Hello there! This post is from Holly’s husband, James Rivera. For context, please read the earlier blog post on “hidden” wealth being used for real estate speculation as a driver for rising home prices, and consequently, property taxes, for just one example. The Trump executive order to get rid of two existing regulations for every new regulation from January 2017 has likely widened the inequality gap (aside: I only say “likely” because the government report from the GAO, published in August 2019, uses data that ends in 2016, but the trends are clear and alarming).

One of my favorite magazines, Scientific American, has an article in the current issue (November 2019) that supports this claim:

Is Inequality Inevitable?
Wealth naturally trickles up in free-market economies, model suggests
By Bruce M. Boghosian, a professor of mathematics at Tufts University
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/

This article is behind a paywall ($6.99 for this issue), so I will not post its entire text here. If you can afford to subscribe (or just buy the current November 2019 issue), then I highly recommend you do so, if only for this article (it’s just that good). The math is just multiplication and addition, and in the article you can read how it is elegantly simple, valid, explained well, and easy to comprehend. Alternatively, Scientific American is available to read at your local public library, but a search on kcls.org shows the August 2019 issue is the latest one available, so you will probably have to wait a few months to read this particular article.

But in the interest of getting this information out, here is the bullet point summary from the top of the article and five small excerpts:

• Wealth inequality is escalating in many countries at an alarming rate, with the U.S. arguably having the highest inequality in the developed world.
• A remarkably simple model of wealth distribution developed by physicists and mathematicians can reproduce inequality in a range of countries with unprecedented accuracy.
• Surprisingly, several mathematical models of free-market economies display features of complex macroscopic physical systems such as ferromagnets, including phase transitions, symmetry breaking and duality.

“…as of 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much household wealth as the lower half of the world’s population combined—about 3.5 billion people; today Oxfam estimates that number as 26.”

“…TRICKLE UP
We find it noteworthy that the best-fitting model for empirical wealth distribution discovered so far is one that would be completely unstable without redistribution rather than one based on a supposed equilibrium of market forces. In fact, these mathematical models demonstrate that far from wealth trickling down to the poor, the natural inclination of wealth is to flow upward, so that the “natural” wealth distribution in a free-market economy is one of complete oligarchy. It is only redistribution that sets limits on inequality.”

“…Luck plays a much more important role than it is usually accorded, so that the virtue commonly attributed to wealth in modern society—and, likewise, the stigma attributed to poverty—is completely unjustified.”

“…Such a phase transition may have played a crucial role in the condensation of wealth following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The imposition of what was called shock therapy economics on the former states of the U.S.S.R. resulted in a dramatic decrease of wealth redistribution (that is, decreasing χ) by their governments and a concomitant jump in wealth-attained advantage (increasing ζ) from the combined effects of sudden privatization and deregulation. The resulting decrease of the “temperature” χ/ζ threw the countries into a wealth-condensed state, so that formerly communist countries became partial oligarchies almost overnight. To the present day at least 10 of the 15 former Soviet republics can be accurately described as oligarchies.”

“…Given how complicated real economies are, we find it gratifying that a simple analytical approach developed by physicists and mathematicians describes the actual wealth distributions of multiple nations with unprecedented precision and accuracy. Also rather curious is that these distributions display subtle but key features of complex physical systems. Most important, however, the fact that a sketch of the free market as simple and plausible as the affine wealth model gives rise to economies that are anything but free and fair should be both a cause for alarm and a call for action.”

So, what can we do about it?

For starters, do not fall into the misguided trap of thinking poor people have “done something to deserve it”. Likewise, do not jump to the flawed conclusion that rich people are smart simply because they are wealthy, and if you hear Democratic presidential candidates calling for “a tax on the rich”, don’t be too quick to dismiss the idea. Furthermore, perhaps an “alternative minimum tax” on billion dollar corporations (that pay nothing by exploiting tax loopholes), or something similar, might be a good idea, too. Just a thought.

Some other ideas directly from Oxfam’s website:

1. Stop offshore tax dodging which costs the US and developing countries more than $100 billion each year.
2. Ensure that working families everywhere can make a living wage.
3. Fight discrimination of all kinds and ensure equal pay for equal work.
4. Support social safety nets for everyone, everywhere.
5. Ensure every person has access to affordable, high quality healthcare and education.

However, just to be clear, we should NOT be demonizing wealthy people for their success (well, unless their personal actions suggest they deserve it). Rather, we should fix the broken system that enabled them to accumulate too much wealth using tax loopholes in the first place. And, appropriately taxing their excess income to help pay for the government infrastructure that helped them accumulate it in the first place, is quite fair.

-James Rivera (Holly Zhang’s husband)

I have been getting many heated questions about whether I support Initiative 1000 (a.k.a. “I-1000” and now, “R-88”).  Most of these people are agitated about it because they have been led to believe it will discriminate against Chinese people. 

I believe this view is misguided.

I’m Chinese, my daughter is half Chinese, and I will not support any legislation that discriminates against her (or any minority). What follows is some information I hope you will agree supports my view. As with my prior post, you may want to grab a cup of coffee and settle into a quiet reading place before diving in.

---

First, please read Initiative 200 and Initiative 1000, which replaces it (they’re both short):

The language in both of these initiatives is not confusing “legalese”. It should be easy to read and understand.
I-200 is only 3 pages long, and I-1000 is only 6 pages long.

I-200
Here is a link to a PDF of the actual text of I-200 (not some biased opinion of it), from WA.gov:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i200.pdf
It’s deceptively simplistic.  The devil is in the details of what is NOT there.

I-1000
Here are the links to the actual text of I-1000 (again, not some biased opinion of it), both from WA.gov:
The government “home page” for Initiative 1000: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1000&Initiative=true
Direct link to the text of I-1000 (PDF, 6 pages): http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%201000.pdf
And just for completeness, here is the link to the voters pamphlet about I-1000/R-88.

State Measures – Referendum Measure No. 88
https://voter.votewa.gov/GenericVoterGuide.aspx?e=566&c=99#/measure/4244
The legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. Initiative 1000 would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting.
Should Initiative 1000 be:
[] Approved
[] Rejected

I would appreciate it if you vote “[x] Approved”, but not just because I say so; please read the text of I-1000 to make sure you understand it.
What follows is my attempt to make this goal easier.

---

Quotas were arguably the main problem with Affirmative Action

A quick look at what “Affirmative Action” means, and its history
I think it may be useful to understand what affirmative action is, and what problem(s) it was intended to solve.
The definition from Wikipedia is as follows:
“…Affirmative action describes policies that support members of a disadvantaged group that has previously suffered discrimination (and may continue to) in such areas as education, employment, or housing. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.”

And a little history:
“…The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in “Executive Order No. 10925”, signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”. It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take “affirmative action” to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin”. This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.”

I-200 got rid of affirmative action, mostly because of complaints about quotas
Here is the summary of I-200, from the top of the document:
“…This initiative prohibits government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting. Government includes all public entities, including the state, cities, counties, public schools, public colleges, public universities, and other governmental instrumentalities. This initiative does not repeal or modify any law or governmental action that does not discriminate or grant preferential treatment. AN ACT Relating to prohibiting government entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national  origin; and adding new sections to chapter 49.60 RCW.”

Well, that doesn’t sound bad…does it?  The key phrase here is, “preferential treatment”.  Affirmative action used quotas to ensure that minority groups (especially African Americans) were not being discriminated against, primarily with respect to hiring practices, because at the time, that is exactly what was happening: they were being shut out of employment (and home ownership, and bank loans, etc.) en masse, based on race.  The argument against it was that it promoted reverse-discrimination against white people.  There may be some truth to that, but only because of overly strict adherence to quotas.  Still, it was necessary because without some preferential treatment via affirmative action, most African Americans (among other minorities) would be stuck in a generational feedback loop they could never get out of.

Here is a recent opinion regarding affirmative action from Harvard Law School:
The Case for Affirmative Action
As the federal stance on affirmative action changes, a look at what the policy has accomplished, and why it’s still relevant today
By: Leah Shafer, July 11, 2018
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/07/case-affirmative-action
“…Decades of research in higher education show that classmates of the direct beneficiaries [of affirmative action] also benefit. They have more positive racial attitudes toward racial minorities, they report greater cognitive capacities, they even seem to participate more civically when they leave college.”

Finally, to quote President Lyndon B. Johnson on affirmative action:
“But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.”
-Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commencement Address at Howard University: June 4, 1965

My stance: affirmative action is good, but perhaps its intent can be achieved without quotas.

What does I-1000 say about quotas?

If you open the I-1000 PDF and search for “quota”, you will find it mentioned 3 times:

Page 1, lines 15-19: “This is accomplished by: Restoring affirmative action into state law without the use of quotas or preferential treatment; defining the meaning of preferential treatment and its exceptions; and establishing a governor’s commission on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Page 3, lines 5-9: “(9) Nothing in this section prohibits the state from implementing affirmative action laws, regulations, policies, or procedures such as participation goals or outreach efforts that do not utilize quotas and that do not constitute preferential treatment as defined in this section.”

Page 4, lines 14-20: “For the purposes of this chapter, “affirmative action” means, in addition to and consistent with the definition in section 3 of this act, a policy or procedure by which racial minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam-era veterans, honorably discharged military veterans, and veterans with disabilities are provided with increased employment opportunities. It shall not mean any form of quota system.”

Therefore, any “quotas are bad” arguments against I-1000 are clearly baseless.

What else has changed in I-1000?

• It is more specific about who it protects.
  Instead of the comparatively vague text from I-200:
  “This initiative prohibits government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin…”
  
  In contrast, I-1000 adds other groups that have a history of being discriminated against by adding the following language:
  “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or honorably discharged veteran or military status…”

• The terms “Affirmative action” and “preferential treatment” are clearly defined:
  “Affirmative action” means a policy in which an individual’s race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status are factors considered in the selection of qualified women, honorably discharged military veterans, persons in protected age categories, persons with disabilities, and minorities for opportunities in public education, public employment, and public contracting. Affirmative action includes, but shall not be limited to, recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, outreach, setting and achieving goals and timetables, and other measures designed to increase Washington’s diversity in public education, public employment, and public contracting; and (d) “Preferential treatment” means the act of using race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, and honorably discharged veteran or military status as the sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity.

• It creates “The Governor’s Commission On Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion”:
  The commission is responsible for planning, directing, monitoring, and enforcing each state agency’s compliance with this act. The commission may propose and oppose legislation and shall publish an annual report on the progress of all state agencies in achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion in public education, public employment, and public contracting.

• It defines how this will be paid for: “funded within the governor’s biennial budget”.

• It defines who will be appointed by the governor to this commission and serve four-year terms (fairly long; please see page 4, line 33 through page 5, line 36). Concerned Chinese people should note that this list includes an, “Executive director of the commission on Asian Pacific American affairs;”.

• It also defines appointing legislative members, in a bi-partisan manner, two from the senate (“one from each of the two largest caucuses, appointed by the president of the senate”) and two from the house (“one from each of the two largest caucuses, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.”), each serving two-year terms.

That’s pretty much it. These all seem like good, bi-partisan-friendly changes to me.

Thanks for reading this far!

Holly Zhang

Most people living here in the Puget Sound region will likely agree the prices of homes in Bellevue have skyrocketed to where they are no longer affordable by many of the people who live here.  The following article supports this sentiment:

Study: Bellevue, Seattle make list of cities where ‘you’re broke earning $100K’
By: KIRO 7 News Staff, Updated: Oct 14, 2019 – 9:57 AM
“…As for Bellevue, the study’s data shows you would be nearly $41,000 short on a $100,000 salary.
Average monthly rent: $2,421
Overall annual expenditures: $140,908.36
Amount left over from $100,000: -$40,908.36”

Grab a cup of coffee and dig in, there’s a lot to unpack here…

Housing prices are generally reflective of the supply/demand ratio.  We know many people are moving here for tech jobs at Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc.  But, the constant supply of cranes would suggest that the building boom should meet that demand.  Could something else be shrinking the supply of available homes? 

As noted in a recent KUOW podcast (link below), speculators and dark money investors park their money in “wealth storage units” here in our relatively stable housing market, because it is a good way to protect their cash against loss due to inflation, while also offering a potential high return.  But some non-resident real estate investors do not bother with renters, especially if they are using “dark money”, because they don’t want the extra government attention that rent income can attract.  So houses sit empty, effectively removing them from the available supply, which naturally drives up the price of all remaining houses (and rental units, too).

Skeptical? Here are some links to supporting articles, with some salient snippets from each one:

1: Seattle Times, Oct. 15, 2019: Report spotlights how some owners of high-end Seattle condos conceal their identities
“…But a new report argues it’s unclear how many owners of condominiums there have ever lived in the luxe environs they’ve paid up to $11 million to own, because the identities of nearly half the owners are hidden behind trusts and limited liability companies (LLCs).  Effectively, they’re secret.”

“…In New York, a new law took effect last month making the name of every property owner in the state public information. And in British Columbia, lawmakers introduced a bill to create a government registry of beneficial property owners — the people ultimately behind the trusts and LLCs — which if implemented, would go online next year. The goal of such efforts, advocates say, is to ensure that it’s easier to resolve property disputes, track property ownership patterns and find homes sitting empty while their owners live elsewhere, which can drive up the cost of property in cities already strapped for space.”

2: Seattle Times, November 20, 2018: King County’s secret all-cash homebuyers must reveal true identity to law enforcement
“…The Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit has announced a new rule requiring all-cash buyers of homes in King County and a few other pricey markets to reveal their true identities to law enforcement when the house costs at least $300,000. Still, the public likely will be in the dark in many cases. In cities where the rule has already been in place, homebuyer identities were made available only to federal law enforcement, and the government has stymied attempts by journalists to gain access to the data through public disclosure requests. The number of home purchases affected could be large: About 1 in 10 homes bought in King County is purchased through a shell company, known as an LLC, according to Redfin (although not all of those LLCs necessarily hide the identity of the buyer). The rates are generally higher among luxury homes, and on the Eastside.”

2a: FINCEN, November 15, 2018: Geographic Targeting Order Covering TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (PDF report)
(Section II, A, 2, ii, 7) “…The Washington County of King;“

3: Seattle Times, October 18, 2018: Queen Anne group again challenges Seattle plan to ease restrictions on backyard cottages
“…Released this month, the review said easing regulations on backyard cottages and mother-in-law apartments would make Seattle more affordable and reduce teardowns of older houses, particularly if the city also tightened restrictions on the size of new houses.”

3a: Seattle Times, October 4, 2018: New review could pave way for more backyard cottages in Seattle while restricting ‘McMansions’
“…Easing regulations on backyard cottages and mother-in-law apartments would make Seattle more affordable and reduce teardowns of older houses, particularly if the city also tightened restrictions on the size of new houses, says a new review that could lead to action by the City Council. Due out Thursday, the review by the city says allowing more and larger accessory-dwelling units would help Seattle become denser without any major impacts to parking, traffic, utilities and neighborhood aesthetics.”

3b: Seattle City Council, October 4, 2018: Accessory Dwelling Units EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
“…Published on October 4, 2018, our Final EIS includes a Preferred Alternative for Land Use Code changes to remove barriers to the creation of ADUs. The Preferred Alternative resembles legislation that the City Council will review and consider for adoption. Its key features include:
    Allowing two ADUs on one lot
    Removing the off-street parking requirement
    Removing the owner-occupancy requirement and requiring one year of ownership when creating a second ADU
    Modifying development standards that regulate the size, height, and location of DADUs
    Increasing the household size limit for a lot with two ADUs
    Establishing a new limit on the maximum size of single-family dwellings”

4: KUOW podcast, by Bill Radke, October 16, 2019: Where’s my self-driving car?
Click this link and then scroll down to the “Murky luxury condo ownership” subtopic to listen.
“…Who lives in those shiny new luxury condos on the waterfront? Hard to tell, says a new report. Its lead author is Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.“

Other cities are addressing this as follows:

5. September 27, 2018 (Canada): B.C. launches new money laundering review in real estate sector
“…The new review will focus on sectors of the economy where criminals could use funds to purchase luxury items, like homes and high-end automobiles. In particular, Attorney General David Eby flagged the use of trust accounts by lawyers to mask the source of money used in real-estate transactions and the misuse of builders’ liens in the construction sector.”

5a. June 28, 2018 (Canada): ‘They turned a blind eye to it,’ says Eby on release of damning German report into money laundering at B.C. casinos
“…For many years, certain Lower Mainland casinos unwittingly served as “laundromats” for the proceeds of organized crime, German’s 247-page report found. German concluded that money laundered through casinos was linked, at least in some cases, to domestic and international organized crime organizations involved in illicit drug and precursor chemical purchases, drug importing, distribution and trafficking. German also found that some of those that arranged money laundering were buying real estate and advising others how to conduct real estate transactions.”

6. October 16, 2019: Who is buying Seattle? The perils of the luxury real estate boom, Chuck Collins, Institute for Policy Studies
“…Recommendations:
We urge the City of Seattle to monitor luxury housing activities. This report provides a window into several existing buildings.
But the city should monitor the thousands of new units coming on the market and analyze their ownership patterns.

• Require Municipal Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership in Real Estate
• Leverage Washington’s Real Estate Excise Tax to capture more value
• Institute a Vacancy Tax and Ordinance
• Require New Buildings to be Carbon Emissions Neutral
• Support State and National Transparency Policies”

The above recommendations for Seattle (from #6) can and should be implemented in Bellevue.

Thank you for reading this far!

The main financial driver of the City of Bellevue’s day-to-day operations is its property taxes. Let’s take a look:

For every $1,000 of appraised value in our homes, we pay $8.21 in taxes. The state and county governments take $7.29; The City of Bellevue takes 91 cents. Put another way, the state and county take 89% and the City of Bellevue takes 11%. 

If your house is appraised at $700,000, you will pay $5,747 in property taxes this year. If your house is worth $1,000,000, you’ll pay $8,210. 

Washington State and King County property tax distributions include:

30% to public schools;

32% to the State public school fund (as mandated by the McCleary State Supreme Court decision);

5% to libraries;

11% to county operations;

3% to emergency medical services;

1% to the Port of Seattle, and

2% for RST (Regional Sound Transit)

The remaining 11% goes to Bellevue. (The figures above total 95% because I am working with integers. The city budget takes these numbers out to the hundredth decimal place.)

My job as a city council member is to contribute to Bellevue’s vision statement: “The city where I want to be.” My vision is to plan for full value from every dollar the city takes in and to get full value for every dollar the city spends.

I’ll be thinking about the nervous voter who hovers over her ballot, thinking, “I can’t afford to make a mistake on school funding, fire, or police protection. I have no choice but to approve whatever tax levy the city is asking for.” I’ll also be thinking of the burdened senior who hovers over the same ballot, thinking, “I just can’t afford to pay any more property tax”.

As a city council member, I’ll be asking about every line of property tax spending, even when the asking is tough or unpopular. Nothing will be sacred. I will be calling on city staff. I will be visiting city construction sites. And I will be accountable to you.

Additional references:

You can see your personal property tax breakdown at:
https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx

You can see the way Bellevue spends property taxes at:
https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/finance/bellevue-property-taxes

2018 codes and levies, king county taxing districts:
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/Reports/~/media/depts/assessor/documents/PropertyTaxes/RateBook18.ashx

King County Levy Rate Info (history of rates):
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/Reports/levy-rate-info.aspx

Bellevue Property Tax: Median Residential Value and Tax Change (2018 vs. 2019):
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/Reports/~/media/depts/assessor/documents/propertytaxes/CityTaxComparison/2019CouncilDist-Median-AVChg-BELLEVUE.ashx
Key observation: the tax rate per home value went down, but because home values went up, the actual median tax increased by ~$450/year, or ~$37.50/month.

Current Status: Volunteer builders and architects have worked together to transform the winter-only men’s shelter in Lincoln Center to bring it up to code so it can be used year-round. They have my gratitude and respect for this work. However, due to problems inherent in the location, this shelter will only be operational for three years. The last snapshot count of homeless people in Bellevue came to 900.  So yes, we need to continue to work together towards a solution to support and house the homeless population in Bellevue. .

What’s not working: The Lincoln Center shelter is a temporary solution delivered by Bellevue’s industrious business community. Again, they strapped on tool belts and “got it done,” while the city council gave us little more than strategies and studies. Current city council members have scheduled another Shelter to be built in Bellevue’s Eastgate neighborhood.   Note: It is a permanentshelter – which offers only a temporarysolution, and   will not be open for several years.  The upshot is that under current city council’s vision, we are still years away from permanent solutions.

What I support:  The focus of city council should be on housing. FIRST.  Shelters should not be designed as “the” solution. Shelters should be temporary and function as in-take centers with staffing to support coordinated care through case management and housing navigators to help place individuals in permanent living spaces.  The Housing First approach, piloted in New York and getting scaled up in Finland for use across Europe, works. Several nights of quality sleep in a room or studio behind a locked door transforms traumatized minds and situations from chaos to manageability.  Because people with a room don’t fear being attacked or ripped off, their psychosis induced by sleep deprivation goes down. Substance abuse and mental illness flare-ups subside. They are able to focus on long-term solutions like medical treatment and job readiness.

Action NOW: RIGHT NOW this can be achieved with low income housing units as well as clustered housing in hotels. In addition, after building community awareness and targeting those individuals that have recently experienced homelessness due possibly to a medical condition that left them in debt or a serious illness of a loved one and they were the primary caregiver forcing them to miss work which lead to the loss of a job and then the loss of housing due to unpaid rent. These folks need just a small amount of time to get back on their feet. Just taking those that have no long-term history of homelessness or other medical or physical issues we could partner with the community to provide housing support. There are Bellevue residents living in large, nearly empty houses. Empty bedrooms can be rented and/or subsidized quickly and affordably to homeless people NOW. The plan city council approved three years ago allows for this flexibility. The extra information to log and track this solution could be integrated into the City of Bellevue’s newly unveiled paperless system. Kudos to heroic volunteers who built the Lincoln Center site. But the current city council has been asleep at the wheel thinking this is not a problem that Bellevue has to be concerned with – that it is just a Seattle problem. They are wrong we are a strong and resourceful community who will not tolerate any of our citizens left with the street as their only option. Young children, teens, single moms with families, and so many down on their luck need and deserve more from their elected officials. The business community alone should not be shouldered with the city council’s responsibility to provide leadership to permanent solutions to homelessness.

Related:
Seattle is addicted to bad narratives about homelessness
After 15 years, Seattle’s radical experiment in no-barrier housing is still saving lives
The homelessness paradox: Why do advanced economies still have people who live on the streets?
Addressing homelessness with data analytics: A data-driven approach to homelessness
Here’s how Finland solved its homelessness problem
Housing First Europe Hub