Petition to Seattle City Council, Tim Burgess
Keep Tent City 3 at Seattle Pacific University
Seattle Pacific University is hosting its third ever Tent City. Tent City allows a community of homeless people to come and live on the grounds of SPU's campus for a period of a few months. This is beneficial both for the homeless individuals and SPU's students; it provides a safe space for homeless people to live where there is readily-available food and water, shelter, social opportunities, and people who genuinely care about them. It benefits the students by opening up a much-needed conversation about homelessness and allowing students to step outside of their comfort zones to experience different walks of life. Seattle Pacific University has previously hosted Tent City twice with no problems. Residents of Tent City are thoroughly screened to ensure everyone's safety. SPU obtained a Type II Master Use Permit in order to allow the public to voice their opinions on Tent City before it arrived; there were no negative comments. Despite all of this, a Seattle group known as Safe and Affordable Seattle is filing an appeal to have Tent City removed from SPU's campus. Rather than voicing their concerns to Seattle Pacific University, Safe and Affordable Seattle decided to take their appeal directly to the city. If they get their way, at least 60 homeless men and women, along with any children and pets, will be forced back onto the streets of Seattle. Please help Seattle Pacific University honor its mission statement of "Engaging the Culture, Changing the World" by signing this petition to keep Tent City 3 on SPU's campus.
Petition to Seattle City Council, Mayor Ed Murray, Flip Herndon, Sarah Pritchett, Jesus Aguirre, Michael Shiosaki, Steven Nielsen, Superintendent Nyland, Steve Walker
Add a School to Fort Lawton Re-development plans
The City of Seattle recently announced plans for the Fort Lawton re-development project in Magnolia. The proposal includes the following four alternatives: Alternative 1: Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses Alternative 2: Market Rate Housing Onsite & Affordable Housing Offsite Alternative 3: Public Park Onsite: Affordable Housing Offsite Alternative 4: No Action These four alternatives do not recognize the current and exacerbating school capacity challenges that we are facing at the elementary, middle and high school levels. This petition is asking for the City of Seattle/Seattle City Council to direct the Office of Housing to partner with the Seattle Public Schools to create a fifth alternative that assesses the impact of a school along and additional park space. We promote the importance of including contiguous green space to sustain and promote wildlife in this critical habitat. The best aspect of this plan is that the property can be transferred to the district through the federal government at NO COST! This alternative re-development plan must be added prior to the Environmental Impact Study or else it will not be considered. If you support this proposal, please sign our petition and send an email to city council members and school board directors to emphasize the need to have forward-thinking capacity planning and to ensure that a school will be on the Environmental Impact Statement for this Fort Lawton property. firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Rob.Johnson@seattle.gov firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Jill.Geary@seattleschools.org firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com We have delivered this petition to the city council and school district with a specific request to add a high school to the alternatives for the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. We have several school board members and city council members who have had a very positive response to our proposal. We hope to demonstrate the unification of our community to support the needs of our students in the Seattle Public Schools; many have been quietly advocating for a school at this location for years, the time of action is now. To learn more about the scope of the redevelopment plan and ideas, please follow these links: http://web6.seattle.gov/DPD/LUIB/Notice.aspx?BID=1247&NID=25366 http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/dont-shoehorn-downtown-school-into-seattle-center/ This petition has been delivered to the office of housing and all city council members to demonstrate our unified call to reconsider the current plans. If you would like to join our committee or receive information please email us at FLSTEAMcom@gmail.com. Sincerely, The Fort Lawton School Coalition
Petition to Seattle City Council
The Monson Income Tax on City of Seattle Seattle Employees Plan
The inspiration for this petition was inspired by radio host Dori Monson's greatest idea, which can be heard by using the link below: http://mynorthwest.com/category/podcast_player/?a=10024115&sid=1004&n=The+Dori+Monson+Show The City of Seattle wants to implement a per head tax on companies and implement an (illegal) income tax on Seattle residents to help address the homeless issue. This is a job killing plan and will change the economic path of our city, while not addressing the homeless issue. The City of Seattle has 4679 employees that make over $100k a year, 726 employees making $150k and 97 employees making $200k We are asking the City of Seattle Counsel to pilot their tax plan on the City of Seattle themselves before implementing on the general public. As the Council would say: "It's the least they can do" when talking about business and as the saying goes “Charity starts at home”. The best part is that this tax would not touch the bottom 65% of City Employees which make under $100k. We would like to see City Employees making $100k pay a 5% tax, City Employees making $150k pay a 7.5% tax, and City Employees making $200k+ pay a 10% tax. We would also like to see the City pay $100 per employee. This will raise $34,502,500 per year which will address the homeless issue. We would like to see Government give back to Government!
Petition to Ana Mari Cauce, UW President, Housing Department
Cancel UW Housing Cancellation Fees
I'm an incoming student at the University of Washington, and am in a class with far more freshmen than the college can provide housing for. I applied for housing on the first day the application opened up, but due to the lottery system, I still haven't received a dorm assignment. Instead, I have received an email telling me there's a possibility I'll be placed in temporary housing until a permanent dorm room opens up. Furthermore, because I signed the housing contract, I am expected to pay the $500 cancellation fee. As a student who is trying to get through school with as minimal debt as possible, dropping $500 on something like this feels very unreasonable to me. There are also quite a few problems with the temporary housing accommodations. It's quite a fire hazard, with beds being placed in the attic of an old building. Additionally, students have a single locker to store their possessions in until they move into their permanent dorm. Here's a link to UW's description and images of temporary housing: https://www.hfs.washington.edu/housing/rh/temporary.aspx#gsc.tab=0 I could wait even longer to cancel my housing application in hopes I'll be assigned an actual room, but starting September 1st, the cancellation fee increases by $15 every day. I'd like to start the school year on a positive note, not surrounded by chaos and uncertainty. I've started looking at apartments near the college, because that's an option I'll actually be able to depend upon. I completely understand the university's reasoning behind having cancellation fees. It protects their housing department from needing to deal with a flood of last minute dorm room cancellations. However, when the lack of acceptable housing stems from their end, I believe they should be more sympathetic towards a college student's reality. Though I understand I am liable to pay the $500 cancellation fee, I think the university should seriously reconsider this rule. College in America is already so expensive, why tack on hefty fees like this?