Wait... the names must be mixed up here. Sawant is the only one that is divisive on council right?!

This is the second unintelligible article from the Stranger on this subject.

In two sentences or less, can someone explain what's controversial about Godden showing up to cast a vote? Isn't that her job?

@2 -- And as I understand it, Sawant's amendment would have failed 2-2 if Godden had never showed up.

Lately, reading Slog spoils my appetite for outrage.

I think it was good that Godden was able to vote, not because I agree with her position, but because it would be undemocratic to rush a vote because someone was late, especially when that person could be accommodated by harmlessly delaying till later in the meeting. The real "story" here is that Burgess apparently didn't trust O'Brien to do the right thing.

Burgess is not "increasingly conservative". He's been a Republican pro-life cop for years. It's just that now, people are noticing.

Thank God the 43rd Dems and KCDCC haven't endorsed yet

@5 is correct. Nice guy, like his wife, but ...

No one was rushing a vote. But if Godden wasn't there - at the time - why didn't Burgess state his reason for the delay?

Burgess likes to operate in backroom ways. I see this from how he operates in public ed issues.

Godden was asked if she wanted to discuss the issue, and she said "No, I just came to vote."

Tent encampments have been sited on residential land (since churches which have hosted them are almost always in residential areas) for 10 years. Just what would be the difference now?

I didn't see a source for the note. Anyone?

I swear I miss read the note and thought it said, "Jesus Coming."

The detail is that Jean Godden is NOT on the land use committee. But why, in that case, is she able to vote on it, willy-nilly, whenever the mayor calls?

So Burgess was an ass about it. But it only seems fair to wait for everyone to be there before voting. Otherwise it would have passed only because one councilmember was absent, which doesn't exactly express the will of the council.

That's called politics. I am shocked, shocked I tell you to discover politics happening right there in our political system.

Which is to say, criticize her vote on the merits all you want. But the process special pleading is boring.

And on the merits, all I can really say is: We have more than 3500 people on the street and this is the hill people want to die on??? Encampment zoning? Talk about a small ball, band aid approach. Sure, it's fine, I'm not opposed to encampments in residential areas, but come on. The most offensive part is fighting about this instead of figuring out what would really make a difference in getting these folks housed. How much would it cost, where could the money come from, and how fast can we start? Anything else is a distraction.

@3 Without Godden, it would have passed 3-2. Sawant, Licata, and O'Brien were "yes" votes.

This is what passes for political "game playing" and "parliamentary shenanigans" to a Slog reporter?

@10 The note was obtained by a public records request. The source was the Godden staffer named in this piece. Was that really confusing?

@14 Your objection (in conjunction with your prescription) would be fair if Burgess, Godden, or Murray were doing something about providing housing. They just aren't, and haven't. Encampments are an emergency measure that are needed because no one is acting on solving the real problem.

This isn't a committee Godden is specifically assigned to or which she ever attends. It is reasonable to call bullshit when she (and our mayor, and our city council president) puts so much extraordinary effort into foiling a stopgap, bandaid, small ball measure, and puts no effort whatsoever into finding the real solutions you call for above.

The City Council is a joke not only because of their refusal to grapple with questions that are difficult, but also because of the great lengths they will go to to stop easy, small measures.

@4, @13

You both sound concerned about making sure as many council members get a say as possible. Godden's vote prevented the amendment from appearing before the full council. Murray and Burgess saw that the amendment would pass, and were obviously concerned about what would happen if the full council was allowed to vote on it, so Burgess stalled, and Godden showed up to a committee she never attends to vote no on an issue she declined to comment on.

In order to prevent a vote of the full council.

@19, I hear you, and I was right there with you on the original encampments measure. There was/is clearly a need for encampments unless and until this City gets its shit together on housing and shelter. I do not see the point of contininuing to spend political capital on encampment zoning. Its a solution in search of a problem (I haven't heard anyone say we're out of space where encampments are allowed), and a symbolic issue in a time of crisis. Yes, it's an unnecessary slap in the face of people experiencing homelessness, but not as much so as refusing to get serious about the scale of the problem versus the scalr of solutions. The Stranger is doing some great local reporting these days, and I hate to see that political pressure wasted on encampment zoning. This is about the 5th article I've read about it.

@12: Any Council member can come to any committee meeting and vote. They usually don't though. But since this was a committee vote, it has no effect whatsoever. That's what Ansel I'm-writing-as-badly-as-I-can Herz won't tell you, because it reveals that this story is utterly meaningless. (Shocked?) The bill could have come out of the committee 5-0 and still be voted down in full Council since committee votes have no legal effect whatsoever. The heat to light ratio at the Stranger is becoming distressingly high. Well, you get what you pay for.

@22 Except we don't actually know how the full council would have voted. This vote had no less and no more of an effect than preventing an issue some council members were interested in from appearing before the full council. That isn't nothing.

@21 I hear you too. But I'm afraid that even in the best case, solutions at the scale needed to address the crisis at hand will not be coming anytime soon. And encampments or no, there is no sign that this cohort is about to do anything that real anytime soon. The map for encampments is very restrictive and they should be able to take advantage of opportunities that make sense but aren't currently contemplated by the zoning. We need to say yes to some stopgaps no matter how optimistic we are about dealing with this problem, and the question in the amendment was worthy of discussion by the full city council.

@21, encampments are important because there isn't enough brick-and-mortar shelter and sanctioned tents are better than unsanctioned greenbelt-sleeping from which people are ejected and their stuff destroyed. This city as one municipality (or this county, or this state) cannot take care of the underlying problem, because this country as a whole is not taking care of the underlying problem. Thus, sanctioned encampments are an emergent necessity. That's really not difficult to understand.