Though a chair was within reach, Seattle City Councilmember Dan Strauss stood at the dais for basically all of Tuesday’s 80-minute budget committee hearing, as aggrieved public commenters begged for a slice of the city’s proposed 2026 budget.
What Strauss was standing for—physically or ideologically—I had no idea. This meeting was to hear from the public, so he only talked about baseball, save for the occasional “thank you” and amicable nod after a speaker left the mic. His fellow councilmembers said absolutely nothing. But advocates and community members were very clear: if the city wanted to solve the problems it says it’s trying to solve, they needed money for social services. Some organizations pleaded for increased funding; others implored the city to protect them.
The budget, proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell last month, aims to address a nearly $150 million revenue shortfall, and account for President Donald Trump’s federal cuts. The mayor’s office says the budget allocates $349.5 million for affordable housing, $225 million for homelessness response and $10.8 million for immigrant and refugee communities. Now begins the City Council’s process of amending it, and finally, passing it. The council is holding its last public hearing Nov. 6 and will vote on the budget Nov. 21, less than two weeks before they’re required to adopt it.
Tuesday’s hearing, split into virtual and in-person sessions, drew about 70 nonprofit staffers, social services participants, church leaders, and Seattle residents, all hoping to influence how the council amends the budget—and what budget lines they leave alone.
Strauss began with the Mariners-Tigers score, with Mariners leading 2-0 at the bottom of the third.
First up to the podium was Paul Ryan Villanueva, representing the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), asking the council to maintain full funding for the Office of Labor Standards. APALA is a national organization advancing labor, immigrant and civil rights for Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Island workers. “In this political time, when workers and immigrant communities are being attacked, our city needs to start to think how to counter these,” Villanueva said.
Brian Lawrence, CEO of the nonprofit Seattle Public Library Foundation, said it was “unfortunate” to see a $5 million cut to the library’s capital projects budget. But he tried to be cool about it.
“We also understand the budget constraints that the mayor and the city council are working with,” Lawrence said.
Then came the CoLEAD contingent. At least a dozen staff and participants took to the mic, explaining why the program works and why the city should keep funding it. CoLEAD provides temporary, low-barrier lodging and case management to unhoused people.
It’s “the golden thread of a continuum of care for growth and movement for our folks,” said Nichole Alexander, the organization’s director of outreach and special initiatives.
Co-program director Denise Pérez Lally outlined the program’s three-phase model of outreach, temporary lodging and aftercare. She said that their lodging site, CoLEAD provides 24-hour coordinated care that includes case management, medical aid and support in navigating the legal system.
“This is challenging work, and what motivates me to show up day after day is the dignity and commitment that lead to the outcomes and participants given this opportunity to heal and thrive,” Lally said.
Brent Donner, a recent, formerly homeless graduate of CoLEAD, said CoLEAD provided transitional housing when he had nowhere else to go.
“Their support helped me clear a DUI fine, rebuild trust and realize people still care,” he said.
Representatives from the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) asked council to carve out $21 million for tenant-based rental assistance. The $11 million they’re allotted was not enough to keep people from sliding into homelessness.
“We can continue to build as much housing as we want, but it won’t matter…if we can’t help people stay housed,” said LIHI housing developer Kalyssa Eversman. “Providers are struggling across the city right now, and these dollars will help us continue to serve the most vulnerable neighbors.”
Strauss chimed in with another quick Mariners update. Bottom of the fourth, Mariners four, Tigers zero.
Several Christian leaders and members of the Church Council of Greater Seattle took to the podium to stress the idea of the city’s budget as a moral document, one that reflects the city’s values. They called for a budget that prioritizes community-led solutions, like affordable housing, financial assistance, and mental health and substance use treatment.
Joey Lopez, a co-executive director of the Church Council, urged the city council to adopt progressive revenue sources, and stop “cutting additions while preserving dollars to surveil and punish our communities,” referencing both the council’s recent vote to expand a network of police CCTV cameras despite hours of public comment railing against it and the $26 million Mayor Harrell allocated for police hiring.
“You have a duty to invest city funds in equitable, evidence-based strategies that support thriving communities,” Lopez said. “The city needs more progressive revenue sources, and we need you to act on bold policy.”
We now interrupt your reading for an unhinged intermission feat. racism.
Old white guy and regular council critic David Haines used his minute to shout at council because the city had “bought out” Black Lives Matter protesters, started a “race war,” and prioritized “Black or Brown predatory drug-pushers” over “innocent, white, houseless citizens.”
His rant quickly devolved into what can only be described as keyboard smash in all caps.
Haines stormed out. Strauss stayed standing. A woman behind me stifled a snicker. It’s not really a local government meeting if at least one racist doesn’t show up.

Joy Shigaki, president and CEO of Friends of Waterfront Seattle, asked council to preserve $500,000 for the waterfront shuttle.
In Detroit, the Mariners were apparently up 5-1 in the sixth, according to Strauss who piped in with an update.
The final speaker, Matt Offenbacher, was the first to offer a suggestion to the contentious public safety debate. Instead of more surveillance and police spending, he proposed enlisting Seattle’s crows, describing the birds as “fearsome, smart, and fully staffed.” Studies show corvids are incredibly intelligent. Crow staffing levels have not been studied.
“They don’t need helicopters or surveillance cameras,” he said. “Once that’s arranged, council can draw down the inflated police budget.”
“You might be thinking, this is an absurd fairytale,” Offenbacher continued. “However, this plan is more likely to keep us safer than the one that you are considering from the mayor’s budget,” which includes more than $486 million appropriated to the Seattle Police Department. “Unlike the mayor’s budget plan, this will free up desperately needed funding for community-based safety, and acknowledge common sense that the police should not be doing many of the things they currently do.”
Strauss closed the hearing with one last baseball update—Mariners five, Tigers one.
He never sat down, but later I asked his office why. Back issues, they say. Maybe an ergonomic consultant for the dais should be a budget line item.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story said the Mariners were playing at T-Mobile Park on Tuesday, and that Council Member Dan Strauss said the Mariners were up 5-0 in the sixth. They were playing in Detroit. The score was 5-1. We regret the error.

This is the only news related article besides Slog AM this week. All the rest are arts and entertainment. There was a Portland Mercury article Tuesday AM republished.
@1 That seems like the right ratio
@1 Yeah I’m getting real Bartell’s Drugs vibes from this site. We’ll find a “closed for good” sign one morning. Like so many Seattle businesses.
And this wasn’t even written by one of the staff writers.
It seems Nathalie, Vivian, and Charles are expected to write an article every fortnight.
‘Representatives from the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) asked council to carve out $21 million for tenant-based rental assistance. The $11 million they’re allotted was not enough to keep people from sliding into homelessness.
‘“We can continue to build as much housing as we want, but it won’t matter…if we can’t help people stay housed,” said LIHI housing developer Kalyssa Eversman. “Providers are struggling across the city right now, and these dollars will help us continue to serve the most vulnerable neighbors.”’
And why are Seattle’s low-income housing providers struggling?
‘Tenants who pay their rent typically pay on time. “However, the vast majority of those who don’t pay rent have sufficient income to pay but choose not to. Although we offer payment plans, those who accept them do not follow through with them,” wrote LIHI, which develops, owns and operates housing for low-income, homeless and formerly homeless people.’
[…]
‘Eviction is often an empty threat, noted LIHI’s application. “Even if served with an eviction notice they know that the courts are horribly backed up and the chance of their eviction moving forward is remote.”‘
(https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/how-to-end-the-dysfunction-in-seattles-affordable-housing-system/)
So, any ideas as to why providers of low-income housing difficult to evict deadbeat tenants? Anyone know about any laws in Seattle which might make this difficult for them? Perhaps the City Council needs to investigate this, and maybe modify or repeal such laws? How about the Stranger investigate this situation?
“…the council’s recent vote to expand a network of police CCTV cameras despite hours of public comment railing against it…”
Maybe they sounded a bit unhinged? Maybe they sounded really unhinged? Maybe they sounded so completely unhinged, they even sounded like this?
“Let’s say there’s a dog in your neighborhood who can fire a taser using his mouth.”
(https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/09/10/80235809/seattle-city-council-votes-to-expand-police-surveillance-cameras)
These public comment sessions are a relic of the past. No efficient person is showing up to those meetings when feedback can be provided through an email to a representative. In person, you only get the people with a time value near zero. These public sessions are performance theatre. They don’t change any minds, especially those of the council members. They only still exist to allow people to blow off steam. And council members do and should receive these comments as hearsay and anecdotes – the lowest forms of evidence – and no votes change, and low quality voter outrage intensifies.
@3 Yes, very concerning. If The Stranger goes bankrupt where will unemployed radicals living in subsidized housing get their news?