Where are these 'economically distressed zip codes'? Do they have to be in Seattle city limits?

In general I support these kinds of measures but practically speaking it's very difficult to be a construction worker and live in Seattle. I work in construction here and most people live outside of the city limits because they can't afford to live in Seattle and/or they need space for their truck/equipment.

Hey, how's that reporting going on things in West Seattle with it's four or five City Council candidates or the other candidates in other districts that aren't Districts 2, 3, or 4? We're up to like 22 people now.

Why don't they do that for the SPD and SFD?

@1, you're on to something. I'm wondering if they actually talked to employees and/or their unions to learn why a certain portion of workers don't live in the city.
@3, you also nailed it too, especially regarding the police.

Once again our representatives relative distance from the population they serve has shown itself and will help turn a well intentioned idea into a clusterfuck.

@4, And I agree: this is ripe for good intentions turning into a pathway of bureaucratic hell by the time the Council is done with it.

Laudable goal, fucking stupid implementation.

Can you imagine this from the contractor's perspective? Yes, I know you have a team of trusted and experienced employees but you can't use them. Here is a pool of union asshats with no loyalty to you whatsoever though - and try to get this done under budget mmmkay?

This sounds like socialism to me; has CM Sawant approved this??

@8, historically disadvantaged implies things are better now.

I don't object to trying to benefit workers from economically poorer areas, but I do object to the way this article treats those areas as synonymous with minority communities.

I mean literally, the article conflates the two (emphasis mine):

The bill approved yesterday in the council’s Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee requires at least 20 percent of the work on city projects costing more than $5 million to be done by people from economically distressed zip codes. Eligible zip codes are those with high numbers of people who are unemployed, don’t have college degrees, and live below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

...

Plus, the 20 percent requirement still applies, so workers from minority communities will still be required on projects.

It may be the case that certain minorities are disproportionately represented in economically disadvantaged areas. And if that's the case, then targeting economically disadvantaged areas should disproportionately benefit those minorities, without requiring racial quotas, and that's great! Further, it's not a problem if such a policy also benefits poor communities that happen to be majority white, either.

Further, using terms like "traditionally disadvantaged groups" tends to lead toward the assumption that everyone with the shared characteristic (say, skin tone) requires or deserves your special treatment or sympathy, regardless of their individual circumstances. That sort of behavior makes you the kind of douche that gives otherwise well-meaning liberals a bad reputation. Examining if someone lives in an economically distressed area is not a perfect solution, but it gives a much better rationale for whether a particular individual should benefit from policy prescriptions like government-mandated preferential hiring practices.

While it's fair to draw conclusions from statistical averages for a given demographic, applying those conclusions to every individual in that demographic is just another form of stereotyping.

Finally, the real buried lede here is the involvement of the unions. I don't have anything against unions, but what a nice handout this seems to be for them. Is it fair to say that policy seems to target those from economically disadvantaged areas who also are willing to pay union dues?

classic election cycle pandering - crumbs to the poor and gifts to the unions.

(and the WA Bus sticker is a nice touch)

this process started in 2013, and this is the best we can do?

Jesus fucking christ. Hey morons in government, BACK THE FUCK OFF!!! How about let business alone and let people hire who they think are SKILLED enough to do the job at hand. Who the fuck came up with this idea?! Stop making rules for no fucking reason. There is no problem here. Let contractors hire who they want to hire. If someone is doing a job I want them to be the best person for that job not the person that lives the closest. That's fucking moronic.

The Unions hire qualified persons for the big jobs in Seattle. If the union member lives in the "qualifying area" and is current in all the items needs for employment, then it"s a win win. If the person qualified for the job lives in Lk. Stevens then this person will have to commute. It's been like that forever. Just because a person lives in in the vicinity of a big job does not make this person qualified for the work required.

If they were to say, ensure city of Seattle residents were the 20% I would not be so sternly opposed. However, if someone from a distressed area wants a well paying construction gig, and say move to a place where there are better schools and safer neighborhoods, they will not be able to apply their trade. This legislation may provide certain zip codes with more money (Not enough to likely solve any social problems), but it also restricts the liberty of those who initially benefit from it.