Housing & Human Services Committee 6/11/2025

The June 11th Housing and Human Services Committee meeting unfolded as a comprehensive examination of Seattle's evolving approach to two critical urban challenges: substance use disorder treatment and housing affordability. Chair Moore presided over a session that demonstrated the city's commitment to addressing these interconnected crises through both expanded public health investments and innovative regulatory approaches to protect renters from predatory practices. The meeting's first major component featured an extensive presentation from the Human Services Department and Public Health Seattle King County, revealing a dramatic reallocation of city resources toward substance use disorder treatment and overdose prevention. This shift represents Mayor Harrell's directive to prioritize the opioid and behavioral health crisis, resulting in a remarkable 221% increase in funding for substance use disorder access and treatment within the public health contract alone. When considering all HSD investments beyond this single contract, the increase reaches over 300%, signaling an unprecedented commitment to addressing a crisis that claimed over 1,000 lives in King County during 2024. The substance use disorder presentation showcased an integrated system of care designed around a cascade model, allowing individuals to enter treatment at multiple points along their recovery journey. The new investments focus heavily on mobile and community-based treatment options, recognizing that traditional clinic-based models often fail to reach the most vulnerable populations. Particularly innovative is the development of a mobile buprenorphine team that will provide same-day access to long-acting injectable medications in the field, representing what officials described as a first-in-the-nation approach to overcoming federal regulatory barriers that typically restrict such services. The meeting's second major focus centered on Chair Moore's legislation to prohibit algorithmic rent fixing, a practice that has emerged as corporate landlords increasingly rely on sophisticated software to coordinate pricing decisions. This legislation, co-sponsored by Councilmembers Strauss and Rinck, directly mirrors state legislation originally introduced by Senator Jesse Solomon, who joined the committee to provide crucial context about the need for such protections. The bill addresses concerns that companies like RealPage enable what amounts to digital collusion among landlords, artificially inflating rents and contributing to displacement across Seattle's rental market. The algorithmic rent fixing discussion revealed the scope of the problem, with the Washington State Attorney General estimating that 800,000 leases statewide have been priced using such software since 2017, with the vast majority of enforcement actions expected to occur in King County. The legislation creates both civil enforcement mechanisms through the City Attorney's office and a private right of action for affected tenants, with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. The committee unanimously approved an amendment allowing successful private plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, strengthening the enforcement potential of the ordinance. Throughout both presentations, the meeting demonstrated Seattle's willingness to pioneer innovative approaches to complex urban challenges, whether through groundbreaking mobile treatment models or proactive regulation of emerging technological threats to housing affordability. The presence of South Shore Middle School students added an educational dimension to the proceedings, as they witnessed democracy in action on issues that will profoundly shape their city's future.

The substance use disorder investment strategy presented by HSD and Public Health represents a fundamental shift in how Seattle approaches addiction treatment and overdose prevention. The new programming emerges from a comprehensive planning process that began in fall 2024, when Public Health convened departmental leadership and subject matter experts to identify the most promising interventions for addressing the overdose crisis. This evidence-based approach drew heavily from academic research, surveillance data, and program evaluations to develop a suite of services specifically designed to engage populations most significantly impacted by overdose, including people experiencing homelessness, residents of housing service sites, and Seattle's Black and Native communities. The centerpiece of the new investments is a community-based overdose prevention program that distributed funding to five organizations through a competitive RFP process. These programs will expand outreach services across Seattle, with particular emphasis on North and South Seattle neighborhoods that have been underserved by existing programs. The funded initiatives include innovative approaches such as doula services for pregnant people with substance use disorders and specialized outreach in the Belltown neighborhood focused on improving neighborhood safety while reducing overdoses. The Urban League received funding to provide culturally meaningful services to Seattle's Black and African American communities, addressing the disproportionate impact of the overdose crisis on communities of color. The mobile treatment components represent perhaps the most innovative aspects of the new programming. The mobile buprenorphine team, led by Dr. Sapienza, will consist of a nurse and community health worker operating in close partnership with the downtown Pathways clinic. This team will provide same-day access to long-acting injectable buprenorphine in field settings, addressing the reality that many individuals struggling with opioid use disorder face insurmountable barriers to accessing traditional clinic-based care. Federal regulations create significant constraints on how such services can be delivered, but the program represents a creative approach to working within those limitations while maximizing accessibility. Complementing the mobile buprenorphine initiative, Evergreen Treatment Services will implement a clinical intake van program that addresses specific regulatory barriers in methadone treatment. Current DEA regulations prevent patients from beginning methadone treatment at mobile units, requiring them to travel to fixed clinic locations for their initial visit. The new clinical intake van will accompany existing mobile methadone units, allowing patients to complete their first visit in the field before transitioning to ongoing mobile services. This seemingly technical innovation could dramatically reduce barriers to treatment access for individuals who struggle to reach traditional clinic settings. The Pathways Health Hub expansion represents a recognition that successful addiction treatment requires addressing the multiple, interconnected health needs that individuals bring to care. The expanded services will include STI testing and treatment, vaccinations, and wound care, allowing patients to address multiple health concerns during a single visit. This approach acknowledges that people experiencing homelessness and substance use disorders often face complex medical needs that, when left unaddressed, can undermine their ability to maintain engagement in addiction treatment. The algorithmic rent fixing legislation addresses a more recently emerged threat to housing affordability that has developed alongside the increasing sophistication of property management technology. The practice involves landlords subscribing to services that combine both public and private rental market data with algorithmic analysis to generate pricing recommendations. Unlike traditional market surveys that rely solely on publicly available information, these services create what critics argue amounts to a digital cartel, enabling coordination among landlords who might otherwise compete on price. The legislation carefully defines prohibited conduct to distinguish between legitimate information sharing and anticompetitive coordination. The bill specifically exempts the publication of rental price estimates based solely on publicly available information that is equally accessible to all members of the public without requiring contracts or licenses. This distinction reflects extensive work by Senator Solomon and the Washington State Attorney General's office to craft language that targets harmful coordination while preserving legitimate business practices. The enforcement mechanisms create multiple pathways for addressing violations, recognizing that effective enforcement often requires both public and private enforcement options. The City Attorney's office can pursue civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation and recover reasonable costs and attorney fees. Simultaneously, the legislation creates a private right of action allowing individual tenants harmed by prohibited conduct to seek damages up to $7,500 per violation. The committee's adoption of Amendment 1 adds the ability for successful private plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, creating stronger incentives for private enforcement while potentially reducing the burden on city resources.

The meeting revealed significant alignment among committee members on both major policy areas, suggesting broad consensus within the council's progressive wing on addressing housing and public health crises through expanded government intervention. Chair Moore's leadership on the algorithmic rent fixing legislation demonstrates her continued focus on tenant protection issues, building on Seattle's established reputation for aggressive renter protections. The unanimous support from committee members, including the quick addition of Councilmembers Strauss and Rinck as co-sponsors, indicates strong political momentum for the measure. The substance use disorder presentation showcased Mayor Harrell's strategic repositioning on public health issues, with the dramatic funding increases representing a clear political response to ongoing criticism about the city's handling of the overdose crisis. The mayor's directive to prioritize these investments signals recognition that public health approaches to addiction have gained political currency, particularly as law enforcement-focused strategies have proven insufficient to address the scale of the crisis. The presence of Senator Solomon at the committee meeting provided crucial political cover for the algorithmic rent fixing legislation, demonstrating bipartisan support for addressing this issue at the state level despite the bill's failure to advance through the House. Solomon's explanation that the bill was held due to timing constraints rather than substantive opposition suggests that local action may face less political resistance than might otherwise be expected. His emphasis on the need to act before more powerful actors enter the algorithmic pricing market reveals strategic thinking about the political window for such regulation. The public comment period highlighted the ongoing tensions between different approaches to addressing substance use disorder, with Andrea Suarez's criticism of harm reduction funding revealing persistent debates about treatment philosophy. Her organization's repeated rejection for city funding and criticism of organizations that received contracts illustrates the competitive dynamics within the service provider community and ongoing ideological divisions about appropriate responses to addiction. The real estate industry's request for delay on the algorithmic rent fixing legislation, voiced through public commenters Carl Shoret and Carter Nelson, reflects standard industry tactics for opposing new regulations. Their arguments about needing time for stakeholder input and concerns about unintended consequences represent familiar patterns in housing policy debates, where industry groups typically seek to slow or weaken tenant protection measures through procedural objections. The committee's decision to proceed with voting despite industry requests for delay demonstrates confidence in the legislation's technical soundness and political urgency. Chair Moore's emphasis on the bill's thorough vetting at the state level and the straightforward nature of the local adaptation suggests strategic thinking about when to accommodate industry concerns versus when to prioritize swift action on urgent issues.

Citizens seeking to engage with the substance use disorder investments have multiple immediate opportunities to influence implementation and oversight. The new programs are entering their startup phase, with the mobile buprenorphine team currently hiring staff and the community-based overdose prevention programs beginning service delivery. This implementation period offers crucial opportunities for community members to provide input on how services are delivered and whether they effectively reach intended populations. Residents can engage with the quarterly reporting requirements that Public Health has established for funded organizations, which will provide regular opportunities to assess program effectiveness and advocate for adjustments. The data reporting includes both quantitative metrics such as naloxone distribution and referral numbers, as well as qualitative narrative reporting about challenges and successes. Community members can request access to these reports and use them to hold both the city and service providers accountable for achieving stated goals. The mobile treatment programs offer particular opportunities for community engagement, as their effectiveness will depend heavily on coordination with existing service providers and community organizations. Residents working with homeless service providers, housing organizations, or community health centers can advocate for partnerships with the mobile teams and help identify individuals who might benefit from these services. The programs' focus on reaching underserved populations means that community knowledge about where people are struggling to access care becomes crucial intelligence for program success. For the algorithmic rent fixing legislation, the immediate civic engagement opportunity centers on the full council vote scheduled for June 17th. Citizens can contact council members who were not present at the committee meeting to express support for the measure and counter any industry lobbying efforts that may emerge before the final vote. The legislation's enforcement mechanisms create ongoing opportunities for tenant engagement, as the private right of action requires affected renters to understand their rights and be willing to pursue legal remedies. The enforcement provisions also create opportunities for tenant organizations and legal aid groups to develop educational campaigns about the new protections and assist tenants in identifying potential violations. Since algorithmic rent fixing often operates behind the scenes, tenant education about warning signs and documentation strategies becomes crucial for effective enforcement. Community organizations can play vital roles in helping tenants understand when rent increases might result from prohibited coordination versus legitimate market factors. The quarterly data reporting requirements for substance use disorder programs create regular opportunities for community oversight and advocacy. Citizens can attend future Housing and Human Services Committee meetings when these reports are presented, ask questions about program effectiveness, and advocate for program modifications based on community observations. The committee's expressed interest in receiving regular updates suggests ongoing opportunities for public input on program implementation. Residents can also engage with the broader policy context by advocating for sustained funding for these programs as federal resources become increasingly uncertain. The presentation's emphasis on potential federal funding cuts creates opportunities for local advocacy to ensure that successful programs receive continued city support even if federal resources disappear. This longer-term advocacy requires understanding both the specific program outcomes and the broader fiscal context in which the city operates.

The substance use disorder investments connect directly to the broader implementation of the Crisis Care Levy, which Seattle voters approved to fund expanded behavioral health services. The new HSD contracts represent one component of a larger system of care that includes crisis response teams, behavioral health facilities, and housing services. Understanding how these investments coordinate with levy-funded programs will be crucial for assessing the overall effectiveness of Seattle's approach to behavioral health challenges. The mobile treatment programs also connect to ongoing discussions about regional coordination on substance use disorder services, as King County and other jurisdictions grapple with similar challenges in reaching underserved populations. The success or failure of Seattle's mobile initiatives could influence regional approaches and potentially serve as models for other jurisdictions facing similar barriers to treatment access. The algorithmic rent fixing legislation represents part of a broader package of tenant protection measures that Seattle has implemented over recent years, including just cause eviction requirements, tenant relocation assistance, and rental registration programs. The effectiveness of this new prohibition will depend partly on how it integrates with existing enforcement mechanisms and whether tenants understand how to access the various protections available to them. The legislation also connects to ongoing federal and state litigation against companies providing algorithmic pricing services, creating potential coordination opportunities between local enforcement and broader legal challenges to these practices. The Washington State Attorney General's continued involvement in litigation against RealPage suggests that local enforcement actions could complement rather than duplicate state-level efforts. Both policy areas intersect with broader housing and homelessness strategies, as substance use disorder treatment can help prevent housing loss while housing stability can support recovery efforts. The mobile treatment programs' focus on reaching people in housing service sites acknowledges these connections and suggests opportunities for deeper integration between housing and health services. The federal funding uncertainties highlighted in the substance use disorder presentation connect to broader discussions about local government's role in providing services traditionally supported by federal programs. As potential cuts to Medicaid, SAMHSA, and CDC funding threaten existing programs, Seattle's increased local investments may become even more crucial for maintaining service levels.

The substance use disorder contract restructuring reveals sophisticated budget management that maximizes service delivery while navigating complex federal funding streams. The 221% increase in SUD access and treatment funding within the public health contract, rising to over 300% when including other HSD investments, demonstrates how strategic reallocation can dramatically expand program capacity without proportional increases in total spending. This approach requires careful attention to federal match requirements and maintenance of effort provisions that could be jeopardized if federal funding disappears. The mobile buprenorphine program operates within a complex regulatory environment created by DEA scheduling of controlled substances and federal requirements for addiction treatment providers. The program's design reflects creative interpretation of regulations that typically require fixed-site treatment, using the co-location with the Pathways clinic and downtown pharmacy to maintain compliance while extending services into field settings. This regulatory navigation could provide a template for other jurisdictions seeking to expand mobile treatment options. The clinical intake van for methadone services addresses a specific regulatory gap that prevents mobile units from initiating treatment while allowing them to provide ongoing care. This distinction reflects the complex federal regulatory framework governing opioid treatment programs, which creates different requirements for treatment initiation versus maintenance. The program's success could influence federal policy discussions about modernizing these regulations to better support mobile treatment models. The algorithmic rent fixing legislation's enforcement mechanisms create interesting questions about the intersection of antitrust law, consumer protection, and local regulatory authority. The private right of action provisions essentially deputize tenants as enforcement agents, potentially creating more robust oversight than city resources alone could provide. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on tenant awareness, access to legal representation, and willingness to pursue litigation against landlords. The $7,500 penalty amount reflects careful calibration between deterrence and proportionality, but its effectiveness will depend on how it compares to the economic benefits that landlords derive from algorithmic coordination. If the software enables rent increases that exceed potential penalties, the deterrent effect may be limited. The legislation's success may ultimately depend more on the reputational and operational costs of enforcement actions than on the specific penalty amounts. The legislation's definition of prohibited coordination attempts to distinguish between legitimate information sharing and anticompetitive behavior, but this distinction may prove challenging to enforce in practice. The combination of public and private data with algorithmic analysis creates a spectrum of practices that may be difficult to categorize clearly. Enforcement agencies will need to develop expertise in evaluating these technological systems and their market effects. The quarterly reporting requirements for substance use disorder programs create substantial data collection and analysis obligations for both service providers and city oversight staff. The reporting framework attempts to balance accountability with administrative burden, but the effectiveness of this approach will depend on the city's capacity to analyze and act on the information collected. The emphasis on disaggregated demographic data reflects recognition that program effectiveness may vary significantly across different populations. The federal funding uncertainty creates complex budget planning challenges that extend beyond the immediate programs discussed. If federal cuts materialize, the city may face difficult decisions about which programs to sustain with local resources and which to reduce or eliminate. The current investments represent a bet that demonstrating local commitment to these services will strengthen arguments for continued federal support while building local capacity to maintain critical services if federal resources disappear.