Post navigation

Prev: (05/28/24) | Next: (05/29/24)

Seattle City Council hits pause on votes over Equitable Development Initiative funding and delivery worker minimum wage rollback

The Central District’s Africatown Plaza was awarded EDI funding for a community kitchen to be used by “local culinary entrepreneurs”

The Seattle City Council has pushed pause amid blowback over two separate legislative efforts that have rankled labor and equitable development advocates.

Tuesday featured a pullback on a proposal from Councilmember Maritza Rivera that would place a pause on Equitable Development Initiative funding for groups like the Somali Health Board, Friends of Little Saigon, Estelita’s Library, Tubman Health Center, and the Nehemiah Initiative.

Rivera is asking for a pause on the initiative’s 2024 funding until $53 million from previous years has been spent by the organizations receiving the awards that are intended for “projects that help root community in place, create greater cohesion, and lift up community entrepreneurship and community-driven development to fight displacement and create greater shared prosperity.”

The proposed pause on allocating the 2024 funding has brought swift condemnation from groups including the NAACP and criticism that the proposed proviso will not align with long-term investments that take time to develop like new community centers and meeting spaces.

A significant example of how the funding has been used can be found at 23rd and Spring. In 2018, Africatown received $1,075,000 in EDI funding for “capacity-building” and “development expenses to include affordable commercial space.” That project will finally go into motion later this year as Africatown Plaza will open with 126 new units for renters making up to 60% of the Area Median Income above ground floor offices for Africatown’s new headquarters, and an affordable space that will include a commercial kitchen to be used by “local culinary entrepreneurs.”

Tuesday, the council voted to pause on Rivera’s proposal, voting 6-3 to hold off on a decision on the proposed amendment that would stop the city from paying out $25.3 million in new Equitable Development Initiative funding this year until organizations spent the existing $53 million.

Rivera blamed the media for the delay saying her office needed “time to correct disinformation that was irresponsibly given to community about the proposed amendment.”

District 3 representative Joy Hollingsworth voted against the pause saying she was already ready to counter Rivera and vote no on the proposal.

Meanwhile, council president Sara Nelson also canceled a planned vote at the last minute on her proposal to roll back Seattle’s delivery worker minimum wage law. Nelson’s office chalked the cancelation up to proposed changes in the plan. “Amendments to the legislation have been proposed and councilmembers have requested a postponement to ensure the Council has time to fully consider those changes,” a statement read.

But there are also issues with possible conflicts of interest. Councilmember — and likely “yes” voter — Tanya Woo has been advised to recuse herself from any vote. Woo’s father-in-law is a restaurant owner. The city’s ethics commission has also looked at Nelson’s dealings with the Seattle Hospitality Group for possible conflicts.

 

HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.

Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month

 
Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim
Tim
8 months ago

What!!! There is conflict of interest in our local democracy? I would have never guessed.

Lori Lee
Lori Lee
8 months ago

I voted for Hollingsworth but I was put off by her explanation that she would not be voting to rescind this grant in the future because she had ties to half dozen of the organizations receiving it. The question would be why is wasn’t this considered a conflict of interest?

That said, I listened to a lot of the testimony and many people were extremely entitled. I did agree with continuing to fund some of the projects for seniors.

Someone testifying mention that 80% of these programs are earmarked for the Black community. I’m curious why there is no effort to make this equitable development fund more equitable since clearly other minorities are not getting an equitable share. Especially the Asian community who is the largest minority in this city.