A MOTION requesting that the King County executive transmit a report to the King County council that includes plans for assessing and addressing safety concerns relating to City Hall park and the King County Courthouse, providing shelter and services to any current and potential future occupants of City Hall park and assessing and recommending options for the county to acquire City Hall park.
Thank you. And we will send it to full council on regular schedule. That takes us to our next item on the agenda, a motion sponsored by Councilmember Caldwell's address in City Hall Park. And given that I don't have my electronic notes before me, I will ask the central staffer who was going to present on it to begin the most. Councilmember Caldwell's would like to make a few introductory remarks. Thank you. Thank you, madam. Mr. Chair. Yes? I would like to make the couple of remarks, and this is pertaining to the motion 2020 1031. The process has to do with potential acquiring of the park by the county. But in the city of Seattle and there is you will find in your park a striking amendment and a line amendment. But we also have a second scoping amendment, which I would appreciate that we addressed directly and which Brandon then on our staff will go back. But just very quickly and I would like to retain the right to speak for once we have the staff report completed, but very quickly the motion and particularly to the striking amendment. I will go over the request to the Executive to provide options to the Council on acquiring City Hall Park. And secondly, my recommendations in the way of options to the Council addressing safety concerns in City Hall Park currently and for quite a long time. What might be some suggestions to the council and what could be done to address those safety concerns? With that, I would like to turn it over, Mr. Chair, to Brandi Milner. And I do know that Karen Gill from the executive's office is here with us as well. Messina. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Brandy Vino with council central staff. The materials for this item begin on page 160 of your packet. The proposed motion would request that the executive transmit a report to the Council, which would include an exploration of options related to acquisition of City Hall Park by King County for Future County uses and a plan for relocating any occupants of the park. Any current or future occupants of the park. Just as quick background throughout 2020 and 2021 City Hall Park, which is owned and operated by the City of Seattle and is adjacent to the King County Courthouse, was the site of an encampment. An encampment of people experiencing homelessness in county appropriated approximately $50 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act funding to support emergency homelessness response and related behavioral health services. And the county also allocated funding to the local Just Care Alliance to resolving campus encampments in public space by providing non congregate, dignified emergency housing options like tiny homes and hotels. As of August 12th, 2021, Just Care placed a total of 65 people who had been living in City Hall, Park, in shelter and emergency housing that they voluntarily accepted. The City of Seattle has since temporarily closed City Hall Park. So I'm now going to brief you on the underlying motion. And then afterwards, if you'd like, I can brief you on the striking the two striking amendments. So the underlying motion proposes a request that the executive explore options for acquiring City Hall Park from the City of Seattle for purposes of using it for county purposes, and to also transmit a report that includes all financial, operational, legal and use considerations for the park. The report must also include a plan for relocating any occupants of the park, and it must be transmitted to council by November 15th, 2021. As previously mentioned, there are two striking amendments are striking amendment S1 with a line amendment amendment one. And then there is striking amendment as to and I can brief those all of those for you if you'd like. Okay. He was striking amendment S1 one here. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm wondering, for time purposes, it might be better to just go right to striking amendment number two. There's no need to read this one. Okay. Thank you. So striking amendment as to add requirements to the contents of the report requested of the executive that relate to crime statistics, mapping of nearby homeless shelters, and a plan to address safety concerns. It also included a request the executive add to the plan safety concerns around the courthouse and in City Hall Park and include locating permanent supportive housing for any current or potential future occupants of the park as needed. Additionally, striking amendment to makes an assessment of the options for acquiring the park from the city of Seattle contingent upon whether the county and the city come to an agreement on the acquisition of the park by December 31st, 2021. Therefore, if an agreement is reached by that time, the assessment of the acquisition options is no longer needed. That concludes my remarks on Striking Amendment S2. There is also a title Amendment T one that would reflect the changes and striking amendments to and be happy to answer any questions unanswered questions. My book, Oil Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we're all very aware of many of the concerns that have been expressed quite a while now, for many years, and further regarding the safety and security issues in City Hall Park owned by this by the city, but adjoining our courthouse. But not everyone who may be watching this will be fully aware of everything. So I'd like to go over a few. Before the pandemic struck over a year and a half ago. There have been efforts to clean up the park. And I want to especially command Councilmember Wright and Baskin's former city council members Sally Bagshaw and Caroline Williamson with FMG for all that they did. And it was wonderful too to view the food trucks music playing. We saw there were bathroom facilities and the courts in the court, city car park generally that's really looking pretty good. There is still issues pertaining to the Third Avenue entrance, still hearing many jurors being afraid to come to the courthouse. Many employees being actually attacked upon leaving the courthouse. But when the pandemic struck, we saw some big changes, as particularly as the street traffic diminished because so many businesses and including our own council and other courthouse offices had their employees go home and work remotely. There was there was less visibility of people just around. And as a result, we started seeing people camping out in the park and it resulted in a very large encampment. And much of that to do because of the extreme lack of affordable housing in the area and throughout the town . But it became really very, very severe. And in terms of violence, a two year old little girl being and we don't know if she was abandoned or what, but inside that encampment, there was also an employee of the courthouse attacked, sexually attacked, and one of the bathrooms inside the courthouse. We've heard from the judges and I appreciate Judge Darnell speaking the day Judge Rogers is the presiding superior court judge emailed me and said, I'm sorry, I can't be there, I'm sick and I'm in Montana, but I know all the judges support this motion. They've had to put up barriers and windows, bulletproof glass because of shots coming from the park area. And I could go on and on with this, but it's been very obvious that something that's needed to be done and that has been juxtaposed, the severe lack of police officers and the Seattle Police Department, as I understand, they're down about 300 officers. So they've had to triage and make decisions on priorities. And too frequently we have found that they don't come to the park. This is before it was all closed off recently. They don't come around Third Avenue. So we've had to put in our budget funding for our sheriff's deputies and most of them have had to do this over time to just kind of keep track of what's going on. Also with the FMG officers, we shouldn't have to be it and we don't they don't have authority to take action when needed within the park . So the situation has done worse and worse and we didn't prove quite a lot of funds for the Public Defenders Association and other partners in the community to help out people in the encampment with the Just Care program and get them on the way for permanent supportive housing or whatever it would be that they would need. But as Baby said, what happens when the park fences come down? It's my view that the county is the one that should own this park. And the plan had been for so long for that to happen and it's time that it happened. Now we need to have a situation where we are in control of the park and we can determine what goes on there to protect the public. To protect employees of the courthouse so they feel comfortable coming to work to protect them as leaving the courthouse to after work, to protect the public from accessing this center of government for all King County and the center of access to justice for all of King County and beyond. Contrary to what an individual said in public comment that this should not be done because there are other areas of the county that need public public health, public security, public safety. This is the center where people come to access justice, and that should be open and it should be safe. So I have been working with the consecutive and with the mayor of the city of Seattle. It is my understanding that the signal to Seattle is agreeable to transfer ownership to the county. In fact, the mayor of Seattle said, You have a dollar. The Park Insurance. Executive has been working with the mayor to actualize that. And I believe we need to take hold of this opportunity that we have and grab it and have control of our own destiny and protecting the public and protecting everybody from being able to access county government and access to justice. The judges are all for this, and I know that many of you are as well. And I appreciate Councilmember Peter Van right there for holding a briefing on this and heads up the Government of Government Accountability and Oversight Committee. And Councilmember Lambert doing the same in her community Health and Housing Services Committee. Another factor here is that of the entrance to the courthouse since we own the park. One thing we could be able to do would be to change the entrance and egress to the courthouse, to its original entrance, that being on Jefferson Avenue. And John and my staff is just a couple of slides to show, and we'll make it quick after that. But is John able to share screen? When the courthouse was built back in the 1800s, the front courtyard of the building fired into the park. They complemented each other. This is obviously not a photo from back then, but the point being is that the the courthouse. And City Hall Park were meant to be together. But in 1982 and you can see this old photo from 1917. In 1967, this entrance was converted into a loading dock, which is currently full of supplies and dumpsters. The original extravagant Alaskan marble inside the building is preserved. Well, the marble on the original entrance has been damaged or covered in a layer of concrete. Very unfortunate and likely would be costly to restore. But that could be done and can be determined in terms of overall priorities for our expenditures. This historic entry way would lead to more foot traffic in the park and less off of Third Avenue, where there's also been so many high profile instances of violence. So you can see these things then and now. Images, a lot of reports have been done on this, including from the University of Washington and architects that we could take advantage of and be able to really scrutinize whether public safety and access to the courthouse could be and could be improved by opening this entrance and closing the one on Third Avenue. John, are there any other photos to show? Apparently not. Okay. So before you this this morning is a striking memo that I developed in collaboration with Councilmember Belge and again, with input from our judges and other staff in the courthouse, it would remove a specific reference to the possibility of developing affordable housing in this space from the original motion. However, it remains an option that the executive could pursue. But my objective is to make this report as flexible as possible to ensure that most creative ideas are considered. And we must not forget that the problems plaguing our parts are the result of a severe lack of housing inventory. The striking amendment also requires to plan to address safety and security concerns around the courthouse, including the park. The plan aims to take a holistic look at the problem and provide a recommended course of action, which could include an assessment and analysis of approaches to not only address safety and other concerns, but also recognize that productive discussions are ongoing between the executive and the mayor to chance through the park. If that were to happen, the park were transferred, were to be transferred by the end of the year, which could just be a land swap. And from what I've learned, there is a lot of surplus land that we own that could be provided to the city and c r the city of Seattle easily. But if that were to occur with a well received ownership of the park by the end of this year, then of course, that language and the striking amendment would no longer be. Would no longer be an effect. I think it's the time to take control of this part and transform it into something that we can all be proud of. And I think we can all envision a day when we hear fewer sirens, sirens, screams, cries, and less about inadequate safety, and instead go back to hearing the sounds of birds and music and people laughing and having a good time, even buskers in the park. The main point is we need to do something. I think this makes sense and I believe that will help all of us, the public, the residents around City Hall, Park and the courthouse, the businesses, employees who can go back to work. Our employees and above all, for me. Access to justice and all of our common services. And of course, it could be used as part of what we look at long term in the configuration of our common civic campus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry went on for so long that this means a lot to me. Once a member of Parliament. I think you find it means a lot to many of us. Would you believe I would entertain a motion? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move because motion 2020 10318. Thank you. Motion 2021 318 is before US Council member Cole Wells. I've spoken to this and I support and I would like to amend striking amendment number two. As to as before this discussion on striking an amendment as to Councilmember Bell duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say a few words about my contribution to this. Maybe they've turned itself off. I want to thank Councilmember Cole Wells for being willing to work with me to include some broader thinking about safety in the area generally beyond just City Hall Park, although the focus of this action is on City Hall Park. And I just want to call attention to some other things that this motion does that I that I advocated for and that I appreciate being included. It asks for us to take a deep look and a quick look at the key factors that have driven the violence and disorder that we've seen around the courthouse , including prior efforts to address the problem, because there have been some and I believe you always need to start with a good problem definition and some sense of what can be done to address the specific problem before you. The it requires that we come back with a plan to address safety concerns in and around the courthouse, including city hall park, taking a holistic look at this problem and recommending a course of action that could include something like crime prevention through environmental design approaches, which is part of what was going on with the previous activity to activate the park. That that's that's part of that kind of thinking that you create safety as opposed to just responding to a lack of safety that we talked about a description of ways in which the county will engage with the city of Seattle to address crime around the area, a plan for relocating any current or potential future occupants of an encampment if they if they come back. And as you can see, if you go down to the courthouse, this is the problem with relocation as a as a sole strategy. If all you do is relocate people who are living in tents on the ground, the tents come right back somewhere else because people need to live somewhere, that they have nowhere to live. They're going to go someplace else. And many of the tents are now just around the corner under yes or the yes or overpass. So it is a it is only a temporary and it is not a complete solution and in many ways not always a humane solution, but we need a more holistic total solution that includes public safety, human resources, smart street activation. An end to COVID would be nice. That would help a lot. And then it goes on to talk about a cost benefit analysis of restoring the original courthouse entrance. I got to tell you, I've been around long enough to have been through a couple of spins through that particular wheel about restoring the main courthouse. It's never made any sense from a financial perspective to me. I'll just say for myself, very expensive. What has what was done to the front of the courthouse was a crime against architecture and humanity and the history. But it was it was a pretty thorough damn job. And and to undo it would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive. I really think we should be we're already bringing up the discussion that we had been having prior to COVID about the future of the campus. So much has changed in our campus started. Let's just start with the fact that it looks like the administration building will not be reoccupied again. If that's the case, then really sort of puts, I think, a fire under the discussions around what is the future of the county seat for our campus. And then finally, if there's an agreement with regard to City Hall Park, an assessment of options for the acquisition, which is what Councilmember Caldwell spoke to in detail. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I really think it's important that we think broadly and that there's a number of different things required in order to create safety for our employees, for people coming to the courthouse, to access justice for jurors, for people who live in the area. And so I think this is a good step, and I'm glad that we are willing to think a little bit bigger and broader and come back with a holistic approach to the area. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair as well. Thank you. I'm very sorry that I did not mention earlier the second sponsor, legislation council member Ragan Dunn. I was going to thank Martha and I thought she would be talking many cheers. But he's been very involved with discussions about public safety in the park ideas and what to do with it. And I really appreciate that he's been so supportive. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Further discussion on striking amendments to Councilmember Dunn. But thanks and thanks for your kind word. He make me want to vote for Ingenico. Well, because everything you said in your introductory remarks was exactly what I would have said. And it's powerful and it's bipartisan. And yeah, I was proud to propose that first piece of legislation. I think the confirmation legislation, which I knew probably wouldn't pass but would get the conversation started at a regional level. What were you're going to do with this courthouse to take, to take, to take the people's courthouse back from the lawlessness that had ensnared it and find a compassionate way to get folks into the wraparound services that they need out there and to be a better solution for everyone. And and then Jeanie took the ball and morphed it from sort of a almost a. Inflammatory attempt to get the dialog started to, I think a more thoughtful piece of legislation that is going to result have a better result which, which I appreciate very much and , and think there, there really is a way to solve these these problems. I mean, we were talk about $1,000,000,000 into our homeless problem globally since the crisis was declared by the executive in the mayor. And it is now not unreasonable, I think, for folks to start to at least appreciate the need to move the encampments that are around our public spaces into the wraparound services the taxpayers are paying for. And City Hall Park is. Is maybe the first leading example of how that process might look into the future. So I wanted to thank you, Nicole Wells and Claudia Valdez, you for their continued leadership on this. And I would just mention that about ten years ago. And Jeannie, this is free information. We have had a lot of one on one meetings in person because we're we're separated. Bob Ferguson and I talked about about ten years ago, he sponsored legislation to reopen the original entrance of the courthouse. And, Kathy, you'll remember that you were involved with that, too. And and so I think there may be value in see, it's weird architecture is symbolism in government and you see it in Washington, DC more than anywhere. But you see it our state capitol, capitol buildings across the country and the county seat as well. Sometimes it's indicative of the long term sustainability of a democracy. I think there's value in architecture and I think there's something to be said about if we are successful in moving individuals from city hall parking to wraparound services and get them the addiction treatment they need, the mental health counseling need, the job training they need, and the housing they need. And at the same time, we beautifying City Hall Park and perhaps spend a little money to open up that courthouse entrance. It says something about our ability to solve our community's problems, especially in an area that has been dogging local governments, not just here in King County, but across the west coast of the United States, which has about two thirds of America's homeless population. So all that is to say that I want to thank Councilmember Cole Wells and Balducci for their bipartisan leadership in this issue. And I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Further discussion on it as to. Lambert Council member. Lambert. Thank you. Well, first I want to say this is really good legislation and thank you to everybody who contributed to it. It is a topic that has come up many, many times over the years and has been followed by promises from the current owner, but unfortunately have not been kept. And so it is a really good idea for us to be able to take this back. One of the problems that we've had is that our queue lines getting into the courthouse have been so wrong. And so if we were able to sneak it into the park so that it wasn't interfering with the main pass through and we could potentially put an awning so people wouldn't get wet. And there's more space on the Jefferson side to maybe have some more magnetometers to get people into the courthouse more quickly. I really appreciate all the things that were said by the previous speakers, especially on the idea of it's not humane what's happening in that park. And being able to get services is a much better way. Councilmember Banducci was very correct that they did an excellent job of destroying a lot of architecture, which is very unfortunate, but it does tell a story of what was valued at that time and what wasn't. I had the opportunity to go down and travel in that area of the courthouse, which is pretty much been locked out for years. I was surprised by how much space there is down there that I had no idea was that big and what the potential of that is. So I know that we have done several reports and yes, they were astronomically expensive, but hopefully there could be some grants. Another state has a courthouse restoration grant program. So I am excited about this. I think cleaning it up has been everybody's goal for a long time and I especially like the extra, whereas it's being put and I don't know how I got my name added to that, whereas but the one that says that we are very concerned about the safety of our employees since I had an employee injured also so and was at the march and heard and saw many things that were happening. So thank you for this good piece of legislation and I'm looking forward to voting for. Further discussion on striking amendment as to. I reserve my comments for final passage, seeing no further comments, notes to all those in favor of striking amendment as to please signify by saying on. I. Those opposed nay nay. The ayes have it as to is adopted. Is there a title amendment? There is not. No, there is the title amendment. Title Amendment one. Councilmember Nicole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Title amendment t one. Two, one. As before I see no discussion paper. Please signify B.S. on those opposed. No, the ayes have it. The title amendment is adopted motion 2021 318 as amended and final passage. Question. Mr. Chair. Council members on the line. I heard a few times references to permanent supportive housing, but when I look at the legislation, I see that it references moving people in encampments to temporary housing and shelters. Is there somewhere else in the legislation that I missed that discusses permanent housing? It can answer that. Mr. Chair council members I. In striking amendment as to. Along with temporary shelters, there should be a line that says. Or permanent supportive housing as needed. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a little bit. That language doesn't sit well with me because it still sounds like we could be moving people to temporary housing and shelters, which are not the most effective way of dealing with this situation. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that we need to have free, clear and clean, accessible parks, that our employees deserve to be safe. The question is whether we address the symptoms of homelessness, the symptoms of homelessness, especially at the expense of the people who are suffering the most from it, which are the people who are living in the camps? Or do we address the root causes of it? And to me. Moving people from one bad situation to another. Bad situation is not addressing root causes. And so that that's just one red flag that I wanted to point out that doesn't sit well with me. Mr. Chair. As a member. As a member. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, to address that. Thank you. Const members. Hello. On page 15, my mind 56 and 57 that says in cost benefit analysis of concern across line of 54 and 55. Temporary housing and shelters or permanent supportive housing and small. But again, these are requests to the executive to come back with options for us as part of particularly what Councilmember Bell she added with me and to the striking amendment to look at the root causes, to look at this whole thing holistically, not just in a simple fashion. It's broadly approached and broadly rec, broadly examining what can be done with all that's going on in the park currently, what has been? So I share that concern of yours. I hope that you will look at this holistically and know that affordable housing is needed. Period. But if we have people who start camping out in the park individually or forming encampments, we have to get them the services and the help they need so that they can get permanent supportive housing as needed. Thank you. Speaking for myself, I'm concerned that legislation like this contributes to a narrative about homelessness so far and dehumanizing to people experiencing homelessness. For instance, I have am concern about the reference to cleaning up in this situation because it doesn't address people in the people with needs and people who are experiencing crisis. I'd much prefer we use language like addressing issues of. They dehumanizing the legislation like this can lead to does it doesn't acknowledge the need for housing, for treatment for support to make sure that people are successful. The conversation is too centered around public safety and concern around one blot. It doesn't even acknowledge the robust efforts led by the Alliance for Puget Sound. The Alliance for Playing Square, which offers a vision for this, the northeast corner of Pioneer Square. They are bringing the city of Seattle County officials, residents, business leaders, other community leaders into a workgroup and visioning what they see for the northeast corner of things where it doesn't seem to be acknowledging that as well as significant body work by a leading community partner. I'm here in my district. I think the overall work of this legislation contributes to a false sense of security. When we talk about public safety around within City Hall Park exclusively, particularly as we talk about people coming and going from the courthouse, our employees, people coming in to do business with the court jurors. They are not originating their trip from city hall part of the block to the path and the courthouse sit on the trip originates from somewhere else in the county. They have they travel through pioneers where they travel through downtown Seattle to get to that block. Going to the courthouse with the public safety concerns that exist and are real exist beyond see how park itself and the block the courthouse sits on to engage in a city significant effort around one part at the exclusion of the neighborhood around it. I do believe it contributes to a false sense of security. And brings me to my next point. This is inside an incorporated city. Our responsibility is to provide public safety needs in unincorporated Kane County cities, provide public safety within our unincorporated areas. If the county has the resources to address public safety needs, I can make it work. Any of those that are needed in unincorporated areas in my district include other, in fact, other neighborhoods within my district. This neighborhood being within my district, for instance, White Center has had at least six firings over the last year and is in crisis. Constituents are continuously concerned about road safety and wanting safety improvements for roads in white summer. We don't have the financial resources to address. We don't have the financial resources to address the fire in the way the community would like to. There aren't the resources to address other issues, Anderson, in my district either. And those are just two tiny pockets of unincorporated King County across the entire county where I can delineate and identify places. I would make different expenditures. But we are responsible, unlike, you know, in incompetency. So whether we can acquire relief for a dollar that also doesn't account for the capital and operating costs that would be invested and spent over time again in a city. And yes, the courthouse is the county seat is where the courts and the council and the county does its business. I understand what happens if you don't access to justice. So people in the unincorporated Kim County need that same access to justice and justice living in safe, supported, empowered communities. And this is an exchange that I think shortchanges that access to justice in other places in our county. And so I would I will be voting no today. Mr. Chair. Council Members ALL Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd second everything that you just said, especially the point about unincorporated King County and our responsibilities there with respect to public safety. Second, I just want to go back to my point about affordable, permanent, supportive housing all around King County, especially in Seattle, whatever, quote, unquote, sweeps are done. People's issue is not the opponents of that. Their issue is not that people are being connected to services and that our our parks are becoming more accessible to other people. The main issue is that we don't have the permanent supportive housing options to connect people to. So I don't understand what is being done here that's different. The issue is that we are in a housing crisis broadly. So if those resources to send people to have existed at the. Abundance and rate that have been needed to solve this crisis. Why is focusing on one specific block? Going to change that issue. We are in an overall housing crisis. That is the problem. So to me, this feels like. Codifying a sweep legislation next to where we are, where our building tends to be, whereas people all around King County have been have been crying about this issue for a long time. So there's no new revenue attached to this. King County has no progressive revenue options. What are we actually doing here? Further discussion. But Mr. Chair, I'll just say one one. Thing about energy. And in acknowledgment of the points that that the former speakers are making. When I first came on the council, we were doing our first biannual budget since I was a council member. We identified homelessness around the county complex as a really key issue that we wanted to do something about. We found some very creative ways to increase a significant amount of funding to support shelter and services around the courthouse, specifically because it is our it is our county seat. We are the county government. This is our neighborhood where we work. And we felt a special responsibility to the challenge as it was presenting right here in our front yard. And so everything that both you and council members have said is true and fair. But we have taken a special interest in this area because of it being our county seat and because of feeling a responsibility to the people that we invite here to do business with us and to work for us and to the people who have to come to receive certain very important county services. So just an explanation as to why I believe that although this is not my district and it's not incorporated King County, this is a location that is worthy of some special action and and care from the council. Thank you, Mr. Chair. See no further discussions until you suppose. Mr. Chair? Yes? A number of to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening very intently, and I find myself thinking about some comparisons here. Number one, just as we are the county seat located at the White House. The City of Olympia. Is the seat of government for our state yet? It's not the Olympia police. That have responsibility and authority for maintaining public order and public safety on the Capitol campus. And I want to it's the Washington State Patrol. Just as in Washington, D.C. And we, of course, know about the January 6th riots that took place there, the rebellion the Capitol Police were trying very hard to control . Order, order. It was a mess. But that impacted. The access to our national and federal government that people cannot go into the building. And it became terribly unsafe not only for our members of Congress, but for all the employees. I see this as a very urgent issue, but I do not see it. As blocking many of our work on affordable housing. I'm working with the Alliance and Pioneer Square. In fact, I've had conversations too, and I've found them very supportive of what we're doing here. I do not see that in a motion, a motion, not an ordinance that we are removing our work or ignoring our work in terms of affordable housing in the Pioneer Square area, but around the whole county, including, of course, the unincorporated part of our county. People from all over the county come to Pioneer Square for services or from King County to the courthouse up till recently to the administrative building to the section of the building and elsewhere. And they should feel safe. Jurors are saying they're not going to serve because they're afraid to come to the courthouse. This is a motion asking the executive. To provide an analysis. In fact, many. And now she's addressing these very, very important concerns. Certainly part of that is public safety. For constituents from White Center, for constituents from Skyway, for constituents from Maple Valley and from all the rural areas, and then corporate income, they come here for a reason and they should not be afraid to come to the courthouse. This motion also asks. The executives to determine options for acquiring the park, which makes all the sense in the world to if we own the park and we have individuals who are houseless currently and want to sleep in the park, then we can take part. And the decisions and what to do with that. We are already working a lot on this and we need to do a huge amount more. But this motion does not assuage any of this from going forward with our doing more. We're putting money into white sand or putting money in the sky with just to name a couple. I know I'm the budget chair. We've done a lot. We need to do a lot more. This is not an either or situation. And it's not meant to be dismissive or to lack care in providing. Needed assistance to those individuals who are houseless. We're having an increase in the number of people who are experiencing homelessness, and we're working. You all know that we need to do a hell of a lot more. But this motion will help us get to that point. There's nothing about it that is meant to be in long. The opposite is the case. I'd like to remind everybody to this is the committee of the whole. There is opportunity for amendments to be introduced, to be offered. By the time it comes up to the full council. But to not go forward with this motion, I think, is to turn our back on opportunities for the county. To have direct responsibility and authority for what can be done with the park. Rather than leave it in the hands of the city of Seattle, which has not done much at all for way too long. So that's my pledge to you to pass this vote, to approve the striking amendment, as we did, and now the legislation, so we can get on with what we need to do for the park, for public safety, to figure out from the executive what use is would be viable for the park. It could be affordable housing that we could get. It could be retaining at a spur. That would be up for the executive to provide us with options that we can address. And I think that's moving forward. That's progress that is not turning our back on the needs of so many people and our 2.3 million person. Come to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam Kirk, please call the room. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell duty. Hi. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Councilmember done. I. Councilmember calls. I. Council member Lambert High Council member of the ground. I. Councilmember Vaughn right there. Hi. Council members online? No. Mr. Chair. No. Mr. Chair, the vote is seven eyes to the nose. The council member softly and McDermott. Thank you. By your vote, you've given a deep House recommendation to version 2021 318. The next item on today's agenda is proposed Motion 2021 to 82, which would acknowledge receipt of the Disability Equity Action Plan. It was required by a proviso on the 2021 2022 biennial budget.