Seattle City Council Position 9 candidates debate taxes, surveillance, and 'stay out' zones

Two candidates are running for the citywide Seattle City Council Position 9 seat this fall. Whoever wins will have a big year ahead of them, amid a looming budget deficit, potential federal funding cuts, and the threat of federal troops being sent to the city.

Incumbent Sara Nelson was elected to the position in 2021 and has served as city council president since January 2024. She is the co-founder of Fremont Brewing. Nelson says she is running for re-election to continue addressing public safety, expand access to on-demand treatment for the city’s homeless population, and deliver results for the city.

Challenger Dionne Foster is the former executive director of the non-profit Progress Alliance of Washington, which advocated for a statewide capital gains tax. She is also a former policy advisor for the city. Foster says she's interested in using the JumpStart tax to fund its initial goals of affordable housing and climate initiatives, instead of filling budget holes — and that's what drew her to run for city council.

Soundside's Libby Denkmann hosted the two candidates for a debate at the KUOW studios, where they both described their stances on a number of issues facing the city.

Homelessness and substance abuse

Nelson: The problem with our homelessness response is that we’ve got the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and a city response, and we need to make sure that both agencies are working together, or that they're filling different needs. There is no real time list of the spaces that are available when outreach workers go out to try to help people get inside. And so this is an area of much needed improvement, and I have been pushing to make sure that we are not wasting the public's money on resources while people are sleeping outside.

I serve on the King County Regional Homelessness Authority Board, and we're asking some very hard questions about the viability of that organization. Studies show that the best response is getting people into shelter right now. It doesn't have to be permanent supportive housing. We're spending a lot of money purchasing buildings, building buildings, when we need to get people off the streets, out of those inhumane conditions, and give them the tools to get their lives back together. And a lot of times that requires some treatment — addiction treatment.

Foster: When I look at our homeless system, one of the things that I think is really important that we do is work to get more shelter capacity online. I live close to a site that has been trying to come online for about two years now. It's a city owned property. One of the things that I want to be able to do on council is review our process for citing things like tiny homes. We need to make it easier to do that, so that we can have places for people to go, especially places that are non-congregate shelters, because we know that when folks are offered those you see a higher uptake of non-congregate shelter options, like tiny homes. So I think it's about making sure that we are focusing on expanding our shelter capacity in addition to having strong oversight.

Community Assisted Response and Engagement (CARE) Team and Seattle Police Department (SPD) co-response

Foster: I believe that our CARE department, which is our third public safety department, is a critical part of how we build a city that is really safer for everyone. One of the things that I believe we need to do is get to a place where the CARE team can actually be dispatched without being co-dispatched with SPD. When I first started campaigning, one of the first things I did was go on a ride along with the CARE team. It is so clear to me that those folks are highly skilled. We are talking about some people who are former child resource workers, former police officers themselves, people who have done really hard things and helped connect people with services.

The other thing that we need to do is make sure that the CARE team actually has access to up-to-date information. In one instance, the CARE team worker told me they spent upwards of six hours trying to connect one person with services.

Nelson: Everybody agrees — including SPD, the public, Council, all the leaders — that officers should not be responding to crisis calls. That is why the CARE department was formed and expanded very rapidly. It’s almost a year old and we haven't really seen the evaluation and all the analysis of the kinds of calls that they're responding to. The goal is not having CARE go out with officers, but freeing up officers’ time so that the CARE teams can go out and respond on their own.

Stay out of Drug Areas (SODA) and Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution (SOAP) zones

Nelson: We have got to interrupt the markets that are driving drug dealing, sex trafficking, and prostitution. That has been very difficult with the laws already on the books. Those SOAP and SODA orders are alternatives to incarceration, [as] they say, ‘Just stay out of this area.’ Not doing something else is just a tacit acceptance of the status quo, and that is absolutely not acceptable. When we first discussed this in committee, there was a room full of parents, community members, and teachers that were talking about the situation of young girls being trafficked on Aurora [Avenue]. We all see if we go downtown, some of the activity that is just pernicious down there.

We need more tools in our toolbox to be able to respond to the violence and the exploitation that's going on in our streets. Those are two new opportunities to really get at the situation without ending in arrest or jail time as simply an order to stay out of this area. I am leading the charge on expanding access to on demand addiction treatment. There are times when a response is needed because nothing else is working, and we're talking about lives on the line.

Foster: There are solutions that have been put forward that can work. One of the SODA zones is in Little Saigon. That community has come together to put together a plan, which is called the Phố Đẹp ["Beautiful Neighborhood"] action plan. They have community service workers that they want out there. They are asking for place-based interventions and treatment that would show up in their neighborhood.

The audit report that came from the city was clear about saying we should have place-based interventions, but that a banishment zone is not going to be effective. SOAP and SODA aren't working, and they weren't working when the city had it before and that information was presented to council. They are not ways to get people connected to the services to get clean and sober or come inside.

Expansion of surveillance cameras in high-crime areas

Foster: It's important for us to note that the city's own Community Police Commission opposed the expansion, as did the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations. We have threats from the Trump administration that are causing people to live in so much fear that they are afraid to access local services. The Trump administration asked the state Department of Licensing to hand over their data. We are seeing every day in our city and in this country a complete abandonment of the rule of law. I am very skeptical of the idea that we will be able to protect that data from that federal overreach, which is part of the reason that I oppose that expansion.

It's both a privacy issue and a question of what's actually going to be effective at prevention. Helping people get connected to services or prevent people from committing crimes, or making sure that they have access to jobs, housing, that people have food in their bellies and that they're safe.

I want to be focused on things that I believe are going to help us continue to bring down crime and prevent folks from getting in that place in the first place.

Nelson: What's really present in people's minds is kids getting shot in those [high-crime] areas where [camera] expansions are proposed. Two days after we passed that law, someone was shot in the neck on Capitol Hill. Had there been a camera there, we might have been able to get some evidence to know who did that.

Blue cities across the country have implemented what we call the "real time crime center." I will also note that the council members that voted most strongly in favor of this [expansion of surveillance] come from communities where they see their people dying and disappearing at much higher rates than a lot of other populations. I took an oath to protect the health, safety, and well-being of my constituents, and that is one more tool to use.

RELATED: Seattle expands video surveillance despite public concerns about potential abuse

City and statewide taxes

Foster: When I see our budget shortfall and tax breaks at the federal level, I see very limited tools in our state that we can use. I believe that a local capital gains tax is one of the tools that we can use to make sure that we actually can fund our critical services. I want to make sure at the local level that we are supporting smart new revenue solutions that can help make sure that our city stays whole. It's important that we are clear about our need to protect our most vulnerable residents when it comes to the next four years.

Nelson: I do [support new taxes]. I voted for the B and O tax and we're about to vote on the mayor's public safety tax. I am in favor of that because I know what it will pay for, because I put forward a list of services that will expand access to addiction and recovery based housing, and a whole long list of other services that we need to stabilize. I am not against progressive revenue, but too many people talk only about revenue and not about results. I am hyper focused on the outcomes. I need to know how that money will be spent and how it's different from what we're already doing right now.

Foster: The City Council considered a municipal capital gains tax last year and there was a spending plan that was associated with that, and the council member [Sara Nelson] voted against it, and that's part of the reason why that local capital gains tax failed.

Early on in the campaign, I heard my opponent say she was open to a municipal capital gains tax. In recent debates, I've heard her say she’s no longer open to that, so I've seen a lot of changes in this position. On council, we had the opportunity to fund our social housing developer and a decision to make between Proposition 1a and Proposition 1b. I supported Prop 1a because I believe we need to actually fund our social housing developer. My opponent did not.

Nelson: If you're not in contact often with our Office of Forecasting, you might not know how unstable the municipal capital gains [tax] would be. The big problem with it is that we do not have any idea how much revenue it will generate. The anticipation is anywhere between $18 and $31 million. That is not a solid enough amount to be able to plan any kind of program around. I will support a revenue if I know what it's going to pay for. We don't just decide that we need more money. We need to decide what we're going to do with it and what problems we're trying to solve.

Using JumpStart tax income to fill holes in the general budget

Nelson: The Council amends past laws all the time, so it's not unusual to say our conditions have changed. I voted to use that money for other things so we did not have to fire people. The choice was eliminate services, eliminate full-time employees, or use that money for other things. It came down to that, quite simply. We have to make very hard choices about the revenue that we have and what we're going to spend it on.

Foster: You could pass that capital gains tax and bring those resources into the general fund as a means for us to be able to have more money going back to its intended purposes. Every council has used a portion of the JumpStart tax to fill a part of the budget since it has been passed. If we continue to have diverse and progressive revenue sources, we can get more of that money back to its intended purpose, which was in housing and making sure that we are dealing with climate change. That's one way that we can actually lessen the diversion of those resources.

Nelson: We should always evaluate the performance of our investments. We have a responsibility to ensure that what we are spending money on is working and that the outcomes that we anticipate are actually realizing. If they're not, then we need to consider reevaluating those investments. That is a responsible government. We don't necessarily always have to be going for additional sources.

Public council meetings moving to private Zoom sessions and public comment opportunities

Nelson: It is my responsibility to ensure that everyone can speak, everyone has equal time, and that we also get through the items on our agenda. When the behavior gets disrespectful, when people are yelling down other people, and when my efforts to restore order do not succeed, then I have to consider moving our meeting to another location in order to finish our business.

Foster: I've seen people come to City Hall and be very vibrant and excited, but this is a city where I think we need to make sure that we are protecting people's First Amendment rights, and that includes their right to protest and to speak in dissent.

Nelson: One’s First Amendment right does not include the right to disrupt a meeting and prevent the business from going forward.

RELATED: After a protest at City Hall, asylum-seekers in Seattle wonder what's next

Lightning-round questions

Does the Seattle Police Department currently receive sufficient funding?

Foster: Yes

Nelson: Yes

Katie Wilson or Bruce Harrell for mayor?

Foster: Katie Wilson

Nelson: Bruce Harrell

If you could show President Trump Seattle, where would you take him?

Foster: I would do a light rail ride from the airport, get off on Beacon Hill, walk to the library, visit some of the small businesses that are there, trounce over to Jefferson Park and see the skaters and all the families that are out enjoying the city.

Nelson: I'd get him on a bicycle and we’d travel through a lot of neighborhoods and see the water —lots of different kinds of water.