenbelts, and on city sidewalks and planting strips. It defines “public space” as “any area that is

Two Cities, Two Children, Two Very Different Paths

The following article was sent out in my City View Newsletter, which you can sign up to receive here.

Ella is three months old, a firstborn child. She lives with her family in Seattle zip code 98118 in the Rainier Beach neighborhood in the city’s far southeast corner. Her mom and dad both work two jobs to make ends meet but still fight to rise above the poverty line. As new parents, they struggle with the challenges, wonder where they will find affordable, high-quality childcare to match their different shifts. Ella faces a mountain of obstacles as she begins her life.

Olivia is also three months old, also the firstborn in her little family. She lives in Seattle zip code 98117 in the Ballard neighborhood at the opposite northwest corner of the city. Olivia’s parents each have high paying jobs with flexible hours, leaving her at a private childcare center on her mom’s route to work. Olivia receives more support than she knows; she’s lucky to be living in Ballard.

Ella’s and Olivia’s zip codes are different by just one digit; their likely life trajectories are worlds apart.

Sadly, and to our long-term detriment, not every child born in Seattle receives the same opportunity for a strong

The Confusion Surrounding Encampments

Once again, our city is struggling with how to best respond to the very real crisis of unsheltered people living outdoors in unauthorized encampments. The “One Night Count” on January 29, an annual survey of the homeless population, is sure to further intensify the discussion as we wrestle with very conflicting opinions about what city government should or should not do to address this issue.

Some argue that living anywhere in a tent is a personal choice and a right. Even though it runs counter to all sorts of generally accepted policies, such as minimum standards of living for health and safety and zoning rules that separate residential areas from non-residential areas, this perspective is held by some. City government should firmly reject this perspective.

A more nuanced position—and more widely held—is that encampments must be accommodated as long as there is nowhere else for these individuals to live safely. While potentially attractive at first glance, this position must be considered alongside the very real public health and safety risks unauthorized encampments inherently create.