I've had a few people ask what the City spent on the recent "sting" operation targeting bars and nightclubs. There were many high-profile arrests of bartenders, barbacks and bouncers, most for serving a minor, serving a drunk patron or for allowing a gun through the doors, though this last one is fiercely contested. I authored a letter with Council President Nick Licata requesting the City Attorney, Police Chief and Mayor answer questions about the way the operation was conceived and carried out, and the cost of the work.

Here are the stats on what the sting cost:

• 40 officers over approximately a month, 10-12 working the operation per night and six nights of sting action in that month.
• 474 hours of "straight" time totaling $21,911.
• 443 hours of overtime totaling $30,897.

Bar owners and others have questioned the dramatic, high profile way in which the arrests were made. Most were arrested for offenses allegedly committed days or a week earlier. People were picked up, cuffed, taken to jail and, to paraphrase a few of those arrested, treated like common criminals. This seems to have been the whole point of Operation Sobering Thought -- to send a harsh message. And over-service, serving a minor and (maybe) allowing a gun through the door are serious, life-threatening problems. It's disappointing that the sting was so successful. How do we hold accountable the people who use fake I.D. or who keep ordering drinks when they've had enough?

Throughout the whole nightlife licensing review we've heard that cities with safe, creative, exciting nightlife keep it because government officials and the nightlife people communicate well and trust each other to respect each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt. Is "Operation Sobering Thought" a sign of the new, better, more productive relationship between the City and clubs in Seattle?

The Seattle Times reported this morning that the median home price in Seattle climbed 10 percent from last year and has now topped $500,000. Holy cow! Maybe that's not the most erudite response from a person who is supposed to be coming up with policies to deal with the impact of climbing home prices, but that was my initial response.

From The Times article:

"A worker would have to earn $57 an hour — about $119,000 a year — to afford that Seattle home, according to the Seattle chapter of the Urban Land Institute.

And on the Eastside, a worker needs to earn nearly $152,000 a year to afford a house with the $643,750 median price there in August."

Congratulations to all those sellers reaping equity from their sales. Unfortunately, the continued escalation in sale price means more and more people watch home ownership slip out of reach. Piece this information together with the article a couple of weeks ago One thing missing in jobs boom: high pay showing that the economic recovery in this area over the past few years was lead, in terms of jobs, by cashiers, farmworkers and retail. Not a lot of $57/hour jobs in those categories.

Not to stray from our commitment to housing our homeless and low-income neighbors (see yesterday's posting), but the hike in median home sale prices combined with wage erosion means we must figure out ways to keep middle-scale affordable housing in the city. Councilmembers Rasmussen, McIver and I are attending several district council meetings this month to talk about multi-family tax exemption as one way to hold some units in new buildings affordable for at least a decade. To find out where the road show will be and how to learn more about the current MFTE program and the Mayor's proposed changes, go to: MFTE Roadshow.

Last Friday we (the lucky councilmembers on the Council's Housing, Human Services & Health Committee) received a briefing from Bill Block, the executive director of the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, on how we're doing after two years of working to end homelessness. Not surprisingly, we need to pick up the pace a little if we're going to get the job done. We created 963 housing placements in new or existing units over the past two years.

That's awesome, but Bill estimates that we need to double that pace in order to make the dent we're trying to make in the number of people who are homeless. The big difference with the 10-Year Plan is the emphasis on "housing first" instead of shelter, then transitional housing, then, hopefully, a permanent home. The big costs are in acquisition of new units and in the combination of housing and social services necessary for many mentally ill and chemically addicted homeless people. Ideally, the front end investment we make in that tight integration of housing WITH support services saves us money later by cutting down the number of people who wash out of housing and up in emergency rooms and jails.

Two items on the bright side:

1. In 2006, 540 homeless people were placed into jobs that paid and average of $11 an hour. Hopefully, that job is providing the steady income needed to make housing possible, not to mention simply making the new employee feel worthwhile, like he or she is going somewhere.
2. King County is considering raising the sales tax by a tenth of a percent with the revenue dedicated to mental health services. Normally, I'd be more circumspect about a sales tax hike (it's a regressive tax), but I'm open to anything that bolsters mental health services in our area. Too many people sleep in doorways and wander our streets because their untreated mental illness makes it impossible for them to cope. The system we have has never been adequate, especially since the "remaking" (read: federal government pull-out) of the mental health system in the 1980's. The King County Council is expected to take action this fall.