|
Soundings
December 1, 2004
Righting the Wrongs of the Impound Ordinance
It is always a challenge to craft legislation that protects the safety of persons and property, while not unfairly impacting one segment of our community. The 1998 driving with suspended license in the third degree (DWLS-3) ordinance attempted to address these concerns, but fell short when it came to making the punishment to fit the crime. My vote to amend the DWLS-3 ordinance, repealing the impound requirement came after careful consideration.
My concerns about the impoundment program are three-fold. It disproportionately impacts the poor, it takes away property without due process, and it is unsuccessful in deterring unlicensed individuals from driving.
First, the DWLS-3 ordinance has a disproportionate impact on the poor and on racial and ethnic minorities. More than two thirds of those who lost their cars under the impound program had their licenses suspended, not because they were reckless or drunk drivers, but because they were unable to pay or failed to respond to a ticket. What is deeply disturbing is that African Americans who comprise eight percent of Seattle's population receive license suspensions at a rate four times greater than their proportion in the population. Of approximately 5,000 cars that were impounded in 2002, more than one third were auctioned without any determination of guilt for the underlying DWLS charge. The cars were lost permanently to owners who are disproportionately people of color. Guilty of simply being poor and now without a car, some individuals cannot get to work, resulting in a loss of wages or the loss of a job. They spiral deeper into poverty.
Secondly, cars are impounded regardless of the guilt of the driver or whether the driver is the registered owner. Under DWLS-3 law, a driver with a suspended license may have a car impounded, even if that person is later acquitted of DWLS-3, is not the owner of the car, or does not have the owner's permission to drive the car. In fact, roughly half of the individuals stopped are not the owners of the car they are driving.
Finally, according to a study by the Rand Corporation, vehicle impounds have no greater deterrent effect than arrest and prosecution. This very harsh law, which results in irrevocable hardship to many of our poor, regardless of guilt, is not necessarily protecting other citizens from loss or harm.
I felt strongly that we needed to make an equitable change, which is why I co-sponsored the DWLS-3 bill introduced by Councilmember Nick Licata and voted to change the 1998 ordinance. I am heartened a majority of my colleagues saw fit to support the passage of this legislation.
I must be clear that I do not condone individuals driving while their license is suspended. But at the same time, I do not condone the taking of property without meaningful due process. The Council decision to change the DWLS-3 ordinance repeals the option for Seattle Police to impound vehicles, but allows impoundment of vehicles for drivers charged with driving while intoxicated. It also directs the City to develop a program similar to King County's pre-filing diversion program for DWLS-3 offenders, which keeps people out of jail and helps them make arrangements to pay their fines so they can get their licenses back. The King County system more than pays for itself through savings from deferred prosecutions and revenue raised by paid tickets. I feel confident that the City of Seattle can work out a system that can do as well.
Return to Index
Voter Pamphlets: Protecting the First Amendment
I raised strong concerns with the proposal to restrict free speech in the Voter Pamphlet. As a career journalist, and, before that, a community activist, I have long been a strong and fervent defender of the First Amendment. I wholeheartedly believe that the misguided attempt to legislate speak-no-evil civility imperils the very essence of this precious First Amendment right. It would reduce vigorous political discourse to mere sloganeering. It would also be a disservice to the electorate and would unfairly favor incumbents.
While proponents of the restrictions are motivated by honorable intentions, the simple fact remains that proscribing political candidates from discussing their opponents and limiting candidates' statements to 150 words will open the door to even more devastating restrictions of free speech.
On July 26, 2004, in a 7 - 2 vote the Council passed legislation amending the code deleting language barring candidate statements from discussing their opponents. However, voter pamphlet statements were reduced to 150 words in order to help reduce costs.
Return to Index
South Lake Union Streetcar
The Council's decision to permit further design and engineering for the South Lake Union Streetcar project and to study expansions of the streetcar lines to the University District and into the International and Central Districts reconciles the need to protect our General Fund revenue and the need for more transit solutions for Seattle. I co-sponsored legislation introduced by council Transportation Committee Chair Richard Conlin and sponsored an amendment allowing the mayor some flexibility to develop a business plan to pay for this project with firm guidance warning against any proposals that would use current General Fund dollars to pay for the streetcar's capital or operations and maintenance costs.
On August 16, 2004, the council unanimously passed legislation appropriating these funds; it also authorized a special benefits study to examine parcel by parcel the fair-value assessment of benefits associated the proposed streetcar project. These votes clearly indicate the council's commitment to protect existing and future General Fund revenue, while broadening and improving transit opportunities for Seattle's residents.
Under the mayor's proposal to the council, much of the funding for the $45 million in capital cost will be covered creation of a $25 million local improvement district (LID) and a mix of city, state and federal funds. Approximately $8.5 million has been secured in federal and state grants with another $9 million pending approval. This leaves a $2.5 million balance for the project plus another $1.4 million for the estimated annual costs required to operate and maintain the streetcar in the initial phase of the project. The mayor requested that $2.3 million in state and federal grant funds be released for further design and engineering of the South Lake Union Streetcar, including further studies of an extension to the University District as well as an extension of the Waterfront Streetcar to the South Jackson Street corridor. The council is presently waiting for mayor's plan to close the gap on these costs, both for the remainder of the capital costs and the operating and maintenance costs. Ultimately, any plan the mayor puts forward will require council review and approval.
Return to Index
Public Defender RFP
As co-sponsor of Ordinance 121501, I joined forces with Councilmembers Licata and Steinbrueck to ensure that effective legal representation would be provided to persons charged with municipal crimes punishable by incarceration, regardless of their ability to pay.
This ordinance, which passed by a 9-0 vote, requires that the selection of service providers and the award of contracts be made by the Director of Executive Administration upon the recommendation of a proposal review panel. The ordinance further provides that the city may only enter into agreements with non-profit public defender agencies; and it reaffirms the caseload standards established in the 1989 Budget Intent Statement.
Prior to this legislation coming before the council for final passage I lobbied the Executive to include language preserving the non-profit model and limiting attorney caseloads in the Request for Proposal being released. I also requested he consider including low-income community representatives on the proposal review committee.
Return to Index
Seattle City Councilmember Jean Godden is a former columnist for the Seattle Times and now chairs the Council's Energy and Environmental Policy Committee. You can learn more by going to http://www.seattle.gov/council/ratereview.htm. |
