The Attacks: What’s Real & What’s Not
You're getting attack mailers. Let's talk about what's actually true.
Special interests are spending tens of thousands of dollars on misleading attacks. Some are so off-base they're almost funny, like the one claiming I missed votes on the Transportation Committee. I don't serve on that committee. That was news to me!
You deserve the facts. Here's what's real and what's not.
On Housing
The Attack: Sara blocked affordable housing funding, weakened tenant protections, and opposed new housing construction.
The Facts:
I'm fighting to eliminate the barriers that prevent housing from getting built. For two years, I've been pushing to get the millions of dollars sitting in the Office of Housing's cash reserves out the door faster so we can actually bring affordable housing online.
My actual record:
Fought entrenched interests to allow workforce housing construction in the Stadium District. My opponent opposed this.
Helped deliver record investments in affordable housing
Prime-sponsoring an amendment this year to give affordable housing providers an additional $10 million
Launched reform of our broken permitting system and passed two bills fixing problems that slow down housing construction
Put forward successful Comprehensive Plan amendments to incentivize tree preservation and more affordable housing
On Workers and Wages
The Attack: Sara rolled back minimum wage protections for gig workers and delivery drivers.
The Facts:
The previous Council's "PayUp" law made deliveries so expensive that people stopped ordering. Delivery workers' wages plummeted, and many came to Council demanding a repeal.
Instead, I tried to fix it. My legislation didn't "roll back" the minimum wage. It mandated that workers be paid minimum wage plus $.35 per mile traveled plus tips. The issue was complex and ultimately wasn't fully resolved, but I responded to the workers who were actually affected and I stand by that.
I am 100% pro-worker. That's why I'm endorsed by unions across the city, including IAFF Firefighters Local 27, ATU Local 587, and LiUNA Laborers Local 242.
On Public Safety and Recovery
The Attack: There is none (so far). Because Sara puts public safety first and her record shows it.
The Facts:
I support smart public safety measures like tools to disrupt open-air drug and sex trafficking markets. My opponent opposes these measures and offers no alternative solutions.
My legislation to implement hiring bonuses and reform the hiring process reversed the trend since 2019 of losing more officers than we can hire.
But public safety's not just about hiring more cops. It's about addressing the root causes of crime: drugs and addiction.
As a person in recovery myself, I know what it takes to help people rebuild their lives: immediate access to treatment, real accountability, and structure that works.
That's why I've led the charge to fund on-demand residential treatment and other critical recovery services. And it's working. Fatal overdoses have started to decline and Council unanimously approved a $9 million investment to increase treatment options and stabilize existing recovery services.
Because it's the morally right thing to do.
On Ethics and Process
The Attack: Sara tried to weaken ethics rules so councilmembers could vote in their own financial interest.
The Facts:
This never happened. As Council President, I advance all legislation for consideration. That's my job, not an endorsement of the proposal. The legislation in question was withdrawn before any vote ever occurred.
Why This Matters
This election is a choice:
I've fought for years to fund treatment that works. I've pushed to get housing money off the shelves and into construction. I've worked to support small businesses and protect city services (I even saved the Seattle Channel!).
My opponent opposes the public safety measures that are making a difference. She opposes efforts to disrupt open-air drug markets. She opposes removing encampments from parks. She opposes the workforce housing I fought to deliver. After 20+ candidate forums, she hasn't offered solutions that are different or better than what we're already doing. She has no plan.
The Seattle Times, Seattle Medium, and Northwest Asian Weekly all endorsed me. The Times was frustrated by my opponent's evasiveness on key policy questions and called me "the right leader for this moment."
Do we want a fighter who delivers solutions that work, or someone who opposes progress without offering anything better?
I’m Sara Nelson, and I ask for your vote.
