City Council Postpones Controversial Legislation on Equitable Development Initiative and Gig Worker Pay

by Lauryn Bray

Nonprofit groups and leaders from South Seattle and the Central District showed up in force at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 28, to oppose a last-minute amendment they said would undercut funding of the Equitable Development Initiative (EDI), a long-standing program to address systemic racism practices, such as redlining. In addition, dozens of speakers showed up to oppose legislation the council is considering that would affect gig worker pay by reducing a gig worker minimum wage that was implemented in January.

But they might have to show up again: After hours of testimony, the council decided to postpone voting on both agenda items for at least a week.

The Equitable Development Initiative will provide $25.3 million this year "intended to support community organizations in high displacement risk neighborhoods in acquiring sites and developing major capital projects, as well as providing capacity-building support to organizations that do not have experience undertaking a capital project," the amendment states.

Introduced the Friday before Memorial Day weekend by City Councilmember Maritza Rivera, the amendment would place a "proviso" or hold on funding and place requirements on the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD), which manages the EDI, to meet before the council would vote to lift the proviso.

"Since 2016, this program has been a model across the country," said Diane Sugimura, former director of the OPCD who ran the department when the program was adopted. "Such an amendment would negatively impact the marginalized communities the program was specifically intended to help — those that have been systematically cut out of the public processes and resources in the past for racial reasons."

About 105 remote and 70 in-person speakers provided public comment regarding legislation that would affect EDI funding and gig worker pay. Almost everyone who stood in front of the council spoke against one or the other amendment. Some people spoke on both. By the time the last person spoke, the council had been in session for three and a half hours.

Approximately 50 speakers provided comments related to the amendment to CB 120775, the gig worker ordinance, with fewer than 10 speaking in favor of maintaining the PayUp legislation. No speakers were in favor of the amendment to the EDI bill.

"I'm wearing two hats today: I am a bike courier who delivers with DoorDash and Uber Eats, and I'm a former employee of the affordable housing arm of a community development financial institution," said Emma H. "[Councilmember Rivera] ran under a platform of public safety. The data is clear that increasing affordable housing decreases crime. Jeopardizing funding for affordable housing via this amendment undermines your own stated number one priority. We need more affordable housing, not less. Vote 'no' on the EDI amendment today and vote 'no' on the current PayUp revision next week."

Community organizers came out in droves to protest Rivera's EDI amendment. Dominique Davis, founder and CEO of Community Passageways, told the council that the EDI funds that will be held up by the passing of Rivera's amendment already belong to the Black community.

"EDI was lifted up to put a Band-Aid on the bullet wounds of injustices and inequities, and now you want to rip the Band-Aid off," Davis said. "We built wealth for this country for 400 years. 400 years of free labor has built the wealth of this country so the money you guys are having meetings about is our money anyway. At the end of the day, you owe that to us."

Other comments pointed at the irony of voting on an amendment that would cease funding for new affordable housing projects just weeks after recently declaring an "Affordable Housing Week."

"Two weeks after council crowed about Affordable Housing Week, and one week after you sent $96.3 million to SPD for 24% retroactive raises with no budget concerns, you're now defunding housing and displacement measures and the Black community by $25 million," said Julia Buck, who also spoke out against the gig worker pay proposal. "You're disgusting."

Food justice coordinator at Rainier Beach Action Coalition Nurhaliza Mohamath also spoke out against the amendment. "RBAC has been in the middle of a contract amendment of $809,999 to bring this project construction to completion by the end of 2024," Mohamath said. "The fact that the City Council is deliberating with little to no notice after a Memorial Day weekend on whether or not to withhold the funding of my community's infrastructure is intentionally keeping those impacted outside of decision-making. Just know that you have brought Black, Indigenous, immigrant, and refugee elders and youth outside for the wrong reasons. This is a very, very bad idea."

Olisa Enrico, executive director at Cultural Space Agency, also expressed opposition to the amendment to the EDI bill. "We understand the budget must be balanced, but you must understand it is not on our backs," she said. "We deserve our spaces, we deserve to return home, we deserve to be here, and we deserve to do it together, so please vote 'no' for us."

At one point, Rivera left the dais, causing several outbursts from attendees who asked where she went.

"I appreciate council being here, except Councilmember Rivera at the moment, whose amendment I'm speaking to," said Joseph Lachman, policy manager at the Asian Counseling and Referral Service. "It must be nice to not have to hear the criticism of this horrible amendment that's threatening the integrity of the EDI."

Tiernan Martin, director of research at Futurewise, argued that the passing of Rivera's amendment would clash with state and local policy. "The amendment is inconsistent with the current comprehensive plan, specifically Capital Facilities Element 5.5. It also contradicts new state law, which the City must comply with by the end of this year, RCW 36.70A.070 subsection 2H, which specifically lists EDIs. Finally, the amendment is inconsistent with the stated values of this council. It would disrupt carefully laid plans by the City's community partners and make future partners think twice about working with the City," he said.

At 4:30 p.m., two and a half hours into public comment, Council President Sara Nelson proposed to pause comments to proceed with the agenda. Her suggestion was not well received, causing several outbursts within the audience. Councilmember Dan Strauss said the outbursts were "disabling" him from doing his job.

Following the outbursts, public comment went on for another hour, until everyone signed up had their chance to speak. After a short recess, the council reconvened, and Nelson proposed removing the gig worker pay agenda item from consideration to allow for central staff to finalize additional amendments and more time for "stakeholdering."

Councilmember Tammy Morales disagreed with Nelson's motion. "I had asked central staff to draft several amendments that might have made this bill better, but the truth is the only way to make this bill better is to reject it," she said. "Councilmembers Moore and Hollingsworth also did attempt to work with stakeholders, and the fact is that the companies have rejected efforts to address minimum wage, the retaliation provisions, the transparency revisions. I do not think that taking more time to try to bring people together will make this bill better, so I will not be voting to remove this from the agenda."

Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth disagreed with Morales' comment and said there was more work that could be done to make the legislation better. "I was one of the people that had asked the council president for more time on this bill," she said. "Councilmember Moore and myself held a robust stakeholder meeting a week ago. We brought all stakeholders to the table, and I do think that more work can be done on this." Councilmember Cathy Moore echoed this sentiment in her comments to the council.

Six councilmembers voted to postpone the gig worker pay legislation; Strauss and Morales opposed, while Councilmember Tanya Woo voted to abstain.

Following the vote on this motion, Rivera moved to postpone consideration of the EDI amendment "in order to give time to correct misinformation that was irresponsibly given to community about my proposed amendment," said Rivera. "Let me be clear: The amendment does not cut the EDI program. The amendment does not pull money away from existing projects; all 56 ongoing EDI projects will remain funded."

Rivera said the amendment will pause funding for new projects in 2024 to see that existing projects are completed. "The fact is that OPCD has 56 out of 77 projects at different stages of development that have not been completed. OPCD has only been able to complete 21 projects. It is unclear what OPCD is doing to ensure these projects are getting completed in a timely manner for the benefit of community."

Rivera pushed back against accusations that she did not give the community enough time to respond to the legislation, blaming the OPCD for lack of information, and said she holds the department responsible for funding it receives. "This amendment provides accountability to City budgeting, while supporting community with much-needed capacity. It gives OPCD the time to achieve successful execution of the already awarded projects. This amendment holds the department accountable to working with community to complete these projects."

Morales thanked the community for coming to provide public comment on Rivera's amendment before commenting on Rivera's motion to remove it from the agenda. "I don't know what benefit would accrue from tabling this legislation. We had over 3,000 emails over the weekend, and frankly, if you want to propose legislation that rolls back commitments made to Black and Brown communities, at least have the courage to stand by your legislation and vote on it or acknowledge that you made a mistake and withdraw it," she said.

Morales, who has a background in community and regional planning, said she is not surprised that these projects are taking several years to complete. "It takes three or four years to cobble together funding for site acquisition. It takes another three to four years to cobble together the funding to actually do the construction projects, and that's if you are already an experienced developer. It is not surprising at all to me that these projects take a long time."

Hollingsworth followed up with a comment that she will be voting "no" on the amendment today and in the future if it is brought up again. "I do understand that our OCPD needs to improve some of our systems — how we track, provide reports — and improve transparency [for] a better understanding. I get that, but … I don't think this sends the right message," she said. "Capital projects in our city take the most amount of time, and a lot of these organizations need technical assistance to understand capacity building and getting permits."

The motion to remove the EDI amendment from the agenda passed 6-3 with Robert Kettle, Moore, Rivera, Rob Saka, Woo, and Nelson voting in favor as Morales, Hollingsworth, and Strauss opposed.

Editors' Note: This article was updated to correct a typographical error in a quote from Councilmember Tammy Morales.

📸 Featured Image: Before packed City Council chambers, Dominique Davis, founder and CEO of Community Passageways, testifies in opposition of an amendment affecting Seattle's Equitable Development Initiative. (Screenshot from City Council meeting on Seattle Channel)