A RESOLUTION stating The City of Seattle’s support for clean and safe electricity production and opposition to the use of fossil fuels and new nuclear energy in the generation of electricity, and requiring an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability, and cost; and instructing that The City of Seattle’s City Light Department reflect this position in its policies and interactions with other utilities, federal and state agencies, and organizations of which it is a member or participant.
Agenda item for resolution 31667. State in the City of Seattle. Support for clean and safe electricity production and opposition to the use of fossil fuels and new nuclear energy in the generation of electricity. And requiring an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability and cost and instructing. The city of Seattle's satellite department reflected this position in its policies and interactions with other utilities, federal and state agencies and organizations, which it is a member or participant. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Councilmember Swan. Thank you. This is a resolution written by environmental activists from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Hard of America, Northwest and other organizations. And Representative Jody Pollack, thank you all for being here and the public comment, but also for working so diligently on this. As Tom Buchanan said, we've been through many iterations of this and it is a compromise. It reflects a compromise, but it's a really important step forward in taking a stand against nuclear energy, and particularly against the idea of nuclear energy in our state through the Columbia Generating Station, which is Washington state's only nuclear power plant. And even though it's compromise language, I think it is. And just to make sure everybody understands what I mean by compromise, that the resolution itself does not explicitly call for the shutting down of the Columbia generating station, but it is still a very important tool that activists are confident they can use to put pressure on all those who decide the fate of the Columbia generating station. And that includes representatives from Seattle to be light so that we can pressure them to take those steps and replace both fossil fuel and nuclear with clean and safe renewable energy sources. And also as a step against this false narrative that nuclear is somehow a good alternative to fossil fuels. You know, we really have to, you know, clarify that major misunderstanding. And so by passing this resolution, we will give activists that tool and leverage so that they can state the formal support of the city of Seattle. And I'm excited to finally have the opportunity to cast a vote on this. And I also wanted to thank that Walden from my staff, who's worked really closely with all of you in making this happen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman back shore. Quick. Councilmember Swan, thank you for your leadership on this. Can you talk a little bit more about green energy and are we putting forward money at this point or asking others to do that? Clearly, it's something you and have talked about for the last couple of years, but I just would really like to know what are the next steps. So as a city and a region, we're promoting green energy. What does that look like? I think the next steps will will be multiple, you know, multifaceted. Obviously, the resolution itself, what it what it gives us is a strong political platform to speak out against nuclear energy. And I think our first battle really is to counter this false idea that nuclear is somehow a safe alternative to fossil fuels. And, you know, there's a consensus among everybody, among all the people we speak to today that fossil fuels are bad. But then there's this idea that, oh, maybe nuclear energy is a safe alternative, but that's the first step we have to counter against. But as far as actual funding for green energy, I think that that's a that's a bigger thing. And we of we all absolutely have to work on it. I would say, in my view, I mean, in my opinion, the one of the four steps we need to take if Seattle is going to show leadership is, then we have to make major efforts to build up mass transit in our city. And obviously, sound transit is a one big step. But I think we have to expand metro service and unfortunately that is a nonstarter unless we talk about progressive taxation. So I think really it points towards that in many ways. Thank you. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember O'Brien. I also want to thank the activists in the community, including Representative Pollard, who have been working so hard on this resolution, but also recognize, as someone did in public comment, that people in the community have been working on this for decades, going back to the seventies when Seattle took that bold step to say no to a chunk of nuclear energy at the time and committed in conservation. And as someone mentioned, every single year we find that we can do more and more on the conservation front. This is a great step forward. I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Swan, in your office for hard work on this. And I know there's a lot of work to do to make sure we get to not just a clean but a safe energy future in the future. But thank you all for your dedication on this. I appreciate it. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? With that, let's see this resolution. So those in favor of adopting the resolution vote I. I also suppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you again. Thank you again for your advocacy. At this point, we'll consider adoption of other resolutions. We did amend our schedule, so we have resolution 31671. If you'd like to read it into record, please. Resolution 316 71 endorsing a public health and public safety model to address the needs of people living in the I-5 East, two Amish Greenbelt and in the adjoining neighbors neighborhoods, devising a person centered and strategic approach that prioritized the offer of services and housing options to individuals based on their needs before the removal of persons or property from the greenbelt, providing safety for police, fire, firefighters and first responders who provide emergency services within and around the greenbelt, and directing the fiscal cleanup of the greenbelt to provide a healthier and safe environment for all. Councilmember Bagshaw on Councilman Beck Show When you do get into the amendment that you're considering, there's a little recitation I must read. So I don't know how you want to proceed, but let me know when you're getting to the and. I just put the amended version in front of us right now and we made a mistake. Let me just put it just that bluntly. On page four, line six, that line had been taken over into paragraph D and approved by the people that I was working with in the mayor's office. So I just caught it while I was sitting here on the dias. So that's why the amendment is in front of us. Okay. Given that fact that there's no objection, Council three, a six will be suspended to allow consideration of this amendment, which basically seems like it's a typo. Right? Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended and we will proceed with consideration of the amendment. Okay, great. And thank you. And I do want to say special thanks to two of my colleagues here, Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien, thank you for working with me on this. We have up until like the last minute before this council meeting started, whether or not we were going to go forward with a vote today. But I'd like to put this in front of you and explain why the last number of weeks we have been talking a lot about the greenbelt. It used to be known to us as the jungle, but words matter. And as someone pointed out to me, there are people who are living under there that are not getting the kind of attention that they need and deserve. And so we have in the last week been working very closely with the mayor's office. And I do want to acknowledge Anthony Jamar, who is back here, Scott Lindsay. Hey, Kim and Catherine Lester from the Human Services Department for coming together and working with us. And here is what I am trying to accomplish. We know that in our city that the homelessness crisis that was identified and declared on November of last year, we're not making the kind of progress that we need to make. And we also know that there is a lot of work going on. We're waiting for a study from Barb. Poppy, we have reached out to other cities across the nation to learn about best practices. But I really wanted us to focus on what's going on underneath the greenbelt for the public health and public safety, not just for those people who are living there, but for our police officers, our first responders, our firefighters, and for the neighborhoods where we are seeing a lot more people who are taking their tents and moving into the international district, into Beacon Hill, into Balad, into Magnolia. And as a city, I think we can do much better. We need to really focus on the housing first model, the stable housing, the targeted person centered services that we know other cities have used successfully. And I am encouraged because the mayor's office has agreed to work with us to make sure that not only the cleanup of major health hazards underneath I-5, but also offering the kinds of services and affordable housing units to meet the needs of the people who are living on our streets across the city. We know as a region that we must increase the number of housing and shelter units. We simply don't have enough. The 4505 people that were identified last January across our county who were unsheltered, we are only going to be able to address that if we have a real cooperating, aligned approach with not only our service providers, but with King County. So this resolution, what it is designed to do is to acknowledge that before people can be swept from underneath I-5 and not given the kind of help and services we're asking our mayor's office, working with Human Services Department, we're working with the Union Gospel Mission, who has been identified to be doing the outreach to make sure that every individual who is in the greenbelt receives the kind of personal contact and made offer of appropriate shelter, housing and alternative spaces. Now, I will tell you that I am the first to admit that I do not. Believe that our shelters that are only providing 11 hour shelter is going to do the trick. One of I mean, many of us who have been in and under the I-5 that have spoken to people, including one of my legislative aide today who was there talking with over two dozen people. There's real concerns about the quality of shelter that's available. A number of us up here have now gone and looked at San Francisco. We've seen the 24 seven shelter that's available in the navigation center. We know that that is the kind of meaningful approach, meaningful shelter that we need in the city if we're really going to make progress. So we have asked the mayor's office, working with the advocates, to engage and develop relationships with individuals that are living in the greenbelt now to make that meaningful offer of available shelter. I don't believe that 11 hour shelter is meaningful shelter, but also taking into consideration individual barriers such as criminal backgrounds, eviction records, domestic violence problems, mental health and addiction issues. These need to be seriously taken into consideration on a person by person basis. If we are going to get people in to shelter and provide them the help that they need because it's not going to go away, chasing people from one point to another does not solve the problem. Expecting people on their own who have been living underneath the I-5 for sometimes in the cases of years to find places to go without help isn't going to solve the problem. We also recognize the the need for additional mental health beds. Substance addiction. That's treatment on demand. But that's going to come later. What I have talked about with a number of colleagues, a number of people that are including advocates in our city and county, is that this is just a first step. This particular resolution is sending a message that we are in together. We want to really make a difference for people who are homeless. And it is going to take an additional resolution, an ordinance and budget effort going forward in the next few months. That is going to make the big difference in how we are investing our money. So just in short, I know that this feels like we are moving maybe faster than some would like to have us move. But I really believe that we've got to have a starting point. This is that starting point. I'm going to be calling for pilots for more additional housing and units and ways to get people into housing. I want to recognize and learn from what we are doing in the greenbelt for plans for the future for people around our cities. I'm also going to be asking that like San Francisco, that we provide lockers and containers for belongings as we're going forward and a big investment is going to have to be expanding our shelters to 24 seven. We've also asked the mayor and Department of Human Services to come back to a committee that will either be my committee or jointly with Councilmember Gonzalez, so that we have public safety and public health together, and where we will be expecting regular reports, both from the providers and from our Human Services Department. And then as we make strategic changes, the last paragraph of this ordinance says we're going to reach out and include leaders not only from King County Council and the King County executive, but all home. I want to make sure that our outreach professionals, including REACH and Evergreen Treatment Services through our host of Downtown Emergency Services, our mental health providers, the professionals that are helping us with drug and substance addiction, also our law enforcement and firefighters. I want to make clear that we want to listen to them, make sure that they are providing us with their recommendations. So that's the goal here, is to make sure that it's clear from the council and the mayor that we are in agreement for the next step on ways that we are going to approach people and find additional services and housing underneath I-5. And that will expand to a bigger approach later on this summer in the fall. So with my council's approval, I'm going to recommend that we move forward with this today. Okay. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues, Councilmember Herbold. So building off of your last comment about Section L, where we are making a commitment to seek advice from leaders in our community, I'm concerned that our action today contradicts this goal that we're setting out in this resolution. I did give you some input this morning on this, and I thank you for including it. But I only just shared this resolution with the leaders in our community who do advocacy around this issue at noon today. And so I'm concerned that we are making a commitment to work collaboratively, not just with the executive department in the mayor's office, but. Also with our community and where they won starting off on a foot that does not honor that collaboration. So, you know, they're both the Defender Association as well as Columbia Legal Services have requested that we hold for one week because they had they have not seen this resolution. They only just saw it at noon today. I think that's a a reasonable request. And I think we've done a lot of good work. But I also think that there are some some issues that we would benefit from clarifying further. So forward motion has not been made yet. So let's have a little more discussion issue in a discussion about a possible hold councilman back or Councilmember O'Brien, which like someone first. Either one. Councilmember O'Brien comments. But you want to respond? I'll go ahead and then. I want to I want to start by just recognizing how far we've come in the last couple of weeks when the proposal became public about what was going to happen next. Almost two weeks ago, we had a lot of kind of catching up to do to understand where that was and what it meant. And I think a lot of folks have come together behind Councilmember Baker House leadership, frankly. And it's been great to work with you on this to get to where we are today. And I feel so much better about where we are today as opposed to where I wasn't, the uncertainty I felt two weeks ago. That said, I agree with Councilmember Herbold that there I would like to take a few more days to hear from some community members who haven't had a chance to read this resolution. I think they sent some comments afternoon, but I haven't had a chance to actually even read those comments to make suggestions because I feel better where we are today than two weeks ago. Well, this is still a very urgent issue. I think it would be balancing that with the appropriateness of having a chance to hear a few more comments. I would probably suggest also holding this until next Monday, but I would like to hear from colleagues before I make a formal motion on that, too. Council President Thanks, Mike. Appreciate that approach. Any further comments? Councilmember Bagshaw Perhaps you may want to respond. Would you like to? I can fish a little more if you like. Thank you. Good fishermen. Yeah, Nathan. Great. Thank you. Very much. Just one after I can speak, okay? Okay. Thank you. After. I think that it's clear at least I hope it's clear that Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien, I have been working very closely on this. I, I guess I feel that we started with comments from two different organizations, ACLU and the Columbia Legal Services. And I, I concur that not everything that they would have liked to have seen is in this resolution. Nonetheless, we were listening closely to them, working with a number of organizations, likewise, that wanted to make sure we were being conscientious of how we were treating people. That said, what I really appreciate is that the mayor's office was willing to come and work closely with us on this, and I would not want us to get into a situation where we lost the momentum. What we've done right now is to make it clear that we want people to be treated well, get the services that they need, provide the available housing options that they have. I consider that to be a great step in the right direction, and I am absolutely open and willing to work with Columbia Legal Services and ACLU going forward on what that looks like. We're asking HST and our providers to come back in and tell us regularly how and who they are reaching, asking for the kind of information that has so far not been forthcoming. But they have agreed now that it includes the kind of housing, the shelter options the services offered, the number of people who have accepted offers of housing, the shelter options that may be available, how some of our shelter providers are improving their shelters where people went, the known demographics and information that we've gleaned about barriers, all of that without requiring personal identifying information that is so far down the road from where we were just a couple of weeks ago, that I, I regard this as an important step. But again, that said, how we make this go forward, how we in our city and region align our resources and investment is critical. I want to make sure we are all together in this. So I don't regard this as a door shutting. I regard it as as a place that we are saying, you're invited into our house. Let's figure out a way to solve these problems. Customers too want. Thank you. So, first of all, I wanted to appreciate consumer back shows efforts in bringing this resolution forward. I, I, I agree with Councilmember Bagshaw very strongly, you know, especially on the points that she mentioned. You know, we have talked a lot about this even in, you know, private conversations about how it doesn't make sense to offer people shelter for a few hours in the day. It has to be a place they can actually go to. So I really appreciate how strongly you have been advocating a 24 hour option, a real alternative to homelessness. And that is why that is precisely why I would share the concerns that have been expressed by Councilmembers Herbold and O'Brien that we don't want to pass a resolution that might have consequences that we don't intend. We we wouldn't we would want such a resolution to actually be a step towards making sure that we go away from being a city of sweeps and becoming a city that actually provides humane options to homeless the people who find themselves in homelessness. Just very concretely, I wanted to add one more point, which is that, you know, in addition to ensuring that community advocates like the ACLU and Columbia Legal Services and the Public Defenders Association, in addition to giving you all time to look at this resolution, I would actually say it a little more strongly that you all already have brought a resolution draft forward to us. The ACLU and Columbia Legal Services have already given us a draft. And I think that is that draft is a meaningful step forward. If we were to pass something like that, that would give us a really good starting point. Just to give you an example of what I mean concretely in the resolution that we're discussing today. It's not I mean, it's a good thing. I mean, it's well-intentioned, it says. And neither residents of the greenbelt nor their possessions will be removed from the greenbelt until meaningful offers of appropriate shelter, housing or alternative spaces in authorized encampments and services are made as described in subsection. But I think the details matter. You know what if the people have beds? What if they are a couple and they don't want to be separated? Where are they? Where will they put their meager belongings? Or just to contrast that language to the language that was given as a draft by the ACLU? It says the the city may engage in a clean up of the easily whorish greenbelt, but shall not require residents to vacate the area unless the city offers the displaced residents a 24 hour a day housing option that is accessible to the individual based on the individual's limitations and personal history can accommodate. The resident during the daytime will allow residents to store their belongings, allow couples and families to remain together, and allow individuals to keep their pets. And I think these details matter because we're talking about real people and their lives. And I know that everyone on the council intends the same thing, but let's make sure that we take a step forward in that direction. And in reality, if we take a step in that direction, really what we are saying is we don't want sweeps, we want certain real services and housing options for the city. It's not like you can carry out sweeps in certain conditions. Essentially what I want to say is no sweeps. These are human beings. Let's provide real options. And in closing or another thing that I would add is that in addition to passing a strong resolution, we really have to pass an ordinance against sweeps. I mean, Indianapolis has done it. We should Seattle should not lag behind. We should do it. We should be saying very, you know, true to our law, not just to a resolution, but an ordinance, no sweeps. We want services for the homeless. We want housing for the homeless. Thank you. So we've had some comments about a possible hold for one week. We've had a little pushback. I'll just sort of go first and I'll keep the discussion open before we see where the motion is made. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbold point that quite frankly, what's a week? And given the seriousness of the situation and we're trying to move forward and we want to certainly include all of our partners, I guess I'm not inclined to support a hold. Having said that, simply for the fact that I while I value that partnership, I'd like acting with a sense of urgency about our homelessness situation. It truly is a crisis, and it's been my experience with the Chair as a sponsoring councilmember of this legislation that she calls me almost ad nauseum about this legislation for the last two weeks. And I think she's been working around the clock trying to be as collaborative as possible. My sense, having worked with Councilmember Bagshaw for a few years and more recently the last couple of weeks, is that all of the partners that you talked about in the next week, we will continue to examine this. And even if a change needs to be made in. A week or two. I assume you would be amenable to that. But at some point, I think we also send a message to everyone that how serious we are and we are prepared to act on legislation while not perfect and perhaps not as inclusive as we possibly can be. We're moving forward with a sense of urgency. So. So again I almost generally support hold for a week. But in this situation I do want to sense act with a sense of urgency number one. Point number two is I don't I never like being blindsided. And we had the conversation this morning. I tried to be very lenient during the briefings. So I want to hear from everybody about everything in the city. And there was no discussion about a hold. There was no discussion up until 3:00 is the first time I've been told about a hold. And I just think as we continue to work together as colleagues, we are open and transparent when we need to be on this. And I'm not suggesting that there was any negative intent at all, but as a general rule, as the presiding officer, these holds are like having some conversation because we have a dialog and and it's cool to have it here in public as well, but we're trying to get to the same place. And so I think at our Monday morning briefing, that could have been a good time to talk about a possible halt. Again, I know that you had just gotten the document, sent it out. I get that history. So I'm not inclined support it, but I'm certainly inclined to go with the will of the majority here. And if any of my other colleagues. Councilmember Wallis, thank you for raising your hand, because I was going to just keep talking to someone raised. I never looked down here as that's what happens. A district representation. We're way up north. I'm just going to be really frank. We have been dealing with this well before I was elected, and I've had an opportunity to work with Councilmember Bagshaw in many drafts. And I have to say that as a former public defender, as a former attorney at Columbia Legal Services and a former board member of the ACLU, I am of the mind that this is an urgent and emergency situation and we need to move forward. I don't see it because the ACLU or Public Defender, Columbia Legal Services, I haven't seen anything from them, a draft of anything. But my understanding from reading this is, is that those organizations are certainly not excluded from participating. Their voices have always been heard. I've sat on three committees now where this whole table has been filled with nothing but people from these organizations, which is fine and one homeless person. But my main concern is we have to pull the trigger and do something now. We have to be humane and start the process now. This is the thing that I find most frustrating about an emergent situation with people sleeping underneath a bridge under inhumane conditions is that we have to do something. Now, I don't I'm not of the proponent of kicking this over again another week. I think we have to start the conversation and do it now. And so with that, I would be supporting this resolution today. Thank you, councilman. Were seven, Councilman Burgess and then Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you very much. This is not a new issue for the council at all. I agree with Councilmember Juarez. We've been considering these matters for several years and we seem to consider and pause and consider and pause. I think we should move past that. As I said in committee last week, there's a real public health and public safety crisis here. It's important that we balance our response so that we're. Taking care of individuals and providing the kind of housing and shelter and services that they need and deserve. But we can't look away from. The public health and safety crisis. That we have here. Remember, the testimony from Mr. Lillie. Last week was his outreach team interrupted a rape in progress in this greenbelt was able to rescue the woman who was the victim and get her to. Appropriate. Services. I don't think we should be slowing down at all. And this resolution actually takes a very balanced approach and. Addresses many of the concerns. That we heard from. Columbia Legal Services and and the ACLU and others. So it's not that we haven't considered their input. We received, as Councilmember Swan pointed out, we received their written suggestions. And this is a balanced approach that I think represents the values of our city. Thank you. Caspian Burgess, Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. I in terms of the limited issue around whether or not we hold this for another week, I certainly understand the perspectives that are being articulated by council members to want and Herbold and O'Brien. I, I feel a real sense of urgency around this particular issue, and I think it's really important for us to act accordingly with that sense of urgency. I see this resolution and the parameters in this resolution, frankly, as an opener, not as the done deal. There is a lot of work that we all have to continue doing. We have to understand that while it's easy for us sitting here in the comfort of council chambers, that is not the situation for the folks who are sleeping and living and surviving in the greenbelt. And to me, this this resolution is a people centered approach that sets the table for us to continue the momentum forward with the sense of urgency that is needed in collaboration, not just with each other, not just with the mayor, but also with the advocates on making sure that we get this right. And I think that isn't going to be an incredibly difficult challenge. And I want to make sure that we're not acting in a way where perfection becomes the enemy of good. And I think that we suffer a little bit from that in the city of Seattle. And and I don't see that in in the sense to devalue the good advocacy work that is being done within the community. I think there's a lot of value to slowing down. I think we have slowed this process down for that for for two weeks now to try to figure out how to set some real parameters around what the policy expectations are in terms of dealing with with what we, I think all acknowledge is a crisis in the greenbelt area. And I want to I want to thank Councilmember Bagshaw for her leadership in this regard and certainly appreciate all of the hours that you have been spending and that your staff has been spending and that others have been spending to try to put together what I think is a real people centered approach to addressing the public health and public safety concerns that exist in in the greenbelt. And, you know, I just want to make sure that I'm not sure we're going to have an opportunity to make additional comments on the substance of the resolutions. I'm just going to I'm going to make all my remarks now, which is that I think we all know that the I-5 is dormant. Greenbelt has been the subject of much discussion. We've been talking about it now. We've talked about it in the past. In February of 2016, many of us on city council spoke out against certain proposals, initially floated to address the issues in the greenbelt, for example, when a three mile long fence was proposed as a solution. I vocally oppose that proposal and urge that are limited resources at the state, city and county level be used more strategically and thoughtfully in support of people centered strategies that would achieve that common goal of prioritizing both public health and public safety, not only for the residents of the greenbelt, but for the surrounding communities such as the Chinatown International District and the Beacon Hill communities, which would be even more greatly impacted by policies that result in displacement of Greenbelt residents. This, I think we can agree I hope we can agree would be an unacceptable result. The question of how we sustain these outreach efforts is, in my mind, still an open question. Likewise, the question of how we continue to connect people to services and real housing options so that living in the greenbelt is not the option is, in my mind, still an open question, even in spite of this resolution. What will we do today and over the next several months to ensure that the greenbelt does not return to its current form five, ten, 20 or 30 years from now? This resolution, as I've mentioned before, appropriately so, focuses all of our energy on the urgent need of engaging in intensive outreach now to permanently transition as many people as possible out of the greenbelt and into shelter or other stable housing options. On the question of closing off the jungle, I want to thank the mayor and his staff for collaboratively working with me to address my concerns about simply resorting to an impenetrable barrier or fencing as a deterrence strategy, an option that is now off the table. Our officers work together to ultimately agree that the best course of action on this piece was to engage a consultant that would advise the city and more specifically, wash that about people centered approaches that would discourage people from taking up residence underneath the I-5 in the future. So I plan to support this resolution, but I want to urge each of us to remain vigilant about how we sustain these outreach efforts, both in the greenbelt and throughout our vast city, and how we act to ensure that the deplorable conditions in the greenbelt aren't the safest option available in the minds of those. Who choose to reside there now or in the future. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Very well done. Okay, Councilwoman Johnson. Just a quick question, if I may. Sure, please. To Councilmember Bagshaw, one of the things we've heard a lot about today is the idea that this is sort of the beginning of a conversation in Section L of the resolution in front of us. We talk a lot about strategic changes, working with the regional leaders, etc.. If if this is really the beginning of a conversation, I'm wondering how if you could talk about what you're envisioning for that process and. If. That set of regional leaders and actors were to make changes or or proposed changes from protocols that are outlined in this resolution, how we might go about revising the resolution to be consistent with those challenges that we hear from folks that might be inconsistent with what we've got in front of us. Those are excellent questions. First of all, we have a already a group that's pulled together around all home and all home has folks that are there from city and county and almost all the professionals that I've identified in here. So I believe that that particular organization has been underutilized and frankly, doesn't feel the strength and power that it could. Taking an example from Houston, we were on a conference call with Houston. They had a 37 member body. That sounded to me a lot like what all home is doing, plus some professionals around drug addictions. And they made some recommendations that, in effect, they were able to get people into housing, into real housing, and they first focused on veterans and they were able to get 500 veterans into housing with the services that they needed. Then they were able to turn their attention to chronic homelessness. We, I think, have been doing a great job, but we've been having a scattergun approach, so we haven't been able to really make a difference for individuals and for families and for those who are chronically homeless. And we've been investing a lot of money. So I believe that this is our opportunity. And as Councilmember Stewart said, I completely concur. We will pass an ordinance, if need be, to enforce the kind of approaches that we want. We will be able to put money into budgets as our budget unfolds in late September and October to really put money into places where we know best practices has worked as best practices have worked, where we can pilot getting more people into housing and use this as just a starting point. Resolutions can be changed much more easily, as you know, than ordinances, but we can also take the information that we learn over the next few weeks and months. And I really welcome Councilmember Gonzalez's support that we will have a joint committee that is public health and public safety. We can have those set up as special committees at noon or at times that our colleagues can join us, but really learn from this experience and take the data we're getting, take the stories we're getting so that we know that people are being cared for. This is not, in my mind, an exercise at all that is just, you know, counting widgets. These are real people. These are people that have need of homes, have a need for services. But I also want to recognize other neighborhoods. Other neighborhoods have the need to know that we as a city are caring for people who are homeless so that folks are not hanging out in unauthorized encampments in their front yards or dropping garbage or needles and leaving those in places that create more of a public health problem. And by the way, I want to say thank you to those in union gospel mission and others. Right now, they are providing garbage bags, recycling bags and needle receptacles, which really helps promote the public health that we've been calling for. So I guess the answer to your question is we're getting we're moving right away. And if things don't work the way we want them to, I will be the first one to bring more legislation back here. Okay. I think everyone has spoken, but Councilman O'Brien wants to get a second bite. Go ahead. So I really appreciate all the conversation here. What I hear from my colleagues is an intent to move forward today, and I can certainly support that. I want to clarify just a couple of things that are said. Just because I know a lot of folks in the public haven't had a chance to see this yet. Councilwoman Burgess, you mentioned the kind of awful details of you guys coming across, sexual assault in progress out there. And I want to make sure folks understand that nothing in this resolution nor lack of this resolution prevents that work from continuing to go on. With the resolution, I think is largely about for me at least, is talking about at what point and under what conditions will people who live in the Green Belt be asked to relocate somewhere else? And I think there's a lot of really good language in here around intent and how we do that. I think as folks, others have said, this is a starting point and we're going to continue to work through this. And and the idea my hope is that we will be working collaboratively with the mayor's office and the community advocates who have been doing this work for years to make sure we get that right. I want to highlight one piece of language that touches on this a little bit. Just so the folks haven't seen it, it's on page four under Section E. The last sentence there, it says, Prior to requiring people to leave the greenbelt, the executive will notify council at least three business days in advance and provide information regarding how many people are expected to be present in the relevant area. What offers of shelter and service have been made, and what offers of a sort of shelter and service have been made to that population? The idea is we don't have the exact language of exactly what needs to happen first, but this will require that we get notified when the council is notified, we'll make sure the public is aware of that if there are concerns at that point. We certainly know how to act fast and we will do that. The hope is that by working collaboratively, we'll all be in agreement as we get to these these touch points as they evolve. Thank you. Thanks for those remarks, Councilmember Brian. Councilmember. So given that Councilmember Bagshaw has assured us that this is the start, not the beginning. I feel I'm sorry, not the end. I do feel a little bit reassured at this. This is our first time as a council making policy about the removal of encampments. So my. Desire to move forward carefully. Is not at all an interest in slowing down any work that's being done with people right now. It's the desire to make sure that we get the policy right. And I hear Councilmember Bagshaw saying today that if we don't get the policy right now and if we have difficulty negotiating in a nimble way with the executive to address some of the issues that have already been raised, that we will look at potentially going back in and passing an ordinance to clarify. And hopefully when when we do that, we definitely will get it right. Just to give some examples of the kinds of things that have been brought to our attention that I don't think are representative of what our goals were. And so I think some of this might just be a matter of being more clear. And Councilmember O'Brien, I think you're right, given that we have that hook, that that that requirement for them to be notified three days in advance of any removal, this, I think, will give us the leverage that we need to make sure that our our words in this ordinance clearly define what our intent is. But, for instance, we talk about the requirement to to offer meaningful offers of appropriate shelter, housing or alternative spaces. But we don't talk about. What. Will happen if an offer for three days in a motel or an offer of an overnight shelter that will not be available the next night. What it means for in a people centered response for that individual to refuse that offer, that simply doesn't work for them. Similarly, do these offers need to include the person's household, or is it considered appropriate to ask people to stay in shelters without their partners? I think those are really, really important issues that we need to work on moving forward. And if we can commit again to continuing this work as we as we solidify some of the nuts and bolts, I will be happy to support this today. Thank you. Thank you for all your comments. We're going have one more common. That'd be Councilmember Swanson and we're going to amend and. Vote very quickly to add to what Councilmember Herbold was saying, and also just wanted to echo what she said, that about when you want to do something right doesn't mean you're slowing. As a matter of fact, Seattle has seen far more sweeping changes in the last two and a half years than we've seen in many decades. So I think, you know, if we were being honest, we would we would admit that actually when you have working people and ordinary people and activists and advocates involved, things move faster because it goes against the whole sort of corporate politics that dominates most city halls, including Seattle. And so I think that with the assurances of this being the first step, I think I think the public, members of the public who are here, members of the press, should be holding the city council and the mayor's office accountable to those words. And concretely, that would mean, first of all, as Councilmember Horrible has already said, and I as I said earlier, an ordinance to stop the sweeps like Indianapolis has done. And also, you know, councilmembers here have talked about urgency. And I look forward to seeing that urgency during the budget in November, where proposals will be made for actual funding for homeless services and proposals will be made in this year, in the coming years for affordable housing for tenants. Right. Let's make sure that all council members show urgency on all of those aspects, because then then it would mean that this is the first step. I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you. Before we we vote earlier, I had suspended consistent with council 386 suspending the rules to allow for an amendment. And so I need you to make the describe the amendment, the typo and then make amendment to section. On this is on our resolution that's in front of you on page four, line six there the statement was made about measures will be taken to move the individual. And while providing adequate and accessible storage or lockers for the belongings. That wasn't precisely what we were trying to accomplish. Language that had been approved by the mayor's team was included in page 317, and that's there now. It says clear information about the storage and location of belongings will be made to individuals to whom services and housing or shelter options are offered. So you're moving to strike the sentence. Measures will be taken to move the individual while providing adequate assistance already. Okay. Is there a second I. Was thinking that. Okay. I think very much has been moved in second and the amendment has been moved in second on this resolution. All those in favor. Vote I. I opposed. Vote no. Okay. Now we have an amended piece of legislation. And if there are no further comments, I move to adopt resolution 31671 as amended. Second is moved in. Second, the resolution be adopted. All those in favor of voting. The amended resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. And again, thank all of you for this rich conversation and very transparent conversation. Is there any further business going for the council? No. Having said that. Thank you, everyone. Have a great day. We stand adjourned.