Since Mr. Sidran first introduced his "no-sitting" and other "civility" laws (dubbed the 'anti-homeless' laws by his critics) in 1992-93, we've been keeping close track of his record across a broad range of issues and concerns. Our goal with this web site is to make that information readily accessible to the community. Relying heavily on his own comments and quotes, we have broken down Sidran's record into a series of bullets organized according to issue. We've drawn from an extensive clipping file collected over nearly a ten-year period, and, more recently, from news stories referenced on the Internet. In a few instances, we have drawn on our own direct experience with the man, or the experiences of other trusted activists who've crossed his path. We've also provided some background information for you on each issue so you have a context in which to better appreciate Mr. Sidran's positions.

It is hoped that you will use this information and share it with others as you weigh Mr. Sidran's record against the record of others that may be running for Mayor. If you have other useful bits of information about Mr. Sidran or others candidates for local office, please let us know and we will share that as well (see our e-mail address at bottom of this report). As we move closer to the election, we will be doing more of these candidate profiles. This effort is part of the Coalition's on-going attempts to keep the public informed on where our elected officials stand on key issues affecting this community. It is purely informational and does not constitute an endorsement or negative endorsement of any prospective candidate for office.

Introduction: The Sidran Record - It Truly Speaks for Itself (in order of appearance for easier browsing)
1. Neighborhood Preservation Issues - Billboards, Hospital Expansion, Airport Noise, Parking Garage, Slide Protection, Private Encroachment on Park land (Viretta Park)
2. Preservation of Low Income Housing and Tenant Issues (stopping housing demolitions, tenant relocation assistance, mandatory housing code inspections, right of first refusal laws)
3. Labor and Working People's Issues (Public Employee's Right to Strike, Right of Public Employees to sue, Drug Testing for City Employees, Relationships with his own staff)
4. Big Business and Downtown Development Issues (Seattle Commons, Tax Increment Financing, and the Nordstrom's-Pacific Place Parking Garage Deal)
5. Mental Health Issues, Involuntary Commitment, and the Don Van Ho Case
6. Protestors and the First Amendment including WTO and Greenpeace Demonstrations
7. The Monorail and Sound Transit
8. The Car Impound Law
9. Racial Profiling including the Drug Loitering Law, Added Activities and Drug Abatement Laws
10. The Teen Dance Hall Ordinance
11. Ethics in Office and the Role of City Attorney - Is he an advocate or the city's lawyer? (City Council Considers Hiring Their Own Attorney, Risking the City's liability)
12. The Sidran "Civility Laws" including the "no-sitting" law, pedestrian interference, parks exclusion laws
Closing Thoughts - The Human Consequences of Sidran's Record (This Author's Opinions)

Introduction: The Sidran Record - It Truly Speaks for Itself (in order of appearance for easier browsing)

When our neighborhoods seek laws to protect against private encroachment of our public parks, address slide-prone areas, limit billboards, and guarantee compatible growth in our neighborhoods you will find Mark Sidran usually on the other side. There are even clear cases where Sidran has worked directly with big business to circumvent the public's right to know as he did in the Nordstrom's/Pacific Place Parking Garage deal. When labor (including Sidran's own staff) seek better working conditions for themselves or activists demonstrate against indifferent global market forces that sacrifice our environment and human rights, Mark Sidran has been there to criticize their actions. When communities of color, the church community, and civil liberties groups come together to protest racial profiling, police abuse, the targeting of black owned businesses, or our city's treatment of the homeless, there is Sidran again calling these complaints groundless. If you have any doubts about this, we invite you to view his record for yourself as documented below.

1. Neighborhood Preservation Issues - Billboards, Hospital Expansion, Airport Noise, Parking Garage, Slide Protection, Private Encroachment on Public Park Land (Viretta Park)

* In 1992, Jordon Brower, community activist (later to become know for exposing the City's Nordstrom Giveaway) brings to light the fact that Ackerly Communications has added dozens of billboards without proper permission. Brower says that instead of helping eliminate this illegal visual blight, Sidran helped the billboard companies' lawyers bring legal action against him (see April 10, '92 PI article). Later, on the eve of Council action to restrict billboards, Brower receives threatening phone calls, including a threat on his life, which Brower traces back to Barry Ackerly's son. Sidran's office refuses to press charges. Unbelievably, Sidran's office says that a phone company trace to Ackerly's son's phone doesn't nail down who made the call. They will not prosecute (see P.I. editorial critical of Sidran - Aug. 26th '93). Brower himself files charges and later wins a large settlement from the Ackerly's.

* In 1992, The Haller Lake Improvement Club fights to contain Northwest Hospital expansion securing a hearing examiner decision to require completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. Sidran, in his role as City Attorney, always defends a hearing examiner decision takes the unprecedented step of supporting NW Hospital's appeal of this decision. Haller Lake's attorney called it "unconscionable". (See April 10th PI, '92)

* In 1992, Jeanette Williams, a formal Seattle City Councilmember, says Sidran plays a "key role" in persuading the Seattle City Council not to join citizen groups opposing more jets over North Seattle. (See April 10 '92 PI article)

* In 1992, Chris Leman, Eastlake Community Council and alternative transportation activist mounts effort to oppose construction of the 771-stall parking garage next to City Hall because it violates the 1985 downtown land use plan. Sidran sides with those supporting the development. Leman says, "we never see a city attorney go in and say 'we have this really strong policy and this isn't consistent with it'" (see April 10th '92 PI article).

* In 1991 and 1992, the City Council convenes a citizen/expert task force to draft a "Critical Areas Ordinance" to control development in slide prone areas. After nearly two years of work, an ordinance is drafted and brought to the City Council and is headed for passage. City Attorney Sidran remains silent during the entire process. Just as it is about to go to Council for likely approval, Sidran steps in and tells the Council that the ordinance would deprive owners of their development rights. (See PI April 10 '92 article)

* In 1994, Friends of Viretta Park sued the City for granting Starbuck's owner, Howard Schultz a right to build a driveway and retaining wall across the upper end of this public park in the Madrona neighborhood. Effectively working for Schultz rather than defending the public's interest, City Attorney Mark Sidran advised the City that Schultz had an "access right" across public land to his house. The courts said otherwise siding with residents and the public interest. This case led to city reclamation of numerous street and park right of ways that over the years have been taken over by private interests - no thanks to Mark Sidran (see March 23, '94 PI article)

2. Preservation of Low Income Housing and Tenant Issues (stopping housing demolitions, tenant relocation assistance, mandatory housing code inspections, right of first refusal laws)

* In 1990, the first year of Sidran's tenure as City Attorney, housing advocates secured support from the Mayor - Norm Rice - for an emergency measure that would control the demolition of very low income housing. Three years earlier, in 1987, the State Supreme Court struck down the city's old demolition control law that saved several hundred low income units a year from the wrecking ball. At that time, city officials pledged to replace the law with a legally defensible alternative. Finally, in 1990, with the Mayor's support, the measure was taken to the City Council's Tom Weeks, then head of the Council's Housing Committee. When this became known, Sidran, stepped out of his role as city attorney and effectively became a lobbyist, prowling Council offices urging them not to go forward - especially Tom Weeks. His actions killed any interest on the Council's part in moving forward. To this day - 11 years later (and after an additional 5000 units of low income housing have been demolished) no action on this front has been taken by the City Council. Sidran remains a principle obstacle to its passage.

* On all fronts, Sidran has actively opposed all attempts to regulate low income housing losses in our city due to redevelopment. Each year, we lose over 1500 units to demolition and speculative sale alone - three to four times the amount of "subsidized" low income housing we can ever build each year with our limited public funds. Instead of mobilizing the power of his office to come up with mechanisms that can withstand challenge, he argues against taking any action at all. This should come as no surprise given that Sidran, himself, owns several rental properties and at least once, according to the Tenants Union, gave his tenants a $300 a month rent increase.

* In the early '90's, in the face of a developer's suit against the City, Sidran advised the Council and Mayor to drop the requirement that developers pay tenant's up to $2000 in relocation assistance when they were forced from their homes to make way for demolition. Even though no court decision had been rendered at that time, Sidran advised the City to drop the developer requirement and the Mayor and City Council complied. The Courts ultimately upheld the right of cities to require developers to pay tenant relocation but the provisions were not re-instated until 1999, thanks to an effort by Councilman Nick Licata's office.

* Through the decade of the 80's, the City had a "mandatory housing code inspection program" that guaranteed that every three years, low income apartment buildings would be inspected and maintained as habitable units. Soon after Sidran took office, he counseled against enforcing the law. Heeding his advice, the Council repealed the program. Even though the Courts ultimately upheld the law in the mid '90's, to this day, the City Council has not re-instituted the program. A settlement authored by Sidran with one of the litigants precludes the city from re-instituting a mandatory program for another three years. Until then at least, hundreds of low income tenants each year will be forced to live in substandard housing.

* Sidran has vigorously opposed passage of a right of first refusal law that could empower tenants with the ability to turn their units into publicly owned cooperatives. Calling such laws "hero legislation", his brand of pro-development legal advice now permeates city hall. To this day, he continues to argue that the City has no legal right to pass any kind of "right of first refusal law" or any other regulatory approach that would restrict developers. On the contrary, throughout the '90's, the courts have consistently upheld just cause eviction, the right of the city to order mandatory housing code inspections, and the city's right to require developers to pay relocation to tenants displaced by their actions. Even though the State Supreme Court struck down the States Mobile Home "right of first refusal" law late last year, the language of the decision effectively gave direction to the City on how they could put together a legally defensible alternative. Of course Sidran argues that the city's ability to move in this direction is precluded altogether. Even though he is clearly wrong, once again his opinion has given the City Councilmembers an excuse not to act at all.

3. Labor and Working People's Issues (Public Employee's Right to Strike, Right of Public Employees to sue, Drug Testing for City Employees, Relationships with his own staff)

* While campaigning for re-election to a second term ('93), Sidran goes on record before the King County Democrats opposing a public employees right to strike.

* In '92, Sidran even alienates police and fire fighter's guilds. In the wake of a serious fire that wiped out the Blackstock Lumber Yard and took the life of a firefighter, family members of the firefighter sue the Fire Department for negligence. While that suit is pending, Sidran lobbies the State Legislature and successfully attaches a rider to a piece of unrelated state legislation that strips officers hired after 1977 of their right to sue their employers for negligence. Even though the rider was slipped in after public hearings were held and police and firefighters were never alerted to the rule change, Sidran denies his efforts had anything to do with the pending lawsuit. After the bill became law and police and firefighters found out about the change, Sidran's reply to officers was "the Legislature meets every year. Go back and change it". (See Oct. 1st '92 PI). Three years ago, according to an attorney who followed the case, the Court of Appeals finally struck down the rider ruling that it was improperly attached to an unrelated piece of legislation.

* In the mid-90's with support from other elected officials, Sidran drafts a comprehensive drug testing policy for nearly all city employees. Even tennis instructors, cashiers, meter readers, and planners will be tested. In 1996, the Council approves the law over objections from civil rights and civil liberties groups. While public pressure later forces the City to amend the law limiting who will be tested, a coalition including the ACLU, NAACP, and former Mayor Charles Royer nevertheless sue the City calling the law overly broad and an intrusion on privacy rights. Sidran continues to defend the law against this court challenge and the City continues to apply it to city employees until October 04, 2000, when the State Court of Appeals orders the City to eliminate drug testing for all but those whose jobs have to do with public safety.

* In 1995, several assistant city attorneys - mostly women - complained to their union (the Prosecuting Attorney's Association) that Sidran's office has created a work environment "of fear and distrust" where "failing to say hello to a supervisor, criticizing policy, or even a bad body language in a meeting is met with demotion, or denial of pay raises, or loss of a job." (see Stranger article July 31, '97). Unfair treatment and overt discrimination against women attorneys is also cited. Fearing for their jobs, the attorney's union takes these matters to Sidran on their behalf. The Union also reasserts its request that Sidran agree to creation of a formal grievance process to ensure that employees of his office are treated fairly in the future. Sidran denies all the allegations, and adamantly refuses to create a process for arbitrating grievances. The Union then files seven unfair labor complaints with the State Public Employees Relations Commission. A Commission Hearing Examiner affirms five of the seven complaints, saying "a more draconian stricture of lawful union activity is scarcely imaginable." An order to desist in these practices is issued but the Commission but it does not have authority to order creation of a formal grievance process. To this day, Sidran steadfastly refuses to implement such a process in his office. (See Stranger article cited above and June 11th, '97 Seattle Times article)

4. Big Business and Downtown Development Issues (Seattle Commons, Tax Increment Financing, and the Nordstrom's-Pacific Place Parking Garage Deal)

* During his first term (early '90's), Sidran allocates two years of his staff's time to an effort by those promoting the Seattle Commons Redevelopment Project aimed at circumventing state constitutional restrictions barring use of "Tax Increment Financing" (TIF). He crafts and promotes a TIF law that would allow city government to lasso all future property tax increases in a given area such as South Lake Union, and instead of directing those revenues to schools, transportation, and other city budget needs as is now required - use them instead to fund the Seattle Commons. Citizens turn back the effort, but a similar measure patterned off Sidran's proposal goes forward in Spokane to help fund a parking garage in that city. The Courts ultimately rule that this effort a violation of the State's constitution.

* In February '98, the City's Ethics and Elections Commission concluded that the City broke several city, state, and federal laws when they approved the 73 million dollar purchase of a downtown parking garage. Since the garage actually cost only about 50 million dollars, the deal effectively subsidized Nordstrom's purchase and renovation of the Fredrick and Nelson building. Among their findings, they concluded that the City failed to provide a required public hearing and to have a comprehensive plan available for public review before bringing the matter to a vote. To facilitate circumvention of the public's right to know, Sidran's staff draws up a legal memo, which argues that no public hearing is needed. After the Ethics Commission makes this ruling, Sidran says he "stands by" the memo. (See Feb. 13th, Seattle Times story)

5. Mental Health Issues, Involuntary Commitment, and the Don Van Ho Case

* August 27th, 1997, in a rare admission of responsibility, Sidran acknowledges that his offices neglected to forward papers to the King County Jail Psychiatrists that could have prevented the release of Don Van Ho, who soon after his release on misdemeanor charges, attacked and fatally stabbed retired Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson. (see Aug. 27th, 1997 Seattle PI). Those papers included a report and evaluation from a psychiatrist at Western State Mental Hospital recommending involuntary commitment for Ho, saying he was so unstable that he clearly was a danger to himself and others. Had proper processes been in place guaranteeing coordination and communication between the city attorney, jail, judge and the other actors, this report could have been used by the parties to initiate involuntary commitment of Mr. Ho preventing his release and the subsequent tragedy. Even though the problem was clearly linked to a procedural screw-up for which Sidran shares the blame, Sidran instead capitalizes on the issue to promote his own personal agenda. He says the incident demonstrates that it's too difficult to lock up mentally ill people who are a danger to the community and calls for an easing of involuntary commitment laws.

In a postscript to this story, on May 18th, 2001, the family of Stanley Stevenson agreed to a $5.5 million settlement with the County and State of Washington resolving the families wrongful death suit brought against these parties. While the State and County admitted guilt in the matter, according to a story in the Seattle Times, the family remains upset with Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran who steadfastly refused to bear any responsibility for the tragedy. As part of the settlement, however, they are barred from pursuing further claims against the City. According to one family member, "they are immune, but they should be held accountable." (see May 18th Seattle Times story by Alex Fryer)

* Sidran is a strong supporter of the easing of involuntary commitment laws saying the current standards make it too difficult to hospitalize the mentally ill. On the contrary, a mental health professional working in the jail system disagrees, saying, "when I hear people say it's impossible to get people committed in King County, I wonder about that. It doesn't seem impossible to me and I've been doing this for 17 years." Under existing involuntary standards, in '96, at the jail, she saw 148 people and 98 were committed. County-wide, that year, professionals investigated 4,720 cases, and 2,013 were involuntary hospitalized under the existing standard. (See August 28, Seattle Times article). Of course, any broad changes to standards for involuntary commitment (now limited to those who, after an evaluation and a constitutionally guaranteed court review, are deemed a danger to themselves or others) raises series civil liberties issues - and could easily open the door to abuse, as it did in the past when literally tens of thousands were locked up without due process across this country, including an inordinately high number of minorities, only because they were "different". And it would open the door to wholesale commitment of the homeless regardless of their mental condition, who are no threat to anyone - who only need a job, housing, or in the case of those with disabilities - may need community based treatment. What's at the core of the problem in the existing mental health system is a shameful lack of funding at all levels, but especially in terms of what is needed to guarantee permanent housing opportunities and community-based treatment on demand for those with mental, alcohol, or drug disabilities. There is no record of Sidran ever speaking out for more funding for such programs. And for these community-based programs to be effective, they must be located in downtown and other neighborhoods where people with these problems are concentrated and choose to live. Sidran on the other hand offers primarily a "social control" or "containment" approach. He prefers alternatives that include incarceration, involuntary commitment, or that simply move people out of one area and into another. Note Sidran's strong support for the creation of "Alcohol Impact Areas" that restrict sale of cheap booze in areas where there are high concentrations of poor people, the homeless and those with chronic disabilities. Of course this only succeeds at best in moving the problem from one area of town to another.

6. Protestors and the First Amendment including WTO and Greenpeace Demonstrations

* December 1999, 600 protesters are arrested during WTO demonstrations. Attorneys for those arrested, the ACLU, and Lawyer's Guild call these arrests fabricated and without foundation. In most cases, police use a "boiler plate" list of charges that are given to all protestors and lack specific charges for each arrestee. Citing violations of first amendment rights, their immediate release is demanded. Sidran insists on holding all who are arrested until they are all processed, calling them nothing but law breakers who have denied convention goers their right to attend the conference. He also insists on pursuing charges against all of them consuming considerable city resources and time in doing so. Later charges are dismissed against the vast majority of the more than 600 people arrested and eventually over 175 people file damage claims - most still pending - with the City. The following year, December 2000, 140 protestors are arrested celebrating the one-year anniversary of WTO. The police once again fill out "boiler plate" arrest forms that lack incident specific charges. Sidran again insists on pursuing charges against all those arrested. This time, Seattle Municipal Court Judge Anne Levinson orders immediate release of those arrested saying that boilerplate police affidavits filed in most of the cases failed to provide the probable cause needed to keep demonstrators locked up. She asks Sidran to produce more specific charges for each demonstrator. (See Dec. 2nd 2000 Seattle PI article). Sidran, however, pursues prosecution against those 142 arrested on the WTO's anniversary. After two months, however, and additional city costs, Sidran finally drops charges against most of the protestors admitting that he does not have evidence to convict them (Feb. 10th, 2001 Associated Press). He nevertheless lauds the Police's conduct. As of June 2001, the City has paid out approximately $150,000 in damages to protestors who have filed claims with the City and more cases remain to be resolved.

* Summer, 1997, rather than dropping charges against Greenpeace activists who suspended themselves under the Aurora bridge in 1997 to protest fishing practices of Alaska Trawlers, Sidran decides to try them all, including two press spokespersons for the group who never left the sidewalk. On June 12th, 1998, a jury clears of all seven who hung from the bridge of nuisance and obstruction charges. Both the Jury and the Judge agreed that their actions constituted a "legal assembly" given there was no laws or even signs saying that such actions were against the law. A month earlier, a Municipal Court Judge Jean Rietschel summarily dismissed charges against the two other Greenpeace activists who stood on the sidewalk while acting as spokespersons. Sidran had charged these two with "accomplice liability" - aiding and encouraging the other activists. Sidran pursued this case at significant expense to the City only to see the charges dropped. (See June 12th, '98 Seattle Times article)

* In both the WTO and the Greenpeace case, Sidran displayed a callous disregard for the cherished right of free speech and the right of citizens to protest grievances against their government and big corporations. In March of 2000, while still doggedly pursuing charges against the original 600 WTO protestors he told a Times columnist, they were nothing but lawbreakers. Drawing no distinction between the vast majority engaged in legal protest, those engaged in acts of civil disobedience, and the few who broke windows, he simply dismisses them all as a "mob" and "sanctimonious hypocrites." Displaying a startling lack of understanding of the bill or rights and the degree to which a citizens right to voice their opinions in public spaces is valued under the constitution, he then says the right of bureaucrats and officials to attend a conference is somehow co-equal with a citizens right to engage in that protest. (see March 20, PI column)

7. The Monorail and Sound Transit

* In May of this year, at his Mayoral campaign kick-off event, Sidran says that he thought the monorail should be part of the region's transportation mix. (See excerpts from his campaign kick-off speech found on his web site). Back in November of 1997, however, Sidran joined most of Seattle's elected leaders and the mainstream press in opposing the monorail. When Seattle voters cast their support for the first monorail initiative that year, Sidran made light of the measure. On the eve of that election, he joked that if the measure passes, perhaps then we might have to bring back the Bubbleator. (see December 4th 1997 Seattle Times article by David Schaeffer). The Bubbleator was a rather useless "futuristic" spheroid elevator built during the '62 world's fair that for many years took tourists from the basement to the first floor of the food circus. After it passed, he said that "the initiative raises many questions, practical and legal" (see Nov. 6th Times Article by Eric Pryne). Two and a half years later, when the Elevate Transit Company (ETC), created by the initiative, attempted to free up money to complete its feasibility work, the majority on the City Council balked at providing the funding. Sidran's office provided legal arguments to justify the withholding of these resources. Subsequently, in June 2000, in response to a suit filed by monorail advocates, the court ruled that the City was obligated to allocate the additional money so the ETC could finish its work. In a failed defense of the City's position, Sidran's office argued that "the initiative imposed no 'specific legal duty' on elected officials beyond what they had already done." When the courts ruled in favor of monorail advocates, Sidran says his office could appeal the decision. (see Times June 8th Jim Brunner article). While the city ultimately did not appeal the decision, the City continued to drag its heels in providing adequate revenues and fulfilling its obligations under the first initiative. Sidran's office continued to provide legal advice to the Council buttressing their inaction. In response, monorail advocates place another initiative on the ballot which passes in Nov. 2000. The initiative forced the city to allocate 6 million more for completion of studies and requires the City to set aside $200 million of its debt capacity for eventual construction. Sidran's new-found support for the monorail should be taken in this light.

* Prior to making an announcement that he was running for Mayor, there is no record of Sidran taking any stand for or against Sound Transit's Light Rail Plan. At his campaign "kick off" event in mid May, however, Sidran boldly proclaims that "the current LINK light rail is dead." Blaming the problems of Light Rail on "a failure of leadership", he accuses Schell and Nickels of not sounding the alarm "months ago". (See his campaign kick-off speech found on his web site). And where was Mark Sidran months ago? Just six weeks prior to his formal kick-off event, at a press conference called to announce his mayoral bid, he told the press he was a supporter of light rail. (See Mar. 28th Times article by Jim Brunner). His apparent change of heart could possibly be explained by the fact that during this intervening period, the mainstream press released additional information on problems plaguing Sound Transit. More importantly, in early May, the press released a well-publicized regional poll showing that the majority of city residents now opposed Light Rail. Note also that in his May kick-off speech, Sidran did not explicitly call for a redirecting of light rail funds to other transportation alternatives. He was careful not to explicitly oppose Light Rail and instead called for "an honest evaluation of the costs and benefits of our options."

8. The Car Impound Law

* September 1998 - The City Council approves Mark Sidran's "car impound law" giving the police power to tow the cars of those caught driving with a suspended license. Sidran said the law represents an effort to make the roads safer and properly punishes those who do not respond to a ticket. He goes on to say: "There's something about that tow truck driving up that has a real effect on people's behavior." Taking effect in January 1999, by February of 2000, several thousand people have had their cars towed for violations of the new law. A startling 39 percent of those whose cars were confiscated are African Americans even though they make up less than 10 percent of the City population. Minority and civil rights groups, and councilman Nick Licata mobilize and call for changes in the law. Licata also cites the fact that the great majority - 85 percent - of all cases are not "bad" drivers whose licenses were suspended for drunk or reckless driving but people with minor tickets - in effect those just too poor to pay the fines. When confronted with these numbers, Sidran dismisses racial profiling. (See Feb. 17th, Seattle Times article). In June 2000, Licata offers amendments to the law that would take away police power to tow cars of those who've had their license suspended for minor traffic offences but would still allow police to tow cars of those on the road who've lost their licenses for drunk or reckless driving. It looks like his amendments are headed towards passage, but Sidran launches an intense lobbying campaign (along with Richard Conlin) opposing the changes. Sidran says he will have no choice but to prosecute and jail those caught driving with suspended licenses at great expense to the city. (Licata points out that many whose cars are towed in Seattle are in fact still being prosecuted by the City Attorney and going to jail anyway). Licata also points out that the County does not tow the cars of those caught driving with suspended license, yet they offer several alternatives to jail or prosecution. The county has done this by implementing measures to ensure that those too broke to pay stiff fines have options - getting them into time payment plans, offering community service, and other steps that can help them get those fines cleared and their licenses back. These practices also have substantially reduced jail costs and the numbers of those going to the County's jail. Despite these arguments, Councilmember Heidi Wills reverses her stance and turns against Licata's amendments, specifically citing Sidran's arguments, and the effort fails by a 5-4 vote on the Council. (See June 16, 2000, Seattle PI)

* In a postscript to this story, in May of this year, a King County Superior Court Judge granted the appeals of five people whose cars were towed under the law, saying the state constitution requires alternatives to be considered before property is seized. Acknowledging that this decision could "eviscerate" the impound law, Sidran says he'll probably appeal the decision. Lisa Daugaard, attorney for the five says there is a long line of court decisions indicating that impoundment of property without consideration of alternatives was illegal but in spite of those decisions, it "hasn't stopped Seattle police from enforcing the ordinance." In fact, in 18 of 19 cases that her office has challenged, the Courts have sided with those who've had their cars towed. Sidran remains steadfastly supportive of the car impound law saying it has substantially reduced bookings (arrests) of African Americans and cut jail costs. Daugaard points out that jail bookings are down because of programs that offer alternatives to arrest such as payment plans, use of community service, and help offered to those who cannot immediately pay-off fines. In other jurisdications like King County where they don't impound cars of those driving with suspended license, and where they, too, offer alternatives to arrest, jail bookings are also down. (See May 16th, Times article by Brunner)

9. Racial Profiling including the Drug Loitering Law, Added Activities and Drug Abatement Laws

* During Sidran's first term in the early '90's, Sidran supports and lobbies for passage of the drug loitering law over the objections of the ACLU, Lawyer's Guild, Rainbow Coalition, and Church Council. The law gives broad powers to the police to pick up and arrest someone who is standing on a sidewalk even when there is no observable crime, based merely on "suspicion" that he/she has committed a drug-related crime. A year after the law goes into affect, when ACLU data shows that 77 percent of those arrested were people of color and that few arrested were ever charged, let alone convicted, Sidran offers no remedial action and expresses no concern about possible discrimination. (He also stonewalls the ACLU requests for arrest data - releasing it only after exhaustive disclosure requests are filed).

* July 2nd, 1999, in a strongly worded opinion, a U.S. District Court Judge strikes down the State's "Added Activities Law" which forced businesses to obtain city permission before including dancing or live music at their establishments. Calling the law a blatant restriction on free speech and "prior restraint", the Judge harshly criticized the way in which this law was used to yank liquor licenses and deny licenses to others. (For several years, the majority of those affected by discriminatory enforcement were black owned businesses serving a black clientele). A Seattle Times article called this decision a "stinging rebuke" of Mark Sidran's argument that means justify the ends. (See July 2nd, '99 Times article). Teen dance supporters, the Music industry, free speech groups, and minority leaders hail the decision. Two years later, the City pays $106,000 to settle a civil rights law suit brought by a former owner of a club that catered to young African-Americans. The suit said the City (at Sidran's strong urging) used the added activities law to shut her business down based solely on the fact that it catered to African-Americans.

* June 1998, small-business groups, civil-rights leaders, and grassroots activists march and then testify, 200 strong, to protest discriminatory use of the City's drug abatement law. Charging that the police (egged on by Mark Sidran) were using these laws to target for closure black owned establishments catering to the African Americans, they cite data showing that 10 of 15 clubs shut down by the city over the last seven years under the law were black owned or run. The McCoy's, owners of Oscar's restaurant, also gave examples of cases where police used paid informers to lure drug dealers into their establishments, then rewarding the informers with drugs after the police stormed the establishments. Police also worked with owners to encourage 911 calls, then used these calls to justify shutting them down. (See June 16th, Times Opinion by Malkin). In the wake of these revelations, the U.S. Justice Department agrees to investigate these complaints (see Dec. 29, 1998 Times Opinion by Malkin). That same year, in a deposition brought against the City by an aggrieved owner, Sidran gave his justification for singling out black owned clubs. Quoting from his deposition, he said the relationship between "hip-hop, the clientele, and the violence is irrefutable" and went on to acknowledge that clientele in these establishments are primarily black. He goes on to say that arresting individual lawbreakers is not always effective, and says "You begin to think about draining the swamp instead of constantly chasing the alligators one by one". (Sidran's '98 deposition is quoted in an Oct.31st 2000 Seattle Times article). Sidran and Police defied community concerns and until April 2000, they continued to use this law to go after black owned clubs.

* In April 2000, the Washington State Court of Appeals struck down the city's drug abatement law. The three-judge panel used strong words in declaring that the city's application of the law to shut down Oscars - a black owned establishment - was unconstitutional. The ACLU hails the decision saying "Oscar (McCoy) was not dealing drugs. Someone on his property was dealing drugs…He was cooperating with police. We thought it was unfair that he should lose his business when he was cooperating with police." Dave Osgood, attorney for the McCoys, says the city's closure of Oscar's II was "shocking abuse of the statute by the Seattle Police Department and Seattle City Attorney. " The court says that the City's closure and confiscation of Oscar's "was an unconstitutional taking of the McCoy's property and a violation of their due process rights…. The record does not support a finding that the McCoys acquiesced in any illegal drug activity or turned a blind eye to it," A Seattle P.I. reporter says, Sidran in response to the decision, "chided the courts". (See April 25, 2000 PI article). The McCoy's are now in the process of pursuing $900,000 in damage claims against the city and state (April 16, 2001 Times article by Alex Fryer). In addition to possible payment of these claims, in April of this year, the Court already ordered the City and State to pay the McCoy's legal expenses - an amount in excess of $93,000. (April 25, 2001, Times article by Alex Fryer)

10. The Teen Dance Hall Ordinance

* August 21, 2000, after a year and half process and over the strong objections of Mark Sidran, the City Council by a 7-1 vote effectively strikes down the teen dance ordinance (TDO). They replace it with the "All Ages Dance Ordinance" (AADO). Since its passage 15 years ago, criticism mounted against the TDO from many quarters, enough to generate overwhelming support for the changes from all but one councilmember. Youth in particular charged that the TDO effectively shut down the teen music scene. Given the tough licensing and insurance requirements on clubs offering teen dances and music performances, including a provision requiring the hiring of off-duty police to provide the security, clubs simply didn't bother holding them anymore. Also, there was evidence that police used this law to shut down various venues especially hip-hop dances (largely serving a young black clientele) by simply refusing to provide the security for such events. The new law that replaced the TDO took 18 months to draft, and was created by a task force that included teenagers, music folks, citizens, and city officials. With the exception of the police and Mark Sidran, nearly all sides hailed the new law. Sidran called it too permissive and alleged that "all it does is increase the risk and remove all of the prevention measures and security measures." On the contrary, while the AADO relaxed some of the old rules under the TDO, it still required licensing for clubs, and a regular review of those licenses by a committee made up of police, city staff, representatives of the music industry and teens themselves. Security personnel were also still required but not necessarily police personnel. Two days after the new law was passed, the Mayor vetoes it, shunning 18 months of work by the task force. While most city councilmembers decry the Mayor's action, Sidran lauds the Mayor's actions. (See Aug. 24, 2000 Stranger Article and Sept. 17th, 2000 Seattle Times article)

11. Ethics in Office and the Role of City Attorney - Is he an advocate or the city's lawyer? (City Council Considers Hiring Their Own Attorney, Risking the City's liability)

* June 1999, several city councilmembers question whether the city's top lawyer (Mark Sidran) can provide objective legal advice on issues he passionately supports. "There's a conflict of interest" say's Peter Steinbrueck, "I don't think we can get impartial legal counsel." Tina Podlowdowski and Nick Licata agree saying that perhaps the City Council should be placing their own attorney on Council given Sidran's advocacy on issues he cares about. Podlowdowski says "when you have someone pushing a viewpoint, it is difficult to feel you are getting unbiased legal advice." In response, Sidran says "it certainly is not a new issue, and it is certainly not unique to Seattle. The basic approach to my job since I got here was building a team of lawyers to give good advice and to do it in a way that is nonpartisan and nonpolitical." (see June 11th 1999 Seattle Times article)

* When it comes to controlling developer actions that cause displacement in our city, Sidran literally lobbies councilmembers against taking any action at all. Ironically on other issues, Sidran regularly hangs the City's liability far out on a limb - pushing for and securing passage of laws of questionable constitutionality. He then insists that the City go to the wall enforcing them long after these laws have been challenged in court. Take a look at his support for and defense of the city's sweeping drug testing requirements for city employees (recently struck down by the courts), the drug abatement law (recently struck down by the courts), his defense of the "added activities" ordinance (struck down in 1999 by the courts) and as evidenced by his efforts to try WTO protesters only to see the Courts dismiss charges as groundless - all at great expense to the City not to mention our first amendment rights.

12. The Sidran "Civility Laws" including the "no-sitting" law, pedestrian interference, parks exclusion laws

* Fall 1993, following several weeks of protests and sit-ins by homeless people, church leaders, civil libertarians, and homeless advocates, Mark Sidran's "civility laws" are approved by the City Council, including an ordinance that bans sitting on the sidewalks between the hours of nine in the morning to seven at night. Sidran also seeks amendments to the City's pedestrian interference law that would make it easier for the police to arrest or cite "aggressive panhandlers" (the changes are so broad that even a panhandler who swears at someone - perhaps in reply to someone whose sworn at them can be subject to arrest.) In addition, public urination now becomes an arrestable offense even though there are virtually no public restrooms in most Seattle neighborhoods. Sidran staunchly supports these laws calling them necessary tools needed to guarantee civility and order on our streets. He also voices strong support for the "blocking provisions" of pedestrian interference law and urges the police to vigorously enforce this law which gives the police broad power to cite or arrest anyone who is "standing, sitting, laying, in such a way so as to cause someone to take evasive action."

* A few years later (1996), the City passes another Sidran law - the parks exclusion law giving police the power to ban people from public parks for up to one year who commit petty offenses in the park. Police may impose these banishments on the spot without trial and in addition to arresting of citing these individuals for their particular offense. A homeless person found camping overnight out of necessity in a park can be ticketed or arrested for trespass and violating park curfews, then banned not only from that park but surrounding parks. While Sidran says these laws target only lawbreakers, statistics show that hundreds of homeless people each year receive the bulk of citations, arrests, and banishments under these laws. In the case of the pedestrian interference law and the parks exclusion law, the data also confirms that people of color are frequent targets as well.

Closing Thoughts - The Human Consequences of Sidran's Record (This Author's Opinions)

During our work with homeless youth in the early to mid-nineties, our project assisted a 15 year-old girl who had been living on the streets for some time, having fled abuse in her home. She was one of the leaders involved in three days of youth protests against police brutality on Capitol Hill (1994). Following those protests, she chose to join some of her peers at a hearing before the City Council. Seemingly unintimidated by the large crowd, she calmly got up and related a recent experience of hers living on the streets in Seattle - a city with a conspicuous absence of shelter beds especially for teens. She told of waking up in an abandonment house with a police officer's gun pointed at her head. She and her friends were threatened with arrest, but instead were given a "trespass admonishment" (something else Sidran has had a hand in devising). From there, they moved to the sidewalks of Broadway where an officer within a few minutes, walked up and cited them for sitting on the sidewalk. From there they went "dumpster diving" and were once again given a "trespass admonishment" (their names are logged and if they are caught again on that property within one year, they are arrested). From there they moved to the park, set their belongings down and within a few minutes another officer approached them and issued them all $500 tickets for "camping" in a public park.

Sidran readily acknowledges that his inspiration for creation of the "civility" laws comes from the likes of George Kelling and James Q. Wilson, nationally know "academics" who have written a book called "Fixing Broken Windows" that is used by Police and everyone from neoliberals to right wing politicians across the country to justify driving the poor and homeless people out of inner city neighborhoods. Sidran brought these people to Seattle five years ago, to give support to his brand of social control. Used in police classrooms across the country, Kelling and Wilson argue that homeless people are like broken windows or abandoned cars - if allowed to remain, they gives rise to more broken windows. Like the broken windows, more homeless people in the neighborhood, eventually erode the quality of the community. These little things matter and if not attended can send the neighborhood (in Sidran's own words) on a "downward spiral." The paramount concern of community policing should be "order maintenance" not necessarily crime control. Passage of laws like the no-sitting law, use of trespass admonishments, and parks exclusion laws are especially useful because they give the police the broad authority they need to maintain order. They cast a net over everyone on the streets, not just the few who commit real crimes. Over time, everyone runs afoul of these minor infractions, gets ticketed, doesn't pay and winds up with a warrant.

Now the police have the total control over homeless people and others who congregate on the streets. With the threat of arrest hanging over them, the police can order that homeless person or group of homeless people out of the area, kick them out of places where merchants don't want them, move them along on a whim. At this point, homeless people have absolutely no rights and the police have total control over who can be in that place and when they can be there. Quite literally, Kelling, Wilson, and Sidran view the Bill or Rights and other constitutional guarantees like probable cause, Miranda, due process, judicial review - as obstacles standing in the way of effective order maintenance strategies.

The structural conditions that give rise to homelessness are also ignored such as destruction of low income housing, corporate welfare that has encouraged destruction of existing low cost housing for highrise construction and parking lots, an absence of shelters and necessary community based mental health and drug/alcohol treatment. When asked to explain the cause of homeless, Sidran refers to neo-conservative arguments laid out in a book by Burns and Baum "The Truth About Homelessness - A Nation in Denial". These authors and Sidran ignore structural causes and blame the problem on a "permissive" culture which emerged during the 60's, the personal "pathologies" of those on the streets, an absence of strong involuntary treatment laws. Even though the rise in homelessness occurred during the '80's and corresponded directly with the loss of several million downtown low income housing units across the country during that period, the blame goes to "de-institutionalization". No matter that nearly all the hospital beds removed during de-institutionalization were removed by the early '70's - at least a decade before homelessness became a widespread problem. And de-institutionalization occurred for good cause - these facilities were often snakepits that bred rather than cured mental illness.

In effect, for Mr. Sidran, those people on the streets are out there by choice or due to personal pathologies which allows Sidran and other city officials to absolve themselves of blame. "They" don't deserve to be treated like anything but broken windows. It, in effect, becomes a convenient rationale to justify continued implementation of draconian measures aimed at driving the poor and homeless people out of sight and out of mind. And since it's also aimed at enhancing property values - the corporate crowd contributes heavily each year to Sidran's campaign coffers. It also is a philosophy that encourages and even sanctions violence against the homeless since they have no one to blame but themselves. Homeless people die every year in Seattle as a direct result of the policies Sidran espouses. They are run over in alleys because they've been forced off of sidewalks and from our parks under threat of arrest and they are beaten to death by those who see the homeless as less than human.

Of course when the Sidran laws don't stem the tide of homelessness - as more and more people become homeless due to poor paying jobs, lack of jobs, skyrocketing housing costs, rising rents, demolition and displacement, an absence of community-based treatment, and our failure to address these conditions.... I guess it only means that we haven't been tough enough on this street population. Why we need to pass another Sidran law, more jails. more police, and a further escalation in our get-tough approach. Where will it end? And then the question becomes - how far are we willing to go to get homeless people out of sight and out of mind? Already, it has become palatable to some people to entertain solutions like busing the poor and homeless out of town and Sidran's call for easy involuntary commitment continues to gain steam. That's why the Mark Sidran's of this world are dangerous. His thinking already has led to passage of laws at the expense of civil rights and with real human consequences for a whole class of people. If we buy off on this philosophy, as we are doing more and more in this town, it will only prolong the day when we finally get around to finding real solutions to homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, the lack of shelter, the need for jobs for people with limited skills, and the need for a raise in the minimum wage. It can only prolong the inequality, racism, and injustice that exist in our city.