"which was not discussed and drafted in the light of a public process"

This is how the legislative process is intended to work, the Seattle City Charter doesn't call for any sort of public involvement before a bill is even introduced. Ms. McCoy is suggesting there is something nefarious going on here, but this legislation is proceeding like every other piece of legislation in Seattle.

that's a whole lotta words to publicly admit "we failed at lobbying city council to do things our way." I want more housing because I too want my rent to stop going up every damn year, so you guys need to do better than this! Seattle needs you to do better than trying and failing to bully the city council because it clearly isn't working

@2 do you feel that whenever the Council does bad things it's the fault of someone else for not stopping them, or just in this case?

@3 why is it a bad thing? because The Stranger and the organization that is line to receive millions of dollars from taxpayers says so? Voters are going to have their say and get to choose which option they prefer.

@3,

I also want to know why presenting voters with an alternative funding proposal is a "bad thing." Can you elaborate?

@3 oh my bad let's just keep doing the same thing over and over to see if that works watches rent go up

"Social Housing Movement".... lol. You guys have done nothing. I mean, I'm sure you'll end up spending millions of dollars on salaries and other crap and ten years from now there will be like 200 "social housing" units which will actually do nothing to make anything any better.

This is just another feel-good plan that gives you some jobs but doesn't accomplish jack shit at solving the housing scarcity in this city.

@4/5 they crafted an alternative that effectively guts the proposed program and also raids a funding stream that was specifically designated for other purposes. Voters who don't want social housing already had the option to vote no. The Council's alternative is stupid and purposeless, which I consider bad but maybe you disagree.

@6 I don't even understand what point you were trying to make. I doubt anyone does.

@8 just because you don't like the option doesn't mean it was bad they took some time and provided one. At the end of the day the voters get to decide and I am glad to see the council actually take some time and think about this before rushing through to give another feel good program that hasn't been attempted anywhere in the country a boat load of tax dollars.

@9 the problems with the Council's "option" were detailed in this separate article: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/09/17/79698319/city-council-alternative-to-i-137-protects-wealthy-donors-at-the-expense-of-the-voters-will

Most troubling is this:
"The council’s alternative would lower the cap on renters’ incomes from 120% of the area median income (AMI) to 80% AMI, undermining the cross-subsidization model of social housing that voters approved in 2023."

This is not an alternative implementation. The Council seems to either fundamentally misunderstand social housing or be intentionally killing it.