Monday, Seattle City Council will vote on whether to give an alley near South Lake Union to Amazon, which wants to expand its campus. In exchange for permission to build over the alley–that is, swallow up a public thoroughfare–the corporate leviathan has promised a swank public plaza and some bike lanes.

Judging from the proposal’s blueprints, this plaza would be danker than your grandma’s moldy basement–think Ecotopia coated in the glitz of Wall Street. And to be clear, the city doesn’t have the authority to stop Amazon from building; it only has the authority to give or retain the alleyway inside the property. Amazon wants more flexibility in how it builds up the site; the city wants money and amenities.

So let’s make a deal, right?

Not so fast. Some activists and councilmembers say the mega-company’s spotty record on labor, public access, and free speech gives cause for pause before surrendering the alley.

First, labor. In 2012, Amazon laid off nearly 200 unionized security workers and replaced them with Security Industry Specialists (SIS), which is not unionized. SEIU Local 6 has since been trying to organize SIS personnel. The union filed three separate labor complaints against SIS in 2014. Two

were settled and one was dropped by the complainant. Allegations surfaced last year that elite Amazon security guards were union-busting lower-level security guards, leading the city’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) to send Amazon a letter including the following:

“It has come to the attention of the Seattle Human Rights Commission that one of Amazon’s security subcontractors, Security Industry Specialists (SIS), is operating in a manner that likely violates the human rights of security officers employed to protect your employees and headquarters.”

When Amazon didn’t respond, the city council sent its own letter in which they “respectfully request[ed] that you respond forthwith to this legitimate inquiry.”

An HRC staffer said they weren’t sure whether Amazon ever responded. Amazon did not immediately respond to request for comment. UPDATE: A spokesperson for Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards says Amazon is not currently under investigation for any violations of city labor law.

Councilmember Mike O’Brien, the new chair of the transportation committee, says he’s had his own unpleasant run-in with Amazon’s muscle.

“I was sitting there having lunch [on an Amazon plaza] with a number of [security guards who were attempting to unionize] that had been protesting, or holding signs, earlier, and I had a sign sitting by me,” he says. “A security guard came up and told me I had to put the sign away. Which I did.”

O’Brien says he later brought up the incident with John Schoettler, Amazon’s director of Global Real Estate and Facilities (GREAF). “He said, ‘Well that’s not right. You should be able to do that out there,’” recalls O’Brien. But, says the councilmember, there’s not yet any guarantee that such heavy-handed tactics are a thing of the past.

The second issue is access and free speech: who gets to use the plaza, and for what? “One of the concerns around these plazas is, how public are they?” O’Brien says. “Because they’re not owned by the public…[so] what does public access mean, and what kind of free speech rights do people have access to?” For example, will political protesters be allowed to demonstrate without harassment? How about homeless people?

This issue has surfaced before. During a transportation committee meeting last year, then-councilmember Nick Licata was the sole dissenter in a vote to move the alley vacation forward. He voiced the same concerns that O’Brien has: how can the city ensure that a privately-owned “public” plaza is actually open to all of the public? Licata’s answer was to add this amendment:

Free speech activities such as handbilling, signature gathering, holding signs, all without obstructing access to the space, the building, or adjacent amenity features and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed. While engaged in allowed activities, members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others.

When then-councilmember Tom Rasmussen objected that Licata’s amendment hadn’t gone through enough public process, Licata responded, “Thank you. I appreciate your argument against extending free speech to this area.”

He then added, “Maybe that’s below the belt, but I think it’s nevertheless accurate.” Both men uncomfortably smiled at one another.

The rest of the transportation committee, including councilmember Tim Burgess, snubbed Licata’s amendment at the time. This coming Monday, though, Burgess and newly-elected councilmember M. Lorena Gonzalez will revive Licata’s amendment. Asked why he changed positions, Burgess gave three reasons. “It became clear to me,” he says, “that Amazon had no objection; second, that [the free speech language] was already going to be in [a pseudo-contract between the city and Amazon]; and third, to make sure we secure the votes we needed, this was important to [councilmembers Gonzalez and Debora Juarez] that we include this language.”

(The aforementioned pseudo-contract is a Property Use and Development Agreement, or PUDA. Burgess says that free speech protections like the ones in Licata’s amendment are standard parts of a PUDA any time the city considers giving up property. Yours truly was not able to get clear on why, if free speech protections are already a part of the deal with Amazon, Burgess and Gonzalez are also adding a free speech amendment. Burgess also says that the PUDA is legally binding on Amazon, but he’s not sure what the enforcement mechanism is.) UPDATE–When asked how the terms of a PUDA are enforced, a spokesperson for SDOT gave the following response:

[A] PUDA for “right of way” vacation…[is] recorded on the property as a contractual agreement between the city and the property owner acquiring the right of way. The PUDA is recorded on the property, so if it’s sold to another entity, it remains in place.SDOT works with the property owner with a goal of compliance and education in matters of civil enforcement. If an inspection or complaint arises that reveals a permit violation, we would contact the property owner and discuss the violation as a part of the civil enforcement process and work with the property owner to resolve the permit issue.

Based on interviews with council members and staff on Thursday, it appears very likely that the council will approve the Amazon alley vacation on Monday with Burgess and Gonzalez’s free speech amendment added. This may be our first look at what the new council’s internal factions: councilmembers Burgess, Bruce Harrell, and Rob Johnson say they plan to support the alley vacation, and Burgess’ comments about the amendment indicate that Gonzalez and Debora Juarez are also on board. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw’s office did not return requests for comment, but given that she supported the deal in a December vote, it’s likely she’ll continue supporting it Monday.

That leaves O’Brien, Kshama Sawant, and Lisa Herbold–the council’s new activist bloc. They say they’ll vote to send the deal back to the transportation committee (which O’Brien now chairs). If that doesn’t work, they’ll try to beef up the free speech amendment as much as possible. CORRECTION/UPDATE: Herbold actually said earlier this week that she was “inclined” to follow O’Brien but wasn’t yet committed (sorry, Lisa!). Since then, she says, she’s become a co-sponsor of the Burgess/Gonzalez amendment, which now has added language satisfying her concerns around public access and free speech.

“These [plazas] are supposed to be public,” says O’Brien. “Folks should have access and they certainly should have free speech rights. [But] either intentionally or unintentionally, that’s not happening.”