In their last full meeting before their August recess, the City Council will tackle several important matters.
Here is a draft of the resolution that Council member Lorena Gonzalez is writing to provide guidance on moving forward with the North Precinct project.
I’m taking some family time over the next two weeks. Expect occasional posts if interesting things happen, but no morning news roundups.
See you on the other side.
This morning the Council revisited the controversial North Precinct police station project. Sparks flew during the public comment session, but the council members were all business.
Lots happening this morning. Let’s get to it.
Yesterday in the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee, the proposed tax increase for solid waste services and the accompanying rate increases for Seattle Public Utilities were approved and sent on to the full Council for final approval next week.
In a stunning ruling today that raises all sorts of separation-of-powers issues, U.S. District Judge James Robart inserted himself into the middle of the process of drafting and adopting legislation establishing a system of accountability for the Seattle Police Department.
Today, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik handed The Chamber of Commerce and Uber their first setback in their legal challenge to Seattle’s ordinance allowing Uber drivers to unionize.
This morning’s news coverage is dominated by two issues: yesterday’s Council passage of new tenant protections, and today’s unveiling of draft secure scheduling legislation.
After months of stakeholder sessions, committee hearings, dueling survey results, and public PR battles, this morning Council members Lorena Gonzalez and Lisa Herbold are finally unveiling a draft “secure scheduling” ordinance. Their proposal is both comprehensive and ambitious; it addresses most, if not all, of the big issues lumped under the “secure scheduling” umbrella while compromising in a few places to make it more palatable for employers.
Herbold and Gonzalez have boiled it down to a simple problem statement: today, workers bear nearly all of the cost and impact of the fact that businesses don’t need the same number of workers on a consistent basis. Their ordinance is intended to shift some of that burden back onto the employers.
Let’s dive into the details of what they are proposing.