Seattle charter amendment on homelessness off November ballot

(The Center Square) – A judge has ruled that a charter amendment that could have drastically changed the way the city of Seattle addresses its homeless population cannot be on the November ballot.

Charter Amendment 29, known as “Compassion Seattle,” would overreach state law and the parameters allowed by city charters, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer said.

Shaffer during a hearing on the matter said she would have voted for the measure, but that her personal views are irrelevant.

“If passed, Charter Amendment 29 would be local folks seeking to overturn the will of the state population as expressed through our state representatives in legislation,” Shaffer said. “And that’s not how it works.”

Plaintiffs in the matter included the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

“Judge Shaffer’s ruling affirms well-established limits to the local initiative process and recognizes the importance of the proper functioning of our democratic process,” Breanne Schuster of the ACLU said in a statement. “We are pleased that CA29 will not stand as an impediment to solutions that meaningfully address our housing crisis and do not punish people for trying to meet their life-sustaining needs like shelter, sleep and food.”

Compassion Seattle was created by the Downtown Seattle Association and local chambers of commerce, which put up $1 million to fund it.

The amendment would have required the city to build 2,000 shelter or housing units within one year and rewrite its budget to put more money into social services.

Knoll Lowney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued before Shaffer that state law provides a blueprint for homelessness policy and that Seattle and King County are already part of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, which was created to shift homelessness policy from individual cities to a regional scope.

Shaffer agreed and also noted that amendments are not supposed to supersede the city council’s authority on matters of budget priorities or land use.

Tom Ahearne, an attorney for the campaign, told Shaffer it would have been fairer to allow the measure to remain on the ballot and then let it be challenged if it passed.

“All doubts should be resolved in the favor of letting the people vote,” he said.

The campaign released a statement saying it would not appeal the decision because the timeline is too short.

“We urge the public not to give up the fight,” the statement said. “We can still make our voices heard in the elections for mayor, city council and city attorneys. In each race, the difference between the candidates is defined by who what the charter amendment was attempting to accomplish and who does not.”

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square