"We're Gonna Throw It Away."

Dan Strauss, on Losing End of Stadium Housing Vote, Predicts Disaster for Industrial Seattle

By Erica C. Barnett

On a 6-3 vote yesterday, the Seattle City Council approved legislation sponsored by Council President Sara Nelson to allow new apartments in the area immediately south of Seattle's two stadiums, after weeks of often acrimonious debate between supporters of the bill (including affordable housing developers, community groups, small manufacturers, and the Building Trades union) and opponents (representatives from maritime industries, the Port, and housing advocates who argue it's unhealthy to allow apartments on arterial streets near an industrial zone.)

Councilmember Rob Saka, considered the swing vote, voted "yes," as did Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who voted against the bill in committee.

The new law will allow a maximum of 990 apartments, half of them affordable to people making less than 90 percent of median income (smaller units would lower income limits). Under amendments adopted yesterday, renters would have to affirm in their lease that they know they're living in a "geologic hazard" area that's vulnerable during earthquakes; building owners would have to post several prominent warning signs saying the same; and housing would be prohibited along the west side of First Ave. S., the main artery through the area. The amendments also prohibit building owners from seeking any public subsidy at any point, including for future environmental remediation.

Without belaboring the five-hour meeting (which I covered in real time over on Bluesky), one key dynamic jumped out: Councilmember Dan Strauss, who opposed Nelson's legislation from the jump, dominated yesterday's meeting, first by attempting repeatedly to delay the vote, and then by reiterating his arguments against the proposal long after it was clear that the vote wasn't going to go his way. In about three and a half hours of deliberation, which included nine amendments by other councilmembers, Strauss spoke for well over an hour, returning to the same points again and again and suggesting repeatedly that if his colleagues had only done their homework, they would be voting with him.

It's common for city councilmembers to speak out in vociferously when they know they're going to lose (as Bob Kettle, who also opposed the bill from the beginning, did yesterday, even accusing his colleagues of being "aligned with the Trump administration" by voting to put housing near a polluted area). It's unusual, with the notable exception of former councilmember Kshama Sawant, for a council member to use every opportunity for comment to make the same repetitive points long after it's clear they've lost.

Strauss returned more than a dozen times to the fact that hotels are already allowed around the stadiums, suggesting at one point that his colleagues probably weren't even aware of that. (There's a Silver Cloud Inn right next to the stadiums, so it's hard to imagine they aren't). Strausswas chair of the land use committee when the city adopted an updated industrial lands policy that was changed at the last minute to allow hotels and offices in the stadium district, but not housing, a decision Strauss characterized as a maximalist and permanent compromise. (Proponents of housing in the area have argued that the deal was actually the opposite—the city would approve industrial lands without the contentious housing element, then revisit the housing question later.)

"Again, say it with me now," Strauss intoned, some four hours in. "This proposal could be built today, if the units were hotels." Since one of the main arguments against housing in the area is that renters' cars would jam up traffic to and from the Port's freight terminals, it's hard to see how hotels would be much better—unless the idea is that tourists would use transit and renters would not, a conclusion that isn't borne out by Seattle's own experience with parking mandates, which have shown that renters in areas served by transit are far less likely to own cars than other Seattle residents.

As the meeting neared its 7pm conclusion, Strauss went so far as to imply that the 990 proposed apartments would actually obliterate the city's maritime and industrial industry. Gesturing toward the "orange cranes" on the waterfront outside City Hall, he wondered aloud, "how much training does it take to get a skilled operator? How much investment does it take? And we're gonna throw it away. We'll keep the picture of it, though, in the conference room."

Strauss repeatedly suggested shadowy forces were at play in some of his colleagues' yes votes, fixating on a comment from Cathy Moore about a walking tour she and Maritza Rivera took at which, they said, a neighborhood group member suggested vacating South Occidental Street near the stadiums so it could become a pedestrian-only zone.. "The package of amendments today clearly demonstrates that council members have good intent, and that they know that housing in this area is a bad idea, but feel compelled to vote on this proposal or for this proposal," Strauss said. "Today, for even me, new information has come to light, which further leads me to believe there were commitments or things shared in private."

"If the next step from here as an alley vacation, this isn't about affordable housing or union-built anything—this is back to 2016 about a whole different conversation," Strauss said. The apparent implication was that the owner of much of the property rezoned for housing yesterday, Chris Hansen, had cut a side deal with other council members to bring back his 2016 stadium proposal without Strauss' knowledge; that proposal died after the council narrowly rejected a proposal to vacate Occidental. Rivera and Moore denied this and said they regretted bringing it up.

Strauss said the zoning change, if approved, would "possibly be the first decision before this council that cannot be taken back." While it's true that once a building goes up, the council doesn't have the power to tear it down, the city does change zoning laws all the time. It seemed like what Strauss wanted to say is that he didn't like the way his colleagues were voting. But that's sometimes just part of the job.