Good Day Councilmember Steinbrueck,

We, Central District/East Prct. Citizens, are saddened to see that the $400,000.00 safety initiative funds were cut out of the budget. We worked hard and now you need to step forward for the neighborhoods. I and my neighbors are only asking for seed money for one year and then we will try to establish private funding. Why is it that they're several neighborhoods having to beg for safety funds?

On a personal note, as an urban planner, I believe in single family neighborhoods and creating a community; however, last night I was awoken at 3:00 by four gunshots and squealing tires. I have to ask myself why do I want to live in a City that does not respond to it's citizens? Why do I want to live in a neighborhood, where the Mayor fights our local grass-roots efforts to address the rampant crime and violence? I grow weary in this questionable game of cat and mouse that the Mayor is playing behind the scenes.

Michael, thanks very much for your message and concerns. I regret that the mayor cut the funds for the East Precinct. The decision was made before I had even heard about it. Apparently, it has a majority of the council's support. However, it is my understanding that SPD will step up efforts in the east precinct and shift some resources to respond to the deteriorated public safety conditions. Please let me know how things are going, and if you see continued deterioration that warrants more policing. We can urge SPD to do more.

Again, thanks for writing me.

Peter Steinbrueck
Seattle City Council

here is the response I received to my email to the City Council. So far, Mr. McIver is the only one to respond.

While I realize the budget problems, I feel the City Council has been very irresponsible in the past. Until Eyman Seattle raised taxes the fullest extent allowed (7%) every single year and yet, even in the "boom" times we had continuous cutback of services -- our roads suffered, parks neglected, police numbers still declined, etc. So, even though lean times, I have little patience for the Council's and various Mayor's lack of long term vision, not having a rainy day fund, not taking advantage of good times to prepare for the future and for continuously cutting services -- regardless of the economic climate (I guess the reason public safety and public health, etc. were cut in good times was to pay for parking garages for Nordstrom and other business sweeteners -- which I am not against as long as the rest of the City's needs are met).

Catherine Brumbaugh

From: Richard McIver

Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 5:13 PM

To: Catherine Brumbaugh

Subject: Re: FW: Bullets enter Miller Park homes

Ms. Brumbaugh,

I received the email outlining your frustration with the crime problem in the Miller Park neighborhood and your belief that city leaders are failing to provide adequate financial resources to law enforcement to address the problem. I can certainly understand your anger with the problem, but feel compelled to respond to the issue of the City's response.

Public safety is indeed the number one priority of local government.

We are spending 59% of our General Fund budget on public safety, with police being 27% of the total. (Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities are financed entirely by ratepayers and are not included in the General Fund budget.) The sad reality is that our revenues are not keeping pace with what is needed to simply maintain the current level of services, much less increase them.

Due to a combination of the economic downturn, the passage of the statewide Eyman initiatives cutting taxes, and more recently, a State Supreme Court decision prohibiting our practice of passing the cost of street light operation and maintenance onto Seattle City Light ratepayers, we have been forced to make many painful and difficult budget cuts. We have already cut some $90 million from the budget over the past several years and are currently working to find an additional
$10.5 million in savings out of the 2004 budget.

In the Police Department we have eliminated the valued and successful Community Service Officer program (which freed uniformed officers from responding to calls that could be addressed by these civilians), have begun phasing out the popular school crossing guard program, imposed a very unpopular fee on burglar alarms to address the cost of responding to what generally turns out to be false alarms, and made some management cutbacks. The popular Crime Prevention program may well prove to be the next police service on the chopping block as we try to prevent ANY cuts to uniformed officers.

Other departments in city government have faced similar budget cuts. Even if we are successful in finding the above-mentioned savings in the current 2004 budget, we are expecting to need to cut probably another $15 million or more this coming fall. As an elected official, I have to cast my vote for what I believe to be the responsible balance in funding city programs. Do we close libraries additional days? Do we impose more cutbacks in the operational hours of our community centers? Do we drastically reduce the Neighborhood Matching Fund? Do we cutback on city funding for homeless programs? All of these programs are important and considered priorities by many citizens.

I remain opposed to any cuts in sworn uniformed police officers for the very reason that public safety is our number one priority, but there is simply no money for additional officers at this time. It is a sad reality.

Richard J. McIver
Seattle City Council

Mr. McIver.

Thank you for your response to my email regarding public safety. While I understand the current budget problems, as you can see by my comments below, I find the current situation to be but mere excuses. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that the East Precinct communities have already negotiated that the bike squad be paid for out of funds that would go to Miller Park projects. The Community so supports further public safety, it is essentially paying for it by making cuts in other programs that would have benefited the Community.

Capitol Hill has been ignored by the City in both "good" times and "bad" so essentially it is business as usual.

If the general fund has to be cut so much, how is the City affording to give Paul Allen all those financial incentives for Lake Union? While I support job creation and development, I do not support the increased building heights in Lake Union nor do I support giving such large amounts of money to a billionaire while the average citizen, at least a Capitol Hill/First Hill, etc., citizen, has to dodge bullets in their own home.

What will Mr. Allen be giving the citizens of this City toward public safety since the development will add more people/facilities and thus draw even more on the stretched thin capacity of our police and fire personnel -- I can envision 911 having to decide on dispatching limited personnel to simultaneous urgent situations -- so, who gets the attention? Paul Allen's businesses or the people in a neighborhood under siege by crime? How much of the tax revenue that is anticipated to be earned from Mr. Allen's expansions is going to being earmarked to beef up public safety/public services to accommodate the increased demand on those services merely by the existence of his developments?

Catherine G. Brumbaugh