Podcasts about b o

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 22, 2023 72:09

Seattle budget season may be over but it's never too early to start preparing and studying up for next year! On this topical show re-air, special guest host Shannon Cheng chats with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget about the City of Seattle budget process. After covering budget basics and where we're at in Seattle's budget process, they cover the ongoing fight over the JumpStart Tax and what's being done (or not done) to address the upcoming $251 million budget deficit in 2025. Next, the trio breaks down the difference between “ghost cops” and the fully-funded SPD hiring plan, as well as why ShotSpotter still isn't a good idea. The show wraps up with a sampling of this year's other budget fights, how people can learn more or get involved, and Amy and BJ's dream budget items! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle, find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg, and find Solidarity Budget at https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/. Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog. BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid. Resources Seattle Solidarity Budget Notes from the Emerald City Tools to Understand the Budget | Seattle City Council “Mosqueda, Council Colleagues Pass JumpStart's COVID Relief Package and Economic Recovery Spending Plan” by Joseph Peha from Seattle City Council Blog “Seattle's Jumpstart payroll tax raised more than expected. Is the money going where it's most needed?” by Angela King & Katie Campbell from KUOW Memorandum: General Fund Deficit Historical Analysis from Seattle City Council Central Staff “Harrell's 2024 Budget Leaves Big Questions on Safety and Looming Shortfall” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist Final Report of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup “Removing Vacant Police Positions in Seattle's Budget Is Good Fiscal Stewardship” by BJ Last for The Stranger “Police Budget Fizz: Hiring Falls Short, Shotspotter Gains Support, Burgess Misrepresents Jane Jacobs” from PubliCola “Nearly half of Seattle police calls don't need officers responding, new report says” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times “Set Money Aside for Illegal Surveillance, or Fund Community Needs Now?” by BJ Last and Camille Baldwin-Bonney for The Stranger “New UW study says human-services workers are underpaid by 37%” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut City of Seattle Budget Office Stop ShotSpotter! Webinar - Seattle Solidarity Budget and ACLU of Washington | Nov 8, 2023 Guaranteed Basic Income Panel - Seattle Solidarity Budget | Oct 10, 2023 The People's Budget Seattle | Announcing Winning Projects Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everyone! This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I'm here as your special guest host for today. Everyone's been super busy with elections, but another important thing currently happening right now in a lot of our local jurisdictions is that they're having budget deliberations for the coming year. Budgets are super important - we talk a lot about policy on this show, but what really matters in the end is how that policy is implemented and budgets manifest our intent. So Crystal let me take over the show for a day, and I wanted to have some folks on who are closely following the budget here in Seattle. They're two local community organizers with Solidarity Budget. And before we get to meeting them, I just wanted to point out that while we're gonna be focused pretty deeply on the City of Seattle's budget, a lot of what we talk about is applicable to other places. So if you're interested in getting involved in the budget where you live, we can learn something from these experts. So without further ado, I just want to welcome Amy Sundberg and BJ Last. Amy, starting with you, can you tell us a little about yourself and how you got involved with Solidarity Budget? [00:02:00] Amy Sundberg: Yes, hello! It's good to be here. I'm Amy, and I am the publisher and writer of the newsletter Notes from the Emerald City, which is a weekly newsletter that covers issues involving public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system - in our local area - so Seattle and King County mostly, and occasionally the state of Washington. As well, I sometimes cover public safety issues for The Urbanist. And I organize with People Power Washington and Solidarity Budget. Originally, I got my start organizing with People Power Washington and we would uplift the demands of Solidarity Budget. And eventually I connected with the folks at Solidarity Budget and started working with them as well, so that's how I initially got involved. [00:02:45] Shannon Cheng: What about you, BJ? [00:02:46] BJ Last: Hi, thanks. Great to be here. BJ Last - don't do anything as cool as Amy on a regular basis. I've lots of years as a budget analyst, former small business owner, was a professional baker - did pop-ups, but then COVID, so that kind of went by the wayside. I actually first got involved with Solidarity Budget over SPD overtime. SPD has a massive history of overspending on overtime. In 2020, there was a resolution the City passed mid-year saying if SPD overspends on its overtime, we won't give them more money for it. Lo and behold, SPD did. At the end of the year, council was like - Okay, fine, we'll give you more money, but we swear we're gonna take it from you next year to do an offset. And wanted that fight to be like - No, we need to actually try to get that money from them next year to have any kind of budget accountability. And spoiler, that sadly never happened. [00:03:34] Shannon Cheng: I agree with you that Amy is cool and also that the SPD overtime issues are very frustrating. For folks who don't know, could you give a little background on what Solidarity Budget is, and how it came to be, and how you all work together? [00:03:48] BJ Last: Sure thing. So Solidarity Budget came up out of - actually Mayor Jenny Durkan. Groups caught that Mayor Durkan was promising a lot of different groups the exact same pot of money and then being like - Y'all fight amongst yourselves to do this. And groups came together and was like - We're tired of actually just always being pitted against each other and forced to fight each other for scraps in the City budget, while all the funding goes to things that no one was wanting, like while all of the funding goes into SPD. SPD alone is still a quarter of the budget, getting everything carceral - it's about a third of the general fund. So it was that desire of - No, we don't want to be pitted against each other. And just rejecting this framework of - we have to fight against each other for scraps. So coming together as groups to be like - what are our big priorities and saying - Look, we are advocating for all of these things. [00:04:38] Amy Sundberg: I would say in addition, we wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the budget every year, that those most marginalized are centered in that conversation. And often they aren't, right? So it's important to have a coalition who has that front of mind when advocating. [00:04:54] Shannon Cheng: That's super smart. Our experience has been - it can be hard to get heard by electeds, just - if you're not the people in power, sometimes it just feels when you send your email and make your phone call, your voice might not be heard. And so trying to come together and forming a coalition so that you can have a larger voice seems like it would make a lot of sense if you want to push the lever on budget-related issues. Okay, so let's jump into some background and some budget basics before getting deep down into the weeds. Did you want to give, Amy, a sense of what the scale of budgets are at different jurisdictions and then what we're talking about here in Seattle? [00:05:31] Amy Sundberg: Sure. So there are many different government budgets. The biggest one, of course, is the national budget for the United States, which is around $4.4 trillion. So obviously a huge pot of money. Most of that money comes from personal income tax that we all pay every year and also corporate income tax, et cetera, et cetera. Then we have the state budget, which is about $72 billion per year. And then we have the King County budget, which is $6.2 billion per year. So you see, we're kind of getting smaller and smaller as we get into smaller jurisdictions. And then we have the City budget. And city budgets tend to be around $5 to $6 billion per year in total. All of these budgets are made up from various types of taxes and fees, and they each are responsible for funding different services in our communities. [00:06:26] Shannon Cheng: Great. So for the City of Seattle - let's just focus in on that as our example for today's episode. So where does the money for the City of Seattle come from? [00:06:35] Amy Sundberg: If we're talking about - particularly general fund - most of that money would come from property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax, which is a business tax. I think that's about 60% of the funds. And then there are a lot of other very small buckets of money that come in as well to make up the entire amount. [00:06:56] BJ Last: That's a great overview, Amy. And one thing I do want to just mention - so the total Seattle budget is $7.8 billion, but the vast majority of that is stuff that is extremely restricted. For example, we have public utilities. So City Light - that's $1.5 billion - that is all funded by the rates people pay for their electricity. So while that's there in that total number that makes the City's budget look absolutely huge, it's not accessible - the council can't use that to fund things. So the general fund is a much smaller slice of that. It's just about $1.6 billion. And that's the money that the City pretty much has full discretion as to where it decides to go and spend that. [00:07:37] Shannon Cheng: So if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying Seattle's budget is pretty big, but a large part of it is already appropriated to specific things. So when it comes to these priorities that when people - they're looking around at their city or their neighborhood, and they want things - it's gonna have to come out of this thing you call the general fund. Is that correct? [00:07:57] Amy Sundberg: Yes, that's correct. So most of what we're advocating for every year is general fund dollars. [00:08:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, and so you are saying, BJ, that the general fund is about $1.6 billion. So what types of things are currently getting funded out of the general fund? [00:08:14] BJ Last: Yeah, that's correct. So it's $1.6 billion. It's - very broadly defined, Public Safety is 47% of it. And that is SPD, also includes the Office of the Inspector General, the CPC, the police pension - those are all four different departments that are in there, that are all cops. The Fire Department and CARE/CSCC, which is the 911 dispatch - which is currently CSCC, may be getting rebranded CARE soon. So that's 47%. The next biggest bucket is Administration and that's 22%. And Administration is kind of a massive catch-all that includes a lot of things - so major expenditures in there are for indigent defense and the City's contract with the King County Jail. So when SPD goes and arrests someone and puts them in there, the City is effectively leasing part of the jail from King County - and that's to pay part of it. And it also includes things like Judgment and Claims Funds, which is for when people are suing the City - that comes out of there, that's housed in that Admin section. And unsurprisingly, that one's also been increasing a lot lately due to lawsuits coming from 2020, which we know what those were. And then the other thing that is anything really is Education & Human Services, and that's about 15% of the general fund. So those three things of Public Safety, Administration, Education & Human Services account for 80% of the general fund. [00:09:39] Shannon Cheng: Wow, so what's left in that 20% that's remaining? [00:09:43] Amy Sundberg: Oh gosh, it's a lot of small things. Libraries, for example, will get funded out of that. A lot of our Transportation actually gets funded through specific levies, so it wouldn't come from general fund. And I think that's true of Parks & Rec as well. But there might be some little bits of money that go to Transportation and Parks & Rec - they have varied funding sources, basically. [00:10:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, great. So that's the general fund, the discretionary portion of the City of Seattle's budget. So what's happening right now with the process? [00:10:14] Amy Sundberg: When we talk about budget season in Seattle, it's generally just a two-month period in the fall. But really, budget goes on for much of the year - because before the fall, the City departments are having to analyze their budgets and turn in reports to the mayor. And then the Mayor's Office is developing a proposed budget - that's the budget that gets announced at the end of September. At that point, the City Council is able to come in and make their changes that they might wanna see in that proposed budget. So that's where we are right now. First, they review the proposed budget to make sure they understand what's in there and what isn't in there. And then the Budget Chair, who this year is Councilmember Mosqueda, puts together a balancing package - that's a package where she thinks that there is consent amongst the councilmembers, that everyone agrees that these are changes that should be made for the most part. And then each councilmember is given the opportunity to suggest amendments to that balancing package. And they need to get two other councilmembers to sponsor that in order to get those amendments considered. So that's where we are right now - we've just heard the amendments that are being considered. And eventually what will happen is that those amendments will be voted on by the Budget Committee, which is all of the councilmembers to be clear. [00:11:35] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so Mayor Harrell sent over his proposal end of September and we're about a month into the Council's involvement. And this is the budget for next year? [00:11:45] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, for 2024. [00:11:46] BJ Last: So Seattle operates on a biennium budget basis. So last year they set the budget for 2023 and 2024. So this year they're currently doing adjustments to that 2024 budget. And then next year it'll be back to doing the full biennium, where we'll be looking at 2025 and 2026. [00:12:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so this is just finishing up last year's work through the end of the year, and just adjusting based on the realities of how much money is coming in and new needs for expenditures. [00:12:15] Amy Sundberg: Theoretically that is the case. Seattle is a little bit less strict about that than some other municipalities. I would say King County is more of a true biennial budget, whereas Seattle's kind of a biennial budget. And I think actually there's been some push to make it more like King County, to make it more of a true biennium. So we'll see what happens with that. [00:12:36] Shannon Cheng: Okay, interesting. Another thing I keep hearing about all the time is this fight over the JumpStart Tax. And I think it'd be good to just lay out very clearly - what is that fight all about? [00:12:47] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the JumpStart payroll tax passed in the summer of 2020. And then the council passed a spending plan for it in 2021 to put into statute what exactly the JumpStart Tax is supposed to go to pay for. And just so we're clear on what that spend plan is - 62% of JumpStart funds are supposed to go to affordable housing, 9% to Green New Deal, 9% to Equitable Development Initiative, and 15% to small business. What has happened though - basically, because this was going on in the middle of the pandemic - obviously there was a lot more needs, the City budget was a little messier than maybe normally. So they allowed some of these JumpStart Tax dollars to be spent as a kind of a slush fund for the general fund so that we wouldn't have to have an austerity budget. And the idea was that over time this would transition and eventually all of the JumpStart Tax funds would go to those percentages that I mentioned a moment ago. However, what has ended up happening is that every year - regardless of what mayor we have - every year the mayor will take some of the JumpStart dollars and move it over for general fund purposes, instead of those specific Green New Deal and affordable housing purposes. Every year Council kind of tries to claw back those JumpStart funds to put them into the main purposes they were meant for. Now we're still having some budget issues, so there has been - even for this year - some money that Council agreed could be used from JumpStart funds to fund general fund priorities, especially because JumpStart funds ended up being larger than originally anticipated. So the compromise that was struck was that those extra dollars that we weren't originally expecting can be used to kind of help prop up the general fund. But what ends up happening is sometimes more money beyond that gets pulled from JumpStart into the general fund. And of course, because affordable housing in particular is a large percentage of where that money is supposed to go and is such a priority in the city right now, given our housing crisis, this becomes a big fight every year. [00:15:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, yeah - that's helpful. So I think I saw - in 2021, the JumpStart Tax generated $234 million. And so that was one of those years where the City and the Council felt that some of that needed to go towards other things than that spend plan that you referenced. And so about 37% of it ended up going to the general fund. And then that leaves a much smaller slice left for addressing those issues that you listed - housing, small business support, Green New Deal, equitable development - which, if people stop and think about - looking around, what are the biggest issues that the City's facing right now? I mean, that's what these are trying to address - the housing crisis, small businesses struggling after the pandemic, needing to do something about climate change in a meaningful way, and then also trying to spread our resources in a more equitable way across residents of the city. And so - to me then - thinking about JumpStart Tax, it's sort of a mini version of a whole budget. Because we had purported values that we stated out when we passed this legislation - saying this is what we want to spend this money on. And then, as with many things, it's the reality of the implementation that lets us see where our priorities truly are. And it sounds like - in 2020, we said very strongly - We need to meaningfully address these issues that we've been in a state of crisis for for a long time, and they've just been getting worse. And people are pointing that out - you see that. What I find really interesting is that the original people who've opposed the JumpStart Tax - so that would be the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association - are these the same people who are now pushing to take the money away from JumpStart's original purposes and redirect it towards other things? [00:16:53] BJ Last: Honestly, yes. They're a lot of the people pushing that they want to - I'll use the phrase - "liberate" JumpStart funds so that it can be used as effectively just more general fund backfill. They also haven't entirely given up on fighting JumpStart. As part of the Revenue Stabilization Task Force that was meeting this year, the representatives from the Metro Chamber of Commerce, she made comments of - Hey, we think we should actually pause JumpStart for a year or two - supposedly to help businesses on recovery. So they are still fighting on JumpStart a little. The opponents of JumpStart have much more moved to - they just want it to be more general fund. [00:17:32] Amy Sundberg: And I do think it's important to state also that when we talk about wanting to allow businesses to recover, JumpStart Tax only applies to very large businesses with very high payroll and very highly paid employees. It's not hitting small businesses - that's not how it was set up. [00:17:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, previous to JumpStart Tax, there was an attempt to pass the Amazon head tax and that did pass, but then eventually got repealed because of a lot of protest. And I believe the JumpStart Tax came out of a coalition that got built after that failed attempt, which included small business groups - because 15% of the JumpStart revenue is supposed to go towards small business support. Which everybody likes to say - small business is super important to the health and vibrancy of the Seattle economy. But are we willing to put our money where our mouth is on that? I just find it pretty insidious the way that they're approaching this because they oppose the tax to begin with, they're still opposing it now, they wanna pause it. But when they ask for the money to go back to the general fund, it seems like it's going back to a lot of their own interests, such as downtown activation. So not only are they taking the money back for themselves, they're also weakening the implementation of what this tax was originally said to do. People probably heard about this tax when they announced it - there was all sorts of glowing praise of this is gonna address meaningfully these problems that everybody cares about. And yet now, by weakening it and taking money away, we can't spend as much of that money on it. And so obviously, when you look at the results of what the JumpStart Tax has done, it will look like it's less. And so I just really wanna call that out. I also wanna call out that the council that passed the JumpStart Tax in July of 2020 is pretty much the same council we currently have other than Councilmember Nelson who replaced Councilmember González in 2021. And JumpStart Tax passed 7-2. The only two councilmembers who did not vote for it were Councilmembers Juarez and Pedersen. How have they been reacting to all this JumpStart scuffling? [00:19:33] Amy Sundberg: They definitely have been less supportive of increasing the JumpStart Tax in any way - that has been noticeable. [00:19:40] BJ Last: Yeah, they have also been very much on the wanting to just throw the spending plan out the window. Actually, it was Councilmember Pedersen who's the first one that I heard use the expression of "liberate" JumpStart funds - create additional flexibility and disregard that. There are also subtler attempts to pretend that the JumpStart spend plan is very unclear, and so potentially needs to be revisited due to that - even though it's actually an extremely clear spend plan. People just keep trying to violate it - it's not that the plan isn't clear, people just keep asking for stuff that goes outside of that spend plan. [00:20:13] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so then the councilmembers who did vote for it - so those would be Councilmembers Herbold, Morales, Sawant, Strauss, Lewis, and then obviously Councilmember Mosqueda, who spearheaded the effort. Are they staying strong behind the values that they voted for on the JumpStart Tax, or has that kind of squished up since then? [00:20:31] Amy Sundberg: I would say - I mean, you know - it's hard to say what is in their hearts, but I would say it's a mix. I think some of them have stayed pretty strong, and I think others of them have, you know, less so. [00:20:45] Shannon Cheng: Okay, fair enough. I guess I'm just concerned 'cause it sounds like this JumpStart Tax issue will continue to carry on, and it is possible that we will lose its biggest champion on the city council next year. So I just want everybody listening to understand what this fight is about and why it's so important. To me, it kind of comes down to differences in opinion over what is gonna float all the boats in this city, right? I mean, business wants us to believe that if we just pour all the money into business and their interests, that that will just generally help everybody. Whereas what JumpStart was trying to do, I believe, is trying to build from the ground up by providing people housing, trying to spread the resources in a more equitable fashion, tackling climate change, providing good jobs that come out of tackling climate change. And so I just really think this is a fight over shifting decision-making about how we spend our resources from being concentrated with a few powerful interests, and letting more people have a say and access to success and opportunities to do well in this city. [00:21:48] Amy Sundberg: I would say Councilmember Mosqueda in particular has been a stalwart advocate of JumpStart. And as the Budget Chair, she has been in good position every year to counter the attempts to try to use JumpStart as more and more of a City slush fund. So if we lose her on Council at the end of this year, that certainly will make it more concerning going forward in terms of what will happen with JumpStart. I'll also say there is this spend plan. It is in statute currently. That statute could be changed, so it's not like it's protected forever. [00:22:21] Shannon Cheng: All right, so everyone - it's Election Day. Get out and vote - try to think about who's gonna be our next champion for the JumpStart Tax. So moving on, we also keep hearing all this news about an upcoming budget shortfall in 2025. What's happening with that? [00:22:39] Amy Sundberg: So the City of Seattle is facing a massive budget deficit starting in 2025. It is now estimated to be around $251 million deficit, which has gone up based on the mayor's proposed budget. So basically, the mayor's proposed budget this year has made the problem worse - potentially - in upcoming years. $251 million is a lot of money. And so the question is, what are we going to do to address that? There are two main ways to do that. You can make cuts to the budget - spend less money. Or you can pass new progressive revenue that will help fund the budget. We are not allowed by law to have a not balanced budget, so that is not an option - it's not on the table. Or of course you can do a combination of cuts and new progressive revenue. So those are kind of the two levers that councilmembers have to play with. And what is relevant in this budget season right now is speaking about new progressive revenue, because if we want to pass new progressive revenue for the City of Seattle, we would need to plan ahead a little bit. Because it will take some time to implement any new progressive revenue that we might pass - there's a ramp up to getting it done. So if we wanted to have that revenue to rely on for 2025, we would really ideally want to pass things now before the end of the year. [00:24:03] BJ Last: What I'd add on to what Amy mentioned is how we actually ended up getting to this upcoming deficit. Over the last two decades roughly, Seattle's population has grown at a really robust clip. We have all seen that. We have not seen the same growth in the general fund revenues that come in. Property tax increases are limited to - I believe it's at most 1% a year for the city - because sales tax also does not increase. So while we are seeing this really big increase in population, we have not seen the same with our general fund. It has really not moved that much. So it isn't the narrative of - Oh, the city has added a bunch of new pet projects or whatever, and that's where it's come from. It's come from largely - the city has gotten bigger and the general fund growth has not kept up with that. 85% of that upcoming deficit projected is all due to just open labor contracts. The Coalition of City Unions - their contracts are open. SPOG - their contract is also open. Paying Coalition of City Unions, paying the City workers - the people that like literally keep the lights on, fix the roads - of actually going and paying them is where this is coming from. [00:25:06] Amy Sundberg: And especially because inflation rates have been so high the last couple of years, right? So that's - they need a much larger raise than they would need if inflation was not high. [00:25:15] BJ Last: Also on the inflation part - thank you, that's a great call out, Amy - growth of the general fund has not kept up with inflation, especially just these last two years. I think there've even been other years where it hasn't happened, but these last two years in particular, we have not seen the general fund grow at the same rate. So things have gotten more expensive for the city that the general fund has to get spent on, but the dollars coming in the door haven't kept up with that. [00:25:35] Shannon Cheng: Is anything being done about that? Did the mayor propose anything about progressive revenue, or thinking about this upcoming problem? [00:25:42] Amy Sundberg: The mayor did not propose anything having to do with new progressive revenue in fact, which is a decision that he has been critiqued for in the local media. And there certainly has been a fair amount of rhetoric about just tightening our belts, right? But to be clear, $251 million - that's a lot of cuts that would drive us straight into an austerity budget, one would think. So that is where the mayor's office has landed, but there have been a lot of conversations about potential new progressive revenue that started with the task force that BJ mentioned earlier, which was brought together to look at various possibilities of what could be good new revenue sources. And certainly there were people that sat on that task force that had a priority of finding good new progressive sources of revenue in particular, as opposed to regressive taxes that will hurt people who have less more. And they did find some reasonable options that would not require a change in state law, and so could potentially be implemented in time to address the 2025 budget shortfall. So I would say that there are three main possibilities at play right now that are being discussed. One of those is a capital gains tax, so we had a capital gains tax at the state level pass - so far it has survived any legal challenges that it has faced. So it would be possible for the City to institute a tax above that. It would be a fairly small amount, probably 1-2% capital gains tax. Councilmember Pedersen originally was the councilmember who suggested this, and he also suggested that we remove a certain water fee. So it'll be interesting to hear a more robust analysis of that water fee to find out - is that truly a regressive tax? Or with various rebates, et cetera, that are available for people - is it not that regressive a tax? Because if we were to take away that water fee, it would be revenue neutral, so it wouldn't actually assist us with the upcoming deficit. Not to say it's still not worthwhile to talk about, even if that's true, because we want to get rid of more regressive taxes and institute more progressive taxes. So either way, that's a good conversation to have - but it's unclear to me more of the details of that water tax, how regressive it is. So that is an important thing to discover. The other two options have to do with the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about. One of them would be just to increase that JumpStart Tax across - it has a tiered structure right now, so across the tiers to just increase it. Councilmember Sawant has already proposed very, very modest increases in that JumpStart Tax in two of her amendments for the 2024 budget to fund specific priorities. So increasing the JumpStart Tax just full stop is one option. Another really intriguing option that has been discussed is something called a CEO pay ratio tax. This would require corporations that pay their top executives exorbitant amounts to pay an extra tax, or fee, or surcharge. So basically what we could do is use the JumpStart Tax as a vehicle by adding an extra layer to it. So there would be an extra tax that would only apply to corporations that exceed a certain CEO pay ratio. And what I have heard about this tax - again, so it would be fairly easy to implement because you don't have to change state law, you would just add an additional layer to an already existent tax. And what I've heard is that it would collect a significant amount of funds, but I don't have any actual numbers on that. So it will be really interesting to hear an analysis of how much money that could potentially actually bring in. And what Councilmember Mosqueda has announced is that there will be an extra Budget Committee meeting after the main 2024 budget is passed to discuss some of these possibilities at more depth. So they will be discussed earlier in November, kind of as a briefing, and then the councilmembers will meet after the budget is passed to potentially vote on some of these possibilities, if they're not already passed in the 2024 budget. [00:30:09] BJ Last: One thing I wanted to mention - so the Revenue Stabilization Group looked at about 20 different taxes. They did a great write-up that finally made it out in August after having been delayed a few times. The three taxes Amy mentioned - one of the reasons that they're at the top three is how quickly they can get implemented. So, you know, we're currently sitting and recording this - it's November, the budget deficit starts on January 1st, 2025. There is very limited time to go and get an ordinance passed and actually then to have that go into effect - since a new tax doesn't go into effect the day that it is passed - and to make sure that it would survive any legal challenges. So there is even like a broader list of things, but because we have kept putting this conversation off, because the city has sort of kept pushing the can down the road, we don't have very much time to go and pass this. We have about 13, 14 months to get something passed and to start having dollars coming in the door before that deficit hits. [00:31:04] Shannon Cheng: All right, so time is of the essence here. And it sounds like although Mayor Harrell didn't put anything in his proposals to address this, at least Council seems like they're gonna be on it in some fashion. So we'll see what comes of that. Okay, so that's the revenue side of the budget. And I think that's helpful for people to understand, 'cause I think it's much easier to talk about what you want to spend money on rather than where that money is gonna come from. I mean, I know I'm like that in my own life. So maybe we need to talk about what are we gonna spend all this money that we're bringing in on. And earlier in the show, talked about a rough breakdown of the general fund - it sounds like a huge portion of that goes towards public safety, which includes the Fire Department and the Police Department. So is the reason why sometimes it feels like there's so much focus on the police budget because they're kind of the biggest chunk of the budget, so that if you were trying to look for places where we could make some savings, it would be there? [00:32:05] BJ Last: I'd say absolutely. Not only are they the biggest chunk - no other department eats up as big a portion of the general fund as SPD does. So not only that, but they also get absurdly special treatment that no other department gets, where a lot of basic budget practices even just get entirely thrown out the window because it's for SPD. Ghost cops are a great example of this. Ghost cops are positions SPD gets funded for, even though they have no plan, intention, or ability to fill these roles. So these are not people that SPD even thinks they can plan - they have said they aren't going in the plan, there's no desire to, but they still get funding for them year after year. There are like 213 of these now currently sitting around and it works out to be - about $31 million of SPD's budget right now is slush fund on this. And we talked about the upcoming deficit in 2025. So a $250 million roughly - $30 million on these guys - you can see that this is a large percentage of the deficit sitting right there in these ghost positions that councilmembers just don't want to touch. And to give a sort of example of how no one else gets treated this way - where they get to just sort of hold on to this positional authority when they have no ability to fill it. Last year, the city abrogated 24 911-dispatcher positions, which - abrogation means they remove positional authority to it. No one probably heard about this 'cause there wasn't a big kerfuffle because it's normal. Council and the mayor and everyone's like - Well, you guys have said you can't hire these guys for the next two years for the duration of the biennium, so we're just gonna remove positional authority to it. If staffing plans change, we can re-add it. We can also add this back into the 2025 biennium if staffing levels have picked up. And in fact, they actually already are adding back about three of them in the supplemental of - in 2024 now in the budget process because their hiring has picked up. So just using 911 dispatch as an example - the ghost cops, the excess positional authority - no other department gets that. Every other department it is what your staffing plan is - the number of people you actually expect to hire - that is the number of positions you get, and that's the number of positions you get funded for. SPD gets this massive slush fund that they get to go and use on whatever the heck they want. And there was also even a technology one that we saw in the 2022 budget. Truleo - it's a technology - it swears it's like AI, natural language processing of body camera footage. SPD specifically asked for additional money for this program as part of the 2022 budget. Council explicitly did not give them funding for this. They said - We are not funding this program. Then the City found out at the start of this year that SPD actually went ahead and bought Truleo anyway. So they ended up canceling the contract, but it ended up as a thing of - usually if a department goes to a company and says, We need additional money for this project - if they don't get that money and then they find a way to fund that project anyway, it raises a lot of questions. Like, why did you say you needed additional money for this if you could already cover it with your additional budget? And hey, all those other items that you said you needed additional money for, that we gave you additional money for - how many of them did you really need additional money for versus you were just attempting to pad out your budget? So that's one of the reasons why it gets a lot of attention. Not only is it just the biggest percentage of the general fund by a lot, but the absurd special treatment that they get. [00:35:29] Shannon Cheng: So SPD is 26% of the general fund? [00:35:33] BJ Last: SPD itself is 24-26%. That does not include the police pension department - that is a separate pension in there. It does not include the Office of Inspector General and the CPC, the Community Police Commission, even though they are also both part of that. So when you start adding all of those, it goes up even over a quarter. And then when you add in the city attorney's office, municipal courts, indigent defense, jail services - what we're spending on carceral - it's a third of the general fund all ends up sitting there. [00:36:05] Shannon Cheng: Wow, okay. Yeah, I see here - just the Seattle Police Department alone, not all those other things you added on - they're sitting at just under $400 million. So what I'm understanding is these ghost cops are haunting, I guess, the Seattle Police Department budget. [00:36:23] BJ Last: These ghost cop positions - they do haunt the general budget. Amy talked about how we're defunding JumpStart. So it's about $85 million last year, $85 million this year, $85 million next year - that's getting transferred from JumpStart to the general fund. So again, transferred from Green New Deal, affordable housing to the general fund. Because SPD gets a quarter of the general fund, that means that $21 million a year roughly is literally going from affordable housing to SPD and its ghost cops. [00:36:54] Shannon Cheng: Oh man. Okay. So, and then they're taking it, and as you said, spending it on things that they were explicitly told not to spend it on or who knows what else, right? We try to dig in and get more transparency into what's going on, but that can be difficult. And just what BJ was saying about budgeting practices and that SPD is not subject to those at times - so I looked at the King County biennial budget for the same time period from 2023 to 2024. And they have line items across all of their appropriation units, including the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, that's called a vacancy rate adjustment. And this is exactly what BJ is describing - it's capturing salary savings from them not having been able to hire and being able to put that back into the general budget so that they can use it for other things that there's a need for. And then in addition to that, last biennium for King County, they had an additional line item specifically only for the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult Juvenile Detention called Capture Additional Vacancy Savings. And here, I'll just read the line item - it says it's to increase expected savings due to vacancies to account for current unprecedented vacancy level. And, you know, it allows the Sheriff's Office and DAJD to request additional appropriation to reverse it if the vacancy rate reverses and that we're able to magically start hiring a ton of people. I mean, we see that there's kind of a nationwide hiring shortage across every kind of profession, but in police and corrections officers as well. So this is not abnormal, and there was not a giant fight in the King County budget when this happened. Just to give you a sense of the magnitude - just from the original base vacancy rate adjustment, it was $5.3 million from the Sheriff's Office. And that additional vacancy savings was $5.7 million. So this is meaningful money that can be used in other places and not just locked up in the - Oh, well, maybe law enforcement will get to use it. Or maybe when they get close to the end of the spending period, they'll just spend it on something that we didn't all agree that we wanted. [00:39:03] Amy Sundberg: I will say as well that SPD has a very optimistic hiring plan and they never hit it - at least for the last several years that I've been following it, they don't hit it. And this year they actually - the department shrank again. They have a negative total when you add in hires minus attrition. So it's still shrinking in spite of these hiring bonuses that we have no evidence actually works. But these ghost cop positions aren't even part of that. They're ones that even SPD says - We definitely aren't gonna hire that this year. It's not taking away from the hiring plan that SPD wants and thinks they can hire. It's additional positions beyond that. And to be clear, it's a couple hundred additional positions. It's not like four or five. [00:39:50] Shannon Cheng: Okay, thanks. 'Cause I feel like people conflate that a lot - this talk of supporting SPD and public safety and fully funding their hiring plan, which it sounds like that's what has been happening, but then you have this conversation about abrogating these positions or ghost cops. And so you're saying that those are two separate things? [00:40:10] BJ Last: Absolutely. SPD - they always put out incredibly optimistic hiring plans, even by their own terms. So their hiring plan for next year is still that they will end up with - I think it's a record number of hires, like more than they've ever had - hiring 125 cops, I think it is. And with the number of cops leaving slowing down. And they're like - Cool, our full hiring plan for next year is roughly 1,130 cops. And they're currently getting funded for like 1,344 cops, something like that - it's a difference of 213 positions between what they've said they can hire and what they actually plan on trying to hire - between that and what they're actually funded for. [00:40:47] Shannon Cheng: What are the issues in the hiring pipeline? Why is there a limit to the number of officers that they would actually be able to hire? [00:40:54] Amy Sundberg: I mean, there's a lot of factors. Primarily, there aren't enough applicants to begin with - not enough people want to become police officers at SPD. That's an issue. But as well, I just also - the hiring process takes time because they have to go through a series of testing and vetting. And then if they aren't lateral hires - if they're new recruits, then they have to go through the academy. And even once they're done with academy, they go through more training on the job, so they're not really full officers at that point yet. So it just - there's a long ramp to hiring new officers. Lateral officers - SPD has a great interest in hiring them because they've already been a police officer somewhere else. So they can kind of get plugged in more easily, directly into SPD. But they've been having a really difficult time finding lateral hires. So far in 2023 - I forget - it was four, five, or six total lateral hires for the entire year. And they had expected to be able to hire many more. And when asked about it, Chief Diaz said that the candidates simply weren't good enough for them to hire more than that. But somehow magically, they expect the candidates to get better next year if you look at who they expect to hire next year, which I think is interesting. [00:42:09] BJ Last: And I'd also say, Amy, none of that is unique to Seattle at all. It was already touched on - this is not just Seattle Police Department is having trouble hiring, this is police departments everywhere. Fewer people want to become cops. And just like Seattle, it really, really wants lateral hires because it's much shorter. I think the timeline from a new recruit is like 18 months before they are counted as a employable officer, or whatever their term is. The lateral is much shorter. So not only does Seattle want them, every other department wants them. Thing is just - people do not want to be cops as much. We know one of the things that isn't a barrier to hiring at all is pay. The average SPD officer made over $155,000 in 2022, based on the City's wage data. So they are making - the city pays an absolute ton for SPD on the individual officer level. There're the hiring bonuses that have been around that don't do anything. So it's - for these lateral hires, it's $30K that they're getting offered, it's $7,500 for a new recruit. So the city has already tried throwing just buckets and buckets of money to see if that would somehow turn into more people wanting to be cops in Seattle. And it has absolutely positively not worked. And that really needs to be acknowledged - not throwing money at this one - that's not going to change things here. It's not unique to Seattle, it's across everything. And it's also one of the reasons why other cities have moved to actually non-police responses to things. Because we look back - tons and tons of studies - SPD did its own study in 2019 that showed, I think it was 56% of all 911 calls are non-criminal. There was the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Study that came out in 2021 - showed 80% of all the calls SPD is currently doing don't match anything in the criminal code, and 49% of those calls could immediately go to the community. So one of the reasons other cities are going into non-police responses is because it's what cops actually do - is they respond to non-criminal stuff, that's where they spend all their time. So why on earth are we throwing all of this money at people to show up, and escalate non-criminal situations, and traumatize people? And Seattle has really dragged its heels on that. After having talked about non-police response for years, multiple studies coming out about how little of SPD's calls are actually anything that counts as criminal, how much could go to community - just this last month, they finally launched a dual dispatch, which is SPD responding to stuff. So years later, the city has just refused to move on this item. [00:44:43] Amy Sundberg: I will also add, since we're in the middle of election season - I keep hearing from candidates that what they want to do to fix public safety in Seattle is hire 500 new cops. And I'll just say, your opinion doesn't matter - regardless of your opinion of whether we should hire more cops, whether you want less cops - we are not gonna hire 500 new cops in Seattle anytime soon. It is literally impossible. It is just not gonna happen. So when I hear candidates say that - I mean, it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, it's not a real solution because there are not 500 new cops for us to hire. And also there's, as BJ said, there's the 18 month ramp up to even get someone trained up to become a police officer. So this is just not reality. [00:45:32] Shannon Cheng: Okay, well, speaking of a mismatch between reality and intended outcomes, I keep hearing about this technology called ShotSpotter. I feel like we had a giant debate over it last year, it sounds like it's reared its ugly head again this year. Can you break down what this fight over ShotSpotter is and why it's important? [00:45:54] BJ Last: Sure, so ShotSpotter at a basic level - well, first off, so the company is now called SoundThinking. They did a rebrand because - yeah, the reputation that ShotSpotter has. It's an acoustic gunshot detection service is what it describes itself as - and it is people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to recordings of loud noises. And then saying whether or not they think that loud noise was a gunshot. That is what ShotSpotter boils down to. Like they swear there's a super fancy AI algorithm, but whatever that AI decides to flag - it goes to people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to a noise, and saying whether or not they think it was a gunshot. And they have a large financial interest in actually saying everything was a gunshot. Because of how the contracts are written - that there's no guarantees that they won't send a lot of false alerts. The only guarantee that is in there is anything where the police actually find that there was evidence of a gunshot - for 90% of those, ShotSpotter will have given an alert. So it's pretty much if they say that something wasn't a gunshot, and it turns out it was, that then could potentially hurt their contract. If they call every single loud noise a gunshot, that has zero impact on them at all. So people listening to loud noises with an incentive to go and say everything's a gunshot. And you are right - we had this fight just last year, when the city went and asked for it. And what this ask was - was they asked for additional funding, specifically for ShotSpotter, which council declined to give them. They're asking for it again. Of that additional money specifically for ShotSpotter - this additional money piece actually though, has no impact on whether or not the city actually purchases ShotSpotter. In order to purchase a subscription to ShotSpotter - because it's a subscriptions purchase, so it becomes an annual expense every single year - SPD has to go through a Surveillance Impact Report, which is they have to meet with the community, put together what would be a lot of - what would be the impacts of this technology, what does it do, get community feedback, and then council also has to go and approve that. SPD has been able to do this any single day that it's wanted to. It could have started this process. When they first asked for it last year, they could have started this process then. In any of the time between last year's budget and now, they could have started this process. So they have not done that. So they're asking for money - again, for something that they've taken no steps to actually get anywhere close to being able to legally purchase. [00:48:17] Amy Sundberg: I think too - I have a lot to say about ShotSpotter - I've spent way too much of the last several weeks of my life thinking about ShotSpotter. And to be honest, I just - I find it personally painful that we're having this discussion again this year. Because not only is ShotSpotter ineffective, so it's a waste of money - which is bad enough. I mean, we obviously do not have money to waste. But it is actively harmful, to be clear. There are many, many studies that show this. It increases the number of pat-downs, searches, and enforcement actions. It justifies the over-policing of Black, Indigenous, and people of color neighborhoods that they are primarily living in. It leads to unnecessary contact between the police and vulnerable populations. And it also leads to false arrests. There have even been some cases where they've shown that possibly some of the "evidence" - I put that in air quotes - "evidence" has been tampered with in various ways. I mean, this is actively harmful. It is not just a waste of money. And then also, this year is being sold as part of a crime prevention pilot. And let me be clear - gun violence is a huge problem. It's a huge problem in Seattle. It's a huge problem in King County. Frankly, it's a huge problem across the entire country. And I don't want to minimize the impacts of that in any way, but there is no evidence that shows that ShotSpotter decreases gun violence. So people who are desperate, who want a solution to that problem, are being sold ShotSpotter as the solution, but it's not true. And that's what I find so painful, right? Is that there's people who desperately need a solution to this problem, and instead of actually giving them one that might have a chance of working, they're given ShotSpotter as a false hope instead - which I find repugnant, frankly. [00:50:13] BJ Last: Oh yeah - it's incredibly predatory what they do, Amy. They prey on communities that are struggling with issues of gun violence - which is a massive issue, as you said, that really has huge impacts - and they sell them something that just makes things worse. You mentioned on some of the - what happens with some of these alerts - Adam Toledo was one of the most famous examples of this. So Adam Toledo was a 13-year-old that the Chicago police killed because they were responding to a ShotSpotter alert. And they chased after a 13-year-old, and ended up shooting him in an alley when his hands were empty - when there was nothing in his hands. So this is the real harm that does come from this. And again, it is preying off of communities that have been disinvested in and that are dealing with real problems of gun violence and being like - Oh, hey, here's something we swear will make it better. And that goes and makes it worse. [00:51:01] Amy Sundberg: I will also say - we had this fight last year, we're having it again. There've been a few new wrinkles that have been introduced this year that I think are important to address. One of them is that this year, they have proposed that along with the ShotSpotter acoustic gunshot technology, that they include CCTV cameras. And what Senior Deputy Mayor Burgess said during one of these budget meetings was that the combination of these two technologies leads to higher accuracy and also better admissibility in court. However, these claims have not been backed up. We did find a study that shows that, in fact, the combination of these two technologies does not improve accuracy. And Councilmember Herbold asked Tim Burgess for his evidence - What makes you think this? A month after she asked, she says she finally received his answer - which was six reports on CCTV alone with no ShotSpotter technology included so does not, in fact, give any evidence that it makes ShotSpotter better. And one kind of manual suggesting that maybe you could combine these two technologies with no study attached. So the only study we have found says, in fact, it does not improve the accuracy. So I think that's really important to note. There seems to be a certain lack of regard from certain quarters for actually looking at the evidence - that I find sad, frankly. And another wrinkle that I'll mention is that BJ talked about the Surveillance Ordinance - the report that they would have to do in order to implement ShotSpotter. In the original proposal from the mayor's office, they asked to do one report - so each report, you have to do a racial equity analysis as part of that report - and they asked to only do one report. But this is mobile technology, so you can pick up the camera and the ShotSpotter tech and you can move it to a different neighborhood. So they would only be doing their racial equity analysis in the original neighborhoods that it was going to be placed, and then they could pick it up and move it to any other neighborhood without having to do another racial equity analysis, which I think is deeply problematic because different neighborhoods are different. And a lot of the neighborhoods that they were talking about originally using this technology on are primarily white. And my concern would be - what if they picked it up and moved it to a community that wasn't primarily white, but didn't have to do a racial impact report on that. That is deeply troubling. And I will say Councilmember Mosqueda, in her balancing package, addressed this problem and said - No, you should do a racial equity impact for each time you move it. So hopefully we won't buy ShotSpotter at all, but hopefully that change will stay if we do - because I think you can't do one impact report for a neighborhood, and then move it somewhere completely different and expect that report to have any validity. [00:54:09] Shannon Cheng: So ShotSpotter doesn't address the problem it's claiming to try to solve. In fact, it sounds like it might be making things worse. And so they're asking this year for about $1.8 million, but what do we know from other cities - once you buy a pilot, this $1.8 million this year, what happens after that? [00:54:28] BJ Last: It's a subscription service. So even if you wanted to maintain the same amount or the same coverage area, you are spending that every single year. So this is, would be an ongoing expense. And that's also assuming the ShotSpotter doesn't change its rates. And then if you decided to expand the footprint of where it is, that's gonna add what you're spending every single year. So it is very much just an ongoing expense into a budget that as we said - hey, is already facing a substantial general fund deficit for something that does not address a serious problem. [00:55:00] Amy Sundberg: And the company SoundThinking - I mean, their business model is to persuade cities to expand. So it would not be surprising to me if we were to start this pilot - if in a few years we were spending more like $10 million on ShotSpotter, that would not shock me. [00:55:16] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so it's - this year, we're trying to decide whether to dip a toe into this ShotSpotter technology, but it could lead to larger expenditures in future years if this initial pilot gets funded further. [00:55:34] BJ Last: Absolutely. And also the ShotSpotter company SoundThinking - they do a lot of other surveillance items. They recently bought PredPol, which is nominally predictive policing, that has all the absolute racial bias issues that you probably imagine the moment that a company said that they can sell you predictive policing. So odds are it would not even be staying at just ShotSpotter - of microphones listening for loud noises - that SoundThinking would be trying to then expand to all of their other horrible, dystopian, incredibly biased technology. [00:56:05] Shannon Cheng: Yay. [00:56:07] Amy Sundberg: It's really concerning, right? I think a lot of people want to hold up technology as this panacea - where it will fix everything. And that is not always the case. And in this case, I would argue it is not at all the case. And there are actually things that we could be investing in that might address the issue much more effectively. [00:56:28] BJ Last: Yeah, like the things that are proven to work on this are low tech items - they're violence interruption programs, resourcing communities, things like that that are actually shown to reduce gun violence. [00:56:39] Amy Sundberg: Even physical changes in the environment have been shown to have a significant effect - like adding more lighting, for example. [00:56:47] Shannon Cheng: So those are some of the big fights over public safety, which - they're really important. Unfortunately, I also feel like they often overshadow some of the other big fights that might be going on - just there's a lot of rhetoric right now about public safety, especially with the ongoing election. So what are some of the other big budget fights that you're seeing in this year's deliberations? [00:57:05] BJ Last: Well, I'd say a lot of those fights are actually also public safety items. Like there are fights on School Safety Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement, SSTPI fund - so that's been getting cut. That is safe routes for kids to walk and bike to school - Vision Zero stuff is also getting cut. We're fighting really to stop that. And so far, at least 22 pedestrians have been killed while walking, biking, or rolling. So that is absolutely a public safety item, I would say. Same with - there are currently amendments to undo the cuts to food safety. The proposed budget cut about $950,000 from food security, so that was 650K roughly for food banks and 300K for food access. I would very much say that food access is also very much a public safety item. I think there was even a French musical, Les Mis - didn't that have a lot to do with an entire revolution because people couldn't afford bread and were hungry? [00:57:58] Amy Sundberg: There also is a fight about funding behavioral health services at Tiny House villages. Right now, that funding is a lot less than it was in 2023 for 2024. And the reason why that's important is because having this funding allows Tiny House villages to house people with higher acuity needs. But if they don't have those services available, then those people can't live there. So, I mean, that's a huge issue. And there are a couple amendments to address that - one of them would take the ShotSpotter money and use it instead to pay for that, which I think is a great use of that money. And there also are fights about pay wages for human service workers - to make sure that all human service workers are getting inflationary increase and a 2% raise on top of that, a true 2% raise on top of that. There have been various little fiddly things regarding that - some of those workers were not covered because they're technically paid through King County or with federal money. But they're still doing the job every day, they still deserve that full 2% raise. So there are amendments that are working to address that shortfall to make sure that those folks get paid a fair wage. [00:59:08] BJ Last: Yeah, and on the 2% raise for human service providers, there's a pay equity study that the University of Washington released - I think it was February this year - that found human service workers in Seattle are underpaid by 37%. So 2% is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we, a city-funded study by UW found that they are currently underfunded by. There was even a resolution passed that wants to increase their wages by 7% by 2025, so this is a small item just trying to move inline with that resolution and to also make progress towards that study. 'Cause again - underpaid by 37% is huge and that impacts people's ability to actually provide services. One other item I'll

covid-19 united states ceo university amazon black chicago ai washington ghosts french care office pride seattle safety budget mayors council vancouver adult commerce indigenous hacks judgment bc property groups stranger bj election day transportation chamber administration sheriffs digging coalition national institutes washington state prejudice morales solidarity city council libraries aclu admin city hall jumpstart green new deal spd public safety strauss cctv 300k police departments pedersen uw cpc les mis tiny houses 30k fire departments lateral inspector general seattle times emerald city re air king county sundberg adam toledo vision zero gbi parks rec shotspotter urbanist josh cohen seattle police department juvenile detention 650k tim burgess budget committee b o sawant jenny durkan wonks south lake union cscc mayor durkan spog downtown seattle association predpol mayor harrell king county jail chief diaz

#41 Conversa de boteco com os sócios da Auddas

De dono para dono

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2023 73:48

No último episódio da primeira temporada do De Dono para Dono, reunimos alguns dos sócios da Auddas. Durante 2023, trouxemos diferentes e incríveis histórias de empreendedores de todo o Brasil, que mostram o lado B do empreendedorismo, aquele núcleo que muitas vezes não está nos holofotes da grande mídia, mas que guarda as histórias mais interessantes. Falamos muito sobre a jornada do empreendedor, sobre aprender, construir, otimizar e capturar valor, e diversos empreendedores falaram sobre suas histórias e trouxeram inúmeros aprendizados para quem acompanhou. Mas por mais que possa ter um caminho até o fim, o mais importante é aproveitar essa jornada. Neste episódio, você vai ver o lado B do lado B. O encerramento vai trazer, dentro das vivências no empreendedorismo dos sócios da Auddas, as histórias que você não verá nos grandes portais de notícias, mas que fazem a jornada tão interessante.

brasil durante neste falamos cios conversa dono boteco b o

Digging into Seattle's Budget Process with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget

music nos va david bowie bonne livres berman vendredi fear street nightwing cc by sa brun chapitre camp crystal lake abonne terreur breakingcopyright b o camp nightwing tslp

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 7, 2023 72:09

On this Tuesday topical show, special guest host Shannon Cheng chats with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget about the City of Seattle budget process. After covering budget basics and where we're at in Seattle's budget process, they cover the ongoing fight over the JumpStart Tax and what's being done (or not done) to address the upcoming $251 million budget deficit in 2025. Next, the trio breaks down the difference between “ghost cops” and the fully-funded SPD hiring plan, as well as why ShotSpotter still isn't a good idea. The show wraps up with a sampling of this year's other budget fights, how people can learn more or get involved, and Amy and BJ's dream budget items! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle, find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg, and find Solidarity Budget at https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/. Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog. BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid. Resources Seattle Solidarity Budget Notes from the Emerald City Tools to Understand the Budget | Seattle City Council “Mosqueda, Council Colleagues Pass JumpStart's COVID Relief Package and Economic Recovery Spending Plan” by Joseph Peha from Seattle City Council Blog “Seattle's Jumpstart payroll tax raised more than expected. Is the money going where it's most needed?” by Angela King & Katie Campbell from KUOW Memorandum: General Fund Deficit Historical Analysis from Seattle City Council Central Staff “Harrell's 2024 Budget Leaves Big Questions on Safety and Looming Shortfall” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist Final Report of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup “Removing Vacant Police Positions in Seattle's Budget Is Good Fiscal Stewardship” by BJ Last for The Stranger “Police Budget Fizz: Hiring Falls Short, Shotspotter Gains Support, Burgess Misrepresents Jane Jacobs” from PubliCola “Nearly half of Seattle police calls don't need officers responding, new report says” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times “Set Money Aside for Illegal Surveillance, or Fund Community Needs Now?” by BJ Last and Camille Baldwin-Bonney for The Stranger “New UW study says human-services workers are underpaid by 37%” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut City of Seattle Budget Office Stop ShotSpotter! Webinar - Seattle Solidarity Budget and ACLU of Washington | Nov 8, 2023 Guaranteed Basic Income Panel - Seattle Solidarity Budget | Oct 10, 2023 The People's Budget Seattle | Vote by Nov 12, 2023 Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everyone! This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I'm here as your special guest host for today. Everyone's been super busy with elections, but another important thing currently happening right now in a lot of our local jurisdictions is that they're having budget deliberations for the coming year. Budgets are super important - we talk a lot about policy on this show, but what really matters in the end is how that policy is implemented and budgets manifest our intent. So Crystal let me take over the show for a day, and I wanted to have some folks on who are closely following the budget here in Seattle. They're two local community organizers with Solidarity Budget. And before we get to meeting them, I just wanted to point out that while we're gonna be focused pretty deeply on the City of Seattle's budget, a lot of what we talk about is applicable to other places. So if you're interested in getting involved in the budget where you live, we can learn something from these experts. So without further ado, I just want to welcome Amy Sundberg and BJ Last. Amy, starting with you, can you tell us a little about yourself and how you got involved with Solidarity Budget? [00:02:00] Amy Sundberg: Yes, hello! It's good to be here. I'm Amy, and I am the publisher and writer of the newsletter Notes from the Emerald City, which is a weekly newsletter that covers issues involving public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system - in our local area - so Seattle and King County mostly, and occasionally the state of Washington. As well, I sometimes cover public safety issues for The Urbanist. And I organize with People Power Washington and Solidarity Budget. Originally, I got my start organizing with People Power Washington and we would uplift the demands of Solidarity Budget. And eventually I connected with the folks at Solidarity Budget and started working with them as well, so that's how I initially got involved. [00:02:45] Shannon Cheng: What about you, BJ? [00:02:46] BJ Last: Hi, thanks. Great to be here. BJ Last - don't do anything as cool as Amy on a regular basis. I've lots of years as a budget analyst, former small business owner, was a professional baker - did pop-ups, but then COVID, so that kind of went by the wayside. I actually first got involved with Solidarity Budget over SPD overtime. SPD has a massive history of overspending on overtime. In 2020, there was a resolution the City passed mid-year saying if SPD overspends on its overtime, we won't give them more money for it. Lo and behold, SPD did. At the end of the year, council was like - Okay, fine, we'll give you more money, but we swear we're gonna take it from you next year to do an offset. And wanted that fight to be like - No, we need to actually try to get that money from them next year to have any kind of budget accountability. And spoiler, that sadly never happened. [00:03:34] Shannon Cheng: I agree with you that Amy is cool and also that the SPD overtime issues are very frustrating. For folks who don't know, could you give a little background on what Solidarity Budget is, and how it came to be, and how you all work together? [00:03:48] BJ Last: Sure thing. So Solidarity Budget came up out of - actually Mayor Jenny Durkan. Groups caught that Mayor Durkan was promising a lot of different groups the exact same pot of money and then being like - Y'all fight amongst yourselves to do this. And groups came together and was like - We're tired of actually just always being pitted against each other and forced to fight each other for scraps in the City budget, while all the funding goes to things that no one was wanting, like while all of the funding goes into SPD. SPD alone is still a quarter of the budget, getting everything carceral - it's about a third of the general fund. So it was that desire of - No, we don't want to be pitted against each other. And just rejecting this framework of - we have to fight against each other for scraps. So coming together as groups to be like - what are our big priorities and saying - Look, we are advocating for all of these things. [00:04:38] Amy Sundberg: I would say in addition, we wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the budget every year, that those most marginalized are centered in that conversation. And often they aren't, right? So it's important to have a coalition who has that front of mind when advocating. [00:04:54] Shannon Cheng: That's super smart. Our experience has been - it can be hard to get heard by electeds, just - if you're not the people in power, sometimes it just feels when you send your email and make your phone call, your voice might not be heard. And so trying to come together and forming a coalition so that you can have a larger voice seems like it would make a lot of sense if you want to push the lever on budget-related issues. Okay, so let's jump into some background and some budget basics before getting deep down into the weeds. Did you want to give, Amy, a sense of what the scale of budgets are at different jurisdictions and then what we're talking about here in Seattle? [00:05:31] Amy Sundberg: Sure. So there are many different government budgets. The biggest one, of course, is the national budget for the United States, which is around $4.4 trillion. So obviously a huge pot of money. Most of that money comes from personal income tax that we all pay every year and also corporate income tax, et cetera, et cetera. Then we have the state budget, which is about $72 billion per year. And then we have the King County budget, which is $6.2 billion per year. So you see, we're kind of getting smaller and smaller as we get into smaller jurisdictions. And then we have the City budget. And city budgets tend to be around $5 to $6 billion per year in total. All of these budgets are made up from various types of taxes and fees, and they each are responsible for funding different services in our communities. [00:06:26] Shannon Cheng: Great. So for the City of Seattle - let's just focus in on that as our example for today's episode. So where does the money for the City of Seattle come from? [00:06:35] Amy Sundberg: If we're talking about - particularly general fund - most of that money would come from property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax, which is a business tax. I think that's about 60% of the funds. And then there are a lot of other very small buckets of money that come in as well to make up the entire amount. [00:06:56] BJ Last: That's a great overview, Amy. And one thing I do want to just mention - so the total Seattle budget is $7.8 billion, but the vast majority of that is stuff that is extremely restricted. For example, we have public utilities. So City Light - that's $1.5 billion - that is all funded by the rates people pay for their electricity. So while that's there in that total number that makes the City's budget look absolutely huge, it's not accessible - the council can't use that to fund things. So the general fund is a much smaller slice of that. It's just about $1.6 billion. And that's the money that the City pretty much has full discretion as to where it decides to go and spend that. [00:07:37] Shannon Cheng: So if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying Seattle's budget is pretty big, but a large part of it is already appropriated to specific things. So when it comes to these priorities that when people - they're looking around at their city or their neighborhood, and they want things - it's gonna have to come out of this thing you call the general fund. Is that correct? [00:07:57] Amy Sundberg: Yes, that's correct. So most of what we're advocating for every year is general fund dollars. [00:08:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, and so you are saying, BJ, that the general fund is about $1.6 billion. So what types of things are currently getting funded out of the general fund? [00:08:14] BJ Last: Yeah, that's correct. So it's $1.6 billion. It's - very broadly defined, Public Safety is 47% of it. And that is SPD, also includes the Office of the Inspector General, the CPC, the police pension - those are all four different departments that are in there, that are all cops. The Fire Department and CARE/CSCC, which is the 911 dispatch - which is currently CSCC, may be getting rebranded CARE soon. So that's 47%. The next biggest bucket is Administration and that's 22%. And Administration is kind of a massive catch-all that includes a lot of things - so major expenditures in there are for indigent defense and the City's contract with the King County Jail. So when SPD goes and arrests someone and puts them in there, the City is effectively leasing part of the jail from King County - and that's to pay part of it. And it also includes things like Judgment and Claims Funds, which is for when people are suing the City - that comes out of there, that's housed in that Admin section. And unsurprisingly, that one's also been increasing a lot lately due to lawsuits coming from 2020, which we know what those were. And then the other thing that is anything really is Education & Human Services, and that's about 15% of the general fund. So those three things of Public Safety, Administration, Education & Human Services account for 80% of the general fund. [00:09:39] Shannon Cheng: Wow, so what's left in that 20% that's remaining? [00:09:43] Amy Sundberg: Oh gosh, it's a lot of small things. Libraries, for example, will get funded out of that. A lot of our Transportation actually gets funded through specific levies, so it wouldn't come from general fund. And I think that's true of Parks & Rec as well. But there might be some little bits of money that go to Transportation and Parks & Rec - they have varied funding sources, basically. [00:10:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, great. So that's the general fund, the discretionary portion of the City of Seattle's budget. So what's happening right now with the process? [00:10:14] Amy Sundberg: When we talk about budget season in Seattle, it's generally just a two-month period in the fall. But really, budget goes on for much of the year - because before the fall, the City departments are having to analyze their budgets and turn in reports to the mayor. And then the Mayor's Office is developing a proposed budget - that's the budget that gets announced at the end of September. At that point, the City Council is able to come in and make their changes that they might wanna see in that proposed budget. So that's where we are right now. First, they review the proposed budget to make sure they understand what's in there and what isn't in there. And then the Budget Chair, who this year is Councilmember Mosqueda, puts together a balancing package - that's a package where she thinks that there is consent amongst the councilmembers, that everyone agrees that these are changes that should be made for the most part. And then each councilmember is given the opportunity to suggest amendments to that balancing package. And they need to get two other councilmembers to sponsor that in order to get those amendments considered. So that's where we are right now - we've just heard the amendments that are being considered. And eventually what will happen is that those amendments will be voted on by the Budget Committee, which is all of the councilmembers to be clear. [00:11:35] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so Mayor Harrell sent over his proposal end of September and we're about a month into the Council's involvement. And this is the budget for next year? [00:11:45] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, for 2024. [00:11:46] BJ Last: So Seattle operates on a biennium budget basis. So last year they set the budget for 2023 and 2024. So this year they're currently doing adjustments to that 2024 budget. And then next year it'll be back to doing the full biennium, where we'll be looking at 2025 and 2026. [00:12:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so this is just finishing up last year's work through the end of the year, and just adjusting based on the realities of how much money is coming in and new needs for expenditures. [00:12:15] Amy Sundberg: Theoretically that is the case. Seattle is a little bit less strict about that than some other municipalities. I would say King County is more of a true biennial budget, whereas Seattle's kind of a biennial budget. And I think actually there's been some push to make it more like King County, to make it more of a true biennium. So we'll see what happens with that. [00:12:36] Shannon Cheng: Okay, interesting. Another thing I keep hearing about all the time is this fight over the JumpStart Tax. And I think it'd be good to just lay out very clearly - what is that fight all about? [00:12:47] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the JumpStart payroll tax passed in the summer of 2020. And then the council passed a spending plan for it in 2021 to put into statute what exactly the JumpStart Tax is supposed to go to pay for. And just so we're clear on what that spend plan is - 62% of JumpStart funds are supposed to go to affordable housing, 9% to Green New Deal, 9% to Equitable Development Initiative, and 15% to small business. What has happened though - basically, because this was going on in the middle of the pandemic - obviously there was a lot more needs, the City budget was a little messier than maybe normally. So they allowed some of these JumpStart Tax dollars to be spent as a kind of a slush fund for the general fund so that we wouldn't have to have an austerity budget. And the idea was that over time this would transition and eventually all of the JumpStart Tax funds would go to those percentages that I mentioned a moment ago. However, what has ended up happening is that every year - regardless of what mayor we have - every year the mayor will take some of the JumpStart dollars and move it over for general fund purposes, instead of those specific Green New Deal and affordable housing purposes. Every year Council kind of tries to claw back those JumpStart funds to put them into the main purposes they were meant for. Now we're still having some budget issues, so there has been - even for this year - some money that Council agreed could be used from JumpStart funds to fund general fund priorities, especially because JumpStart funds ended up being larger than originally anticipated. So the compromise that was struck was that those extra dollars that we weren't originally expecting can be used to kind of help prop up the general fund. But what ends up happening is sometimes more money beyond that gets pulled from JumpStart into the general fund. And of course, because affordable housing in particular is a large percentage of where that money is supposed to go and is such a priority in the city right now, given our housing crisis, this becomes a big fight every year. [00:15:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, yeah - that's helpful. So I think I saw - in 2021, the JumpStart Tax generated $234 million. And so that was one of those years where the City and the Council felt that some of that needed to go towards other things than that spend plan that you referenced. And so about 37% of it ended up going to the general fund. And then that leaves a much smaller slice left for addressing those issues that you listed - housing, small business support, Green New Deal, equitable development - which, if people stop and think about - looking around, what are the biggest issues that the City's facing right now? I mean, that's what these are trying to address - the housing crisis, small businesses struggling after the pandemic, needing to do something about climate change in a meaningful way, and then also trying to spread our resources in a more equitable way across residents of the city. And so - to me then - thinking about JumpStart Tax, it's sort of a mini version of a whole budget. Because we had purported values that we stated out when we passed this legislation - saying this is what we want to spend this money on. And then, as with many things, it's the reality of the implementation that lets us see where our priorities truly are. And it sounds like - in 2020, we said very strongly - We need to meaningfully address these issues that we've been in a state of crisis for for a long time, and they've just been getting worse. And people are pointing that out - you see that. What I find really interesting is that the original people who've opposed the JumpStart Tax - so that would be the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association - are these the same people who are now pushing to take the money away from JumpStart's original purposes and redirect it towards other things? [00:16:53] BJ Last: Honestly, yes. They're a lot of the people pushing that they want to - I'll use the phrase - "liberate" JumpStart funds so that it can be used as effectively just more general fund backfill. They also haven't entirely given up on fighting JumpStart. As part of the Revenue Stabilization Task Force that was meeting this year, the representatives from the Metro Chamber of Commerce, she made comments of - Hey, we think we should actually pause JumpStart for a year or two - supposedly to help businesses on recovery. So they are still fighting on JumpStart a little. The opponents of JumpStart have much more moved to - they just want it to be more general fund. [00:17:32] Amy Sundberg: And I do think it's important to state also that when we talk about wanting to allow businesses to recover, JumpStart Tax only applies to very large businesses with very high payroll and very highly paid employees. It's not hitting small businesses - that's not how it was set up. [00:17:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, previous to JumpStart Tax, there was an attempt to pass the Amazon head tax and that did pass, but then eventually got repealed because of a lot of protest. And I believe the JumpStart Tax came out of a coalition that got built after that failed attempt, which included small business groups - because 15% of the JumpStart revenue is supposed to go towards small business support. Which everybody likes to say - small business is super important to the health and vibrancy of the Seattle economy. But are we willing to put our money where our mouth is on that? I just find it pretty insidious the way that they're approaching this because they oppose the tax to begin with, they're still opposing it now, they wanna pause it. But when they ask for the money to go back to the general fund, it seems like it's going back to a lot of their own interests, such as downtown activation. So not only are they taking the money back for themselves, they're also weakening the implementation of what this tax was originally said to do. People probably heard about this tax when they announced it - there was all sorts of glowing praise of this is gonna address meaningfully these problems that everybody cares about. And yet now, by weakening it and taking money away, we can't spend as much of that money on it. And so obviously, when you look at the results of what the JumpStart Tax has done, it will look like it's less. And so I just really wanna call that out. I also wanna call out that the council that passed the JumpStart Tax in July of 2020 is pretty much the same council we currently have other than Councilmember Nelson who replaced Councilmember González in 2021. And JumpStart Tax passed 7-2. The only two councilmembers who did not vote for it were Councilmembers Juarez and Pedersen. How have they been reacting to all this JumpStart scuffling? [00:19:33] Amy Sundberg: They definitely have been less supportive of increasing the JumpStart Tax in any way - that has been noticeable. [00:19:40] BJ Last: Yeah, they have also been very much on the wanting to just throw the spending plan out the window. Actually, it was Councilmember Pedersen who's the first one that I heard use the expression of "liberate" JumpStart funds - create additional flexibility and disregard that. There are also subtler attempts to pretend that the JumpStart spend plan is very unclear, and so potentially needs to be revisited due to that - even though it's actually an extremely clear spend plan. People just keep trying to violate it - it's not that the plan isn't clear, people just keep asking for stuff that goes outside of that spend plan. [00:20:13] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so then the councilmembers who did vote for it - so those would be Councilmembers Herbold, Morales, Sawant, Strauss, Lewis, and then obviously Councilmember Mosqueda, who spearheaded the effort. Are they staying strong behind the values that they voted for on the JumpStart Tax, or has that kind of squished up since then? [00:20:31] Amy Sundberg: I would say - I mean, you know - it's hard to say what is in their hearts, but I would say it's a mix. I think some of them have stayed pretty strong, and I think others of them have, you know, less so. [00:20:45] Shannon Cheng: Okay, fair enough. I guess I'm just concerned 'cause it sounds like this JumpStart Tax issue will continue to carry on, and it is possible that we will lose its biggest champion on the city council next year. So I just want everybody listening to understand what this fight is about and why it's so important. To me, it kind of comes down to differences in opinion over what is gonna float all the boats in this city, right? I mean, business wants us to believe that if we just pour all the money into business and their interests, that that will just generally help everybody. Whereas what JumpStart was trying to do, I believe, is trying to build from the ground up by providing people housing, trying to spread the resources in a more equitable fashion, tackling climate change, providing good jobs that come out of tackling climate change. And so I just really think this is a fight over shifting decision-making about how we spend our resources from being concentrated with a few powerful interests, and letting more people have a say and access to success and opportunities to do well in this city. [00:21:48] Amy Sundberg: I would say Councilmember Mosqueda in particular has been a stalwart advocate of JumpStart. And as the Budget Chair, she has been in good position every year to counter the attempts to try to use JumpStart as more and more of a City slush fund. So if we lose her on Council at the end of this year, that certainly will make it more concerning going forward in terms of what will happen with JumpStart. I'll also say there is this spend plan. It is in statute currently. That statute could be changed, so it's not like it's protected forever. [00:22:21] Shannon Cheng: All right, so everyone - it's Election Day. Get out and vote - try to think about who's gonna be our next champion for the JumpStart Tax. So moving on, we also keep hearing all this news about an upcoming budget shortfall in 2025. What's happening with that? [00:22:39] Amy Sundberg: So the City of Seattle is facing a massive budget deficit starting in 2025. It is now estimated to be around $251 million deficit, which has gone up based on the mayor's proposed budget. So basically, the mayor's proposed budget this year has made the problem worse - potentially - in upcoming years. $251 million is a lot of money. And so the question is, what are we going to do to address that? There are two main ways to do that. You can make cuts to the budget - spend less money. Or you can pass new progressive revenue that will help fund the budget. We are not allowed by law to have a not balanced budget, so that is not an option - it's not on the table. Or of course you can do a combination of cuts and new progressive revenue. So those are kind of the two levers that councilmembers have to play with. And what is relevant in this budget season right now is speaking about new progressive revenue, because if we want to pass new progressive revenue for the City of Seattle, we would need to plan ahead a little bit. Because it will take some time to implement any new progressive revenue that we might pass - there's a ramp up to getting it done. So if we wanted to have that revenue to rely on for 2025, we would really ideally want to pass things now before the end of the year. [00:24:03] BJ Last: What I'd add on to what Amy mentioned is how we actually ended up getting to this upcoming deficit. Over the last two decades roughly, Seattle's population has grown at a really robust clip. We have all seen that. We have not seen the same growth in the general fund revenues that come in. Property tax increases are limited to - I believe it's at most 1% a year for the city - because sales tax also does not increase. So while we are seeing this really big increase in population, we have not seen the same with our general fund. It has really not moved that much. So it isn't the narrative of - Oh, the city has added a bunch of new pet projects or whatever, and that's where it's come from. It's come from largely - the city has gotten bigger and the general fund growth has not kept up with that. 85% of that upcoming deficit projected is all due to just open labor contracts. The Coalition of City Unions - their contracts are open. SPOG - their contract is also open. Paying Coalition of City Unions, paying the City workers - the people that like literally keep the lights on, fix the roads - of actually going and paying them is where this is coming from. [00:25:06] Amy Sundberg: And especially because inflation rates have been so high the last couple of years, right? So that's - they need a much larger raise than they would need if inflation was not high. [00:25:15] BJ Last: Also on the inflation part - thank you, that's a great call out, Amy - growth of the general fund has not kept up with inflation, especially just these last two years. I think there've even been other years where it hasn't happened, but these last two years in particular, we have not seen the general fund grow at the same rate. So things have gotten more expensive for the city that the general fund has to get spent on, but the dollars coming in the door haven't kept up with that. [00:25:35] Shannon Cheng: Is anything being done about that? Did the mayor propose anything about progressive revenue, or thinking about this upcoming problem? [00:25:42] Amy Sundberg: The mayor did not propose anything having to do with new progressive revenue in fact, which is a decision that he has been critiqued for in the local media. And there certainly has been a fair amount of rhetoric about just tightening our belts, right? But to be clear, $251 million - that's a lot of cuts that would drive us straight into an austerity budget, one would think. So that is where the mayor's office has landed, but there have been a lot of conversations about potential new progressive revenue that started with the task force that BJ mentioned earlier, which was brought together to look at various possibilities of what could be good new revenue sources. And certainly there were people that sat on that task force that had a priority of finding good new progressive sources of revenue in particular, as opposed to regressive taxes that will hurt people who have less more. And they did find some reasonable options that would not require a change in state law, and so could potentially be implemented in time to address the 2025 budget shortfall. So I would say that there are three main possibilities at play right now that are being discussed. One of those is a capital gains tax, so we had a capital gains tax at the state level pass - so far it has survived any legal challenges that it has faced. So it would be possible for the City to institute a tax above that. It would be a fairly small amount, probably 1-2% capital gains tax. Councilmember Pedersen originally was the councilmember who suggested this, and he also suggested that we remove a certain water fee. So it'll be interesting to hear a more robust analysis of that water fee to find out - is that truly a regressive tax? Or with various rebates, et cetera, that are available for people - is it not that regressive a tax? Because if we were to take away that water fee, it would be revenue neutral, so it wouldn't actually assist us with the upcoming deficit. Not to say it's still not worthwhile to talk about, even if that's true, because we want to get rid of more regressive taxes and institute more progressive taxes. So either way, that's a good conversation to have - but it's unclear to me more of the details of that water tax, how regressive it is. So that is an important thing to discover. The other two options have to do with the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about. One of them would be just to increase that JumpStart Tax across - it has a tiered structure right now, so across the tiers to just increase it. Councilmember Sawant has already proposed very, very modest increases in that JumpStart Tax in two of her amendments for the 2024 budget to fund specific priorities. So increasing the JumpStart Tax just full stop is one option. Another really intriguing option that has been discussed is something called a CEO pay ratio tax. This would require corporations that pay their top executives exorbitant amounts to pay an extra tax, or fee, or surcharge. So basically what we could do is use the JumpStart Tax as a vehicle by adding an extra layer to it. So there would be an extra tax that would only apply to corporations that exceed a certain CEO pay ratio. And what I have heard about this tax - again, so it would be fairly easy to implement because you don't have to change state law, you would just add an additional layer to an already existent tax. And what I've heard is that it would collect a significant amount of funds, but I don't have any actual numbers on that. So it will be really interesting to hear an analysis of how much money that could potentially actually bring in. And what Councilmember Mosqueda has announced is that there will be an extra Budget Committee meeting after the main 2024 budget is passed to discuss some of these possibilities at more depth. So they will be discussed earlier in November, kind of as a briefing, and then the councilmembers will meet after the budget is passed to potentially vote on some of these possibilities, if they're not already passed in the 2024 budget. [00:30:09] BJ Last: One thing I wanted to mention - so the Revenue Stabilization Group looked at about 20 different taxes. They did a great write-up that finally made it out in August after having been delayed a few times. The three taxes Amy mentioned - one of the reasons that they're at the top three is how quickly they can get implemented. So, you know, we're currently sitting and recording this - it's November, the budget deficit starts on January 1st, 2025. There is very limited time to go and get an ordinance passed and actually then to have that go into effect - since a new tax doesn't go into effect the day that it is passed - and to make sure that it would survive any legal challenges. So there is even like a broader list of things, but because we have kept putting this conversation off, because the city has sort of kept pushing the can down the road, we don't have very much time to go and pass this. We have about 13, 14 months to get something passed and to start having dollars coming in the door before that deficit hits. [00:31:04] Shannon Cheng: All right, so time is of the essence here. And it sounds like although Mayor Harrell didn't put anything in his proposals to address this, at least Council seems like they're gonna be on it in some fashion. So we'll see what comes of that. Okay, so that's the revenue side of the budget. And I think that's helpful for people to understand, 'cause I think it's much easier to talk about what you want to spend money on rather than where that money is gonna come from. I mean, I know I'm like that in my own life. So maybe we need to talk about what are we gonna spend all this money that we're bringing in on. And earlier in the show, talked about a rough breakdown of the general fund - it sounds like a huge portion of that goes towards public safety, which includes the Fire Department and the Police Department. So is the reason why sometimes it feels like there's so much focus on the police budget because they're kind of the biggest chunk of the budget, so that if you were trying to look for places where we could make some savings, it would be there? [00:32:05] BJ Last: I'd say absolutely. Not only are they the biggest chunk - no other department eats up as big a portion of the general fund as SPD does. So not only that, but they also get absurdly special treatment that no other department gets, where a lot of basic budget practices even just get entirely thrown out the window because it's for SPD. Ghost cops are a great example of this. Ghost cops are positions SPD gets funded for, even though they have no plan, intention, or ability to fill these roles. So these are not people that SPD even thinks they can plan - they have said they aren't going in the plan, there's no desire to, but they still get funding for them year after year. There are like 213 of these now currently sitting around and it works out to be - about $31 million of SPD's budget right now is slush fund on this. And we talked about the upcoming deficit in 2025. So a $250 million roughly - $30 million on these guys - you can see that this is a large percentage of the deficit sitting right there in these ghost positions that councilmembers just don't want to touch. And to give a sort of example of how no one else gets treated this way - where they get to just sort of hold on to this positional authority when they have no ability to fill it. Last year, the city abrogated 24 911-dispatcher positions, which - abrogation means they remove positional authority to it. No one probably heard about this 'cause there wasn't a big kerfuffle because it's normal. Council and the mayor and everyone's like - Well, you guys have said you can't hire these guys for the next two years for the duration of the biennium, so we're just gonna remove positional authority to it. If staffing plans change, we can re-add it. We can also add this back into the 2025 biennium if staffing levels have picked up. And in fact, they actually already are adding back about three of them in the supplemental of - in 2024 now in the budget process because their hiring has picked up. So just using 911 dispatch as an example - the ghost cops, the excess positional authority - no other department gets that. Every other department it is what your staffing plan is - the number of people you actually expect to hire - that is the number of positions you get, and that's the number of positions you get funded for. SPD gets this massive slush fund that they get to go and use on whatever the heck they want. And there was also even a technology one that we saw in the 2022 budget. Truleo - it's a technology - it swears it's like AI, natural language processing of body camera footage. SPD specifically asked for additional money for this program as part of the 2022 budget. Council explicitly did not give them funding for this. They said - We are not funding this program. Then the City found out at the start of this year that SPD actually went ahead and bought Truleo anyway. So they ended up canceling the contract, but it ended up as a thing of - usually if a department goes to a company and says, We need additional money for this project - if they don't get that money and then they find a way to fund that project anyway, it raises a lot of questions. Like, why did you say you needed additional money for this if you could already cover it with your additional budget? And hey, all those other items that you said you needed additional money for, that we gave you additional money for - how many of them did you really need additional money for versus you were just attempting to pad out your budget? So that's one of the reasons why it gets a lot of attention. Not only is it just the biggest percentage of the general fund by a lot, but the absurd special treatment that they get. [00:35:29] Shannon Cheng: So SPD is 26% of the general fund? [00:35:33] BJ Last: SPD itself is 24-26%. That does not include the police pension department - that is a separate pension in there. It does not include the Office of Inspector General and the CPC, the Community Police Commission, even though they are also both part of that. So when you start adding all of those, it goes up even over a quarter. And then when you add in the city attorney's office, municipal courts, indigent defense, jail services - what we're spending on carceral - it's a third of the general fund all ends up sitting there. [00:36:05] Shannon Cheng: Wow, okay. Yeah, I see here - just the Seattle Police Department alone, not all those other things you added on - they're sitting at just under $400 million. So what I'm understanding is these ghost cops are haunting, I guess, the Seattle Police Department budget. [00:36:23] BJ Last: These ghost cop positions - they do haunt the general budget. Amy talked about how we're defunding JumpStart. So it's about $85 million last year, $85 million this year, $85 million next year - that's getting transferred from JumpStart to the general fund. So again, transferred from Green New Deal, affordable housing to the general fund. Because SPD gets a quarter of the general fund, that means that $21 million a year roughly is literally going from affordable housing to SPD and its ghost cops. [00:36:54] Shannon Cheng: Oh man. Okay. So, and then they're taking it, and as you said, spending it on things that they were explicitly told not to spend it on or who knows what else, right? We try to dig in and get more transparency into what's going on, but that can be difficult. And just what BJ was saying about budgeting practices and that SPD is not subject to those at times - so I looked at the King County biennial budget for the same time period from 2023 to 2024. And they have line items across all of their appropriation units, including the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, that's called a vacancy rate adjustment. And this is exactly what BJ is describing - it's capturing salary savings from them not having been able to hire and being able to put that back into the general budget so that they can use it for other things that there's a need for. And then in addition to that, last biennium for King County, they had an additional line item specifically only for the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult Juvenile Detention called Capture Additional Vacancy Savings. And here, I'll just read the line item - it says it's to increase expected savings due to vacancies to account for current unprecedented vacancy level. And, you know, it allows the Sheriff's Office and DAJD to request additional appropriation to reverse it if the vacancy rate reverses and that we're able to magically start hiring a ton of people. I mean, we see that there's kind of a nationwide hiring shortage across every kind of profession, but in police and corrections officers as well. So this is not abnormal, and there was not a giant fight in the King County budget when this happened. Just to give you a sense of the magnitude - just from the original base vacancy rate adjustment, it was $5.3 million from the Sheriff's Office. And that additional vacancy savings was $5.7 million. So this is meaningful money that can be used in other places and not just locked up in the - Oh, well, maybe law enforcement will get to use it. Or maybe when they get close to the end of the spending period, they'll just spend it on something that we didn't all agree that we wanted. [00:39:03] Amy Sundberg: I will say as well that SPD has a very optimistic hiring plan and they never hit it - at least for the last several years that I've been following it, they don't hit it. And this year they actually - the department shrank again. They have a negative total when you add in hires minus attrition. So it's still shrinking in spite of these hiring bonuses that we have no evidence actually works. But these ghost cop positions aren't even part of that. They're ones that even SPD says - We definitely aren't gonna hire that this year. It's not taking away from the hiring plan that SPD wants and thinks they can hire. It's additional positions beyond that. And to be clear, it's a couple hundred additional positions. It's not like four or five. [00:39:50] Shannon Cheng: Okay, thanks. 'Cause I feel like people conflate that a lot - this talk of supporting SPD and public safety and fully funding their hiring plan, which it sounds like that's what has been happening, but then you have this conversation about abrogating these positions or ghost cops. And so you're saying that those are two separate things? [00:40:10] BJ Last: Absolutely. SPD - they always put out incredibly optimistic hiring plans, even by their own terms. So their hiring plan for next year is still that they will end up with - I think it's a record number of hires, like more than they've ever had - hiring 125 cops, I think it is. And with the number of cops leaving slowing down. And they're like - Cool, our full hiring plan for next year is roughly 1,130 cops. And they're currently getting funded for like 1,344 cops, something like that - it's a difference of 213 positions between what they've said they can hire and what they actually plan on trying to hire - between that and what they're actually funded for. [00:40:47] Shannon Cheng: What are the issues in the hiring pipeline? Why is there a limit to the number of officers that they would actually be able to hire? [00:40:54] Amy Sundberg: I mean, there's a lot of factors. Primarily, there aren't enough applicants to begin with - not enough people want to become police officers at SPD. That's an issue. But as well, I just also - the hiring process takes time because they have to go through a series of testing and vetting. And then if they aren't lateral hires - if they're new recruits, then they have to go through the academy. And even once they're done with academy, they go through more training on the job, so they're not really full officers at that point yet. So it just - there's a long ramp to hiring new officers. Lateral officers - SPD has a great interest in hiring them because they've already been a police officer somewhere else. So they can kind of get plugged in more easily, directly into SPD. But they've been having a really difficult time finding lateral hires. So far in 2023 - I forget - it was four, five, or six total lateral hires for the entire year. And they had expected to be able to hire many more. And when asked about it, Chief Diaz said that the candidates simply weren't good enough for them to hire more than that. But somehow magically, they expect the candidates to get better next year if you look at who they expect to hire next year, which I think is interesting. [00:42:09] BJ Last: And I'd also say, Amy, none of that is unique to Seattle at all. It was already touched on - this is not just Seattle Police Department is having trouble hiring, this is police departments everywhere. Fewer people want to become cops. And just like Seattle, it really, really wants lateral hires because it's much shorter. I think the timeline from a new recruit is like 18 months before they are counted as a employable officer, or whatever their term is. The lateral is much shorter. So not only does Seattle want them, every other department wants them. Thing is just - people do not want to be cops as much. We know one of the things that isn't a barrier to hiring at all is pay. The average SPD officer made over $155,000 in 2022, based on the City's wage data. So they are making - the city pays an absolute ton for SPD on the individual officer level. There're the hiring bonuses that have been around that don't do anything. So it's - for these lateral hires, it's 30K that they're getting offered, it's 7,500 for a new recruit. So the city has already tried throwing just buckets and buckets of money to see if that would somehow turn into more people wanting to be cops in Seattle. And it has absolutely positively not worked. And that really needs to be acknowledged - not throwing money at this one - that's not going to change things here. It's not unique to Seattle, it's across everything. And it's also one of the reasons why other cities have moved to actually non-police responses to things. Because we look back - tons and tons of studies - SPD did its own study in 2019 that showed, I think it was 56% of all 911 calls are non-criminal. There was the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Study that came out in 2021 - showed 80% of all the calls SPD is currently doing don't match anything in the criminal code, and 49% of those calls could immediately go to the community. So one of the reasons other cities are going into non-police responses is because it's what cops actually do - is they respond to non-criminal stuff, that's where they spend all their time. So why on earth are we throwing all of this money at people to show up, and escalate non-criminal situations, and traumatize people? And Seattle has really dragged its heels on that. After having talked about non-police response for years, multiple studies coming out about how little of SPD's calls are actually anything that counts as criminal, how much could go to community - just this last month, they finally launched a dual dispatch, which is SPD responding to stuff. So years later, the city has just refused to move on this item. [00:44:43] Amy Sundberg: I will also add, since we're in the middle of election season - I keep hearing from candidates that what they want to do to fix public safety in Seattle is hire 500 new cops. And I'll just say, your opinion doesn't matter - regardless of your opinion of whether we should hire more cops, whether you want less cops - we are not gonna hire 500 new cops in Seattle anytime soon. It is literally impossible. It is just not gonna happen. So when I hear candidates say that - I mean, it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, it's not a real solution because there are not 500 new cops for us to hire. And also there's, as BJ said, there's the 18 month ramp up to even get someone trained up to become a police officer. So this is just not reality. [00:45:32] Shannon Cheng: Okay, well, speaking of a mismatch between reality and intended outcomes, I keep hearing about this technology called ShotSpotter. I feel like we had a giant debate over it last year, it sounds like it's reared its ugly head again this year. Can you break down what this fight over ShotSpotter is and why it's important? [00:45:54] BJ Last: Sure, so ShotSpotter at a basic level - well, first off, so the company is now called SoundThinking. They did a rebrand because - yeah, the reputation that ShotSpotter has. It's an acoustic gunshot detection service is what it describes itself as - and it is people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to recordings of loud noises. And then saying whether or not they think that loud noise was a gunshot. That is what ShotSpotter boils down to. Like they swear there's a super fancy AI algorithm, but whatever that AI decides to flag - it goes to people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to a noise, and saying whether or not they think it was a gunshot. And they have a large financial interest in actually saying everything was a gunshot. Because of how the contracts are written - that there's no guarantees that they won't send a lot of false alerts. The only guarantee that is in there is anything where the police actually find that there was evidence of a gunshot - for 90% of those, ShotSpotter will have given an alert. So it's pretty much if they say that something wasn't a gunshot, and it turns out it was, that then could potentially hurt their contract. If they call every single loud noise a gunshot, that has zero impact on them at all. So people listening to loud noises with an incentive to go and say everything's a gunshot. And you are right - we had this fight just last year, when the city went and asked for it. And what this ask was - was they asked for additional funding, specifically for ShotSpotter, which council declined to give them. They're asking for it again. Of that additional money specifically for ShotSpotter - this additional money piece actually though, has no impact on whether or not the city actually purchases ShotSpotter. In order to purchase a subscription to ShotSpotter - because it's a subscriptions purchase, so it becomes an annual expense every single year - SPD has to go through a Surveillance Impact Report, which is they have to meet with the community, put together what would be a lot of - what would be the impacts of this technology, what does it do, get community feedback, and then council also has to go and approve that. SPD has been able to do this any single day that it's wanted to. It could have started this process. When they first asked for it last year, they could have started this process then. In any of the time between last year's budget and now, they could have started this process. So they have not done that. So they're asking for money - again, for something that they've taken no steps to actually get anywhere close to being able to legally purchase. [00:48:17] Amy Sundberg: I think too - I have a lot to say about ShotSpotter - I've spent way too much of the last several weeks of my life thinking about ShotSpotter. And to be honest, I just - I find it personally painful that we're having this discussion again this year. Because not only is ShotSpotter ineffective, so it's a waste of money - which is bad enough. I mean, we obviously do not have money to waste. But it is actively harmful, to be clear. There are many, many studies that show this. It increases the number of pat-downs, searches, and enforcement actions. It justifies the over-policing of Black, Indigenous, and people of color neighborhoods that they are primarily living in. It leads to unnecessary contact between the police and vulnerable populations. And it also leads to false arrests. There have even been some cases where they've shown that possibly some of the "evidence" - I put that in air quotes - "evidence" has been tampered with in various ways. I mean, this is actively harmful. It is not just a waste of money. And then also, this year is being sold as part of a crime prevention pilot. And let me be clear - gun violence is a huge problem. It's a huge problem in Seattle. It's a huge problem in King County. Frankly, it's a huge problem across the entire country. And I don't want to minimize the impacts of that in any way, but there is no evidence that shows that ShotSpotter decreases gun violence. So people who are desperate, who want a solution to that problem, are being sold ShotSpotter as the solution, but it's not true. And that's what I find so painful, right? Is that there's people who desperately need a solution to this problem, and instead of actually giving them one that might have a chance of working, they're given ShotSpotter as a false hope instead - which I find repugnant, frankly. [00:50:13] BJ Last: Oh yeah - it's incredibly predatory what they do, Amy. They prey on communities that are struggling with issues of gun violence - which is a massive issue, as you said, that really has huge impacts - and they sell them something that just makes things worse. You mentioned on some of the - what happens with some of these alerts - Adam Toledo was one of the most famous examples of this. So Adam Toledo was a 13-year-old that the Chicago police killed because they were responding to a ShotSpotter alert. And they chased after a 13-year-old, and ended up shooting him in an alley when his hands were empty - when there was nothing in his hands. So this is the real harm that does come from this. And again, it is preying off of communities that have been disinvested in and that are dealing with real problems of gun violence and being like - Oh, hey, here's something we swear will make it better. And that goes and makes it worse. [00:51:01] Amy Sundberg: I will also say - we had this fight last year, we're having it again. There've been a few new wrinkles that have been introduced this year that I think are important to address. One of them is that this year, they have proposed that along with the ShotSpotter acoustic gunshot technology, that they include CCTV cameras. And what Senior Deputy Mayor Burgess said during one of these budget meetings was that the combination of these two technologies leads to higher accuracy and also better admissibility in court. However, these claims have not been backed up. We did find a study that shows that, in fact, the combination of these two technologies does not improve accuracy. And Councilmember Herbold asked Tim Burgess for his evidence - What makes you think this? A month after she asked, she says she finally received his answer - which was six reports on CCTV alone with no ShotSpotter technology included so does not, in fact, give any evidence that it makes ShotSpotter better. And one kind of manual suggesting that maybe you could combine these two technologies with no study attached. So the only study we have found says, in fact, it does not improve the accuracy. So I think that's really important to note. There seems to be a certain lack of regard from certain quarters for actually looking at the evidence - that I find sad, frankly. And another wrinkle that I'll mention is that BJ talked about the Surveillance Ordinance - the report that they would have to do in order to implement ShotSpotter. In the original proposal from the mayor's office, they asked to do one report - so each report, you have to do a racial equity analysis as part of that report - and they asked to only do one report. But this is mobile technology, so you can pick up the camera and the ShotSpotter tech and you can move it to a different neighborhood. So they would only be doing their racial equity analysis in the original neighborhoods that it was going to be placed, and then they could pick it up and move it to any other neighborhood without having to do another racial equity analysis, which I think is deeply problematic because different neighborhoods are different. And a lot of the neighborhoods that they were talking about originally using this technology on are primarily white. And my concern would be - what if they picked it up and moved it to a community that wasn't primarily white, but didn't have to do a racial impact report on that. That is deeply troubling. And I will say Councilmember Mosqueda, in her balancing package, addressed this problem and said - No, you should do a racial equity impact for each time you move it. So hopefully we won't buy ShotSpotter at all, but hopefully that change will stay if we do - because I think you can't do one impact report for a neighborhood, and then move it somewhere completely different and expect that report to have any validity. [00:54:09] Shannon Cheng: So ShotSpotter doesn't address the problem it's claiming to try to solve. In fact, it sounds like it might be making things worse. And so they're asking this year for about $1.8 million, but what do we know from other cities - once you buy a pilot, this $1.8 million this year, what happens after that? [00:54:28] BJ Last: It's a subscription service. So even if you wanted to maintain the same amount or the same coverage area, you are spending that every single year. So this is, would be an ongoing expense. And that's also assuming the ShotSpotter doesn't change its rates. And then if you decided to expand the footprint of where it is, that's gonna add what you're spending every single year. So it is very much just an ongoing expense into a budget that as we said - hey, is already facing a substantial general fund deficit for something that does not address a serious problem. [00:55:00] Amy Sundberg: And the company SoundThinking - I mean, their business model is to persuade cities to expand. So it would not be surprising to me if we were to start this pilot - if in a few years we were spending more like $10 million on ShotSpotter, that would not shock me. [00:55:16] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so it's - this year, we're trying to decide whether to dip a toe into this ShotSpotter technology, but it could lead to larger expenditures in future years if this initial pilot gets funded further. [00:55:34] BJ Last: Absolutely. And also the ShotSpotter company SoundThinking - they do a lot of other surveillance items. They recently bought PredPol, which is nominally predictive policing, that has all the absolute racial bias issues that you probably imagine the moment that a company said that they can sell you predictive policing. So odds are it would not even be staying at just ShotSpotter - of microphones listening for loud noises - that SoundThinking would be trying to then expand to all of their other horrible, dystopian, incredibly biased technology. [00:56:05] Shannon Cheng: Yay. [00:56:07] Amy Sundberg: It's really concerning, right? I think a lot of people want to hold up technology as this panacea - where it will fix everything. And that is not always the case. And in this case, I would argue it is not at all the case. And there are actually things that we could be investing in that might address the issue much more effectively. [00:56:28] BJ Last: Yeah, like the things that are proven to work on this are low tech items - they're violence interruption programs, resourcing communities, things like that that are actually shown to reduce gun violence. [00:56:39] Amy Sundberg: Even physical changes in the environment have been shown to have a significant effect - like adding more lighting, for example. [00:56:47] Shannon Cheng: So those are some of the big fights over public safety, which - they're really important. Unfortunately, I also feel like they often overshadow some of the other big fights that might be going on - just there's a lot of rhetoric right now about public safety, especially with the ongoing election. So what are some of the other big budget fights that you're seeing in this year's deliberations? [00:57:05] BJ Last: Well, I'd say a lot of those fights are actually also public safety items. Like there are fights on School Safety Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement, SSTPI fund - so that's been getting cut. That is safe routes for kids to walk and bike to school - Vision Zero stuff is also getting cut. We're fighting really to stop that. And so far, at least 22 pedestrians have been killed while walking, biking, or rolling. So that is absolutely a public safety item, I would say. Same with - there are currently amendments to undo the cuts to food safety. The proposed budget cut about $950,000 from food security, so that was 650K roughly for food banks and 300K for food access. I would very much say that food access is also very much a public safety item. I think there was even a French musical, Les Mis - didn't that have a lot to do with an entire revolution because people couldn't afford bread and were hungry? [00:57:58] Amy Sundberg: There also is a fight about funding behavioral health services at Tiny House villages. Right now, that funding is a lot less than it was in 2023 for 2024. And the reason why that's important is because having this funding allows Tiny House villages to house people with higher acuity needs. But if they don't have those services available, then those people can't live there. So, I mean, that's a huge issue. And there are a couple amendments to address that - one of them would take the ShotSpotter money and use it instead to pay for that, which I think is a great use of that money. And there also are fights about pay wages for human service workers - to make sure that all human service workers are getting inflationary increase and a 2% raise on top of that, a true 2% raise on top of that. There have been various little fiddly things regarding that - some of those workers were not covered because they're technically paid through King County or with federal money. But they're still doing the job every day, they still deserve that full 2% raise. So there are amendments that are working to address that shortfall to make sure that those folks get paid a fair wage. [00:59:08] BJ Last: Yeah, and on the 2% raise for human service providers, there's a pay equity study that the University of Washington released - I think it was February this year - that found human service workers in Seattle are underpaid by 37%. So 2% is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we, a city-funded study by UW found that they are currently underfunded by. There was even a resolution passed that wants to increase their wages by 7% by 2025, so this is a small item just trying to move inline with that resolution and to also make progress towards that study. 'Cause again - underpaid by 37% is huge and that impacts people's ability to actually provide services. One other item I'll throw out - there was also a cut in the budget to ADA accessibility. The reason that the City specifically funds this

covid-19 united states ceo university amazon black chicago ai washington ghosts french care office pride seattle safety budget mayors council vancouver adult commerce indigenous hacks judgment bc property groups stranger bj election day transportation chamber administration sheriffs digging coalition national institutes washington state prejudice morales solidarity city council libraries aclu admin city hall jumpstart green new deal spd public safety strauss cctv 300k police departments pedersen uw cpc les mis tiny houses 30k fire departments lateral inspector general seattle times emerald city king county sundberg adam toledo vision zero gbi parks rec shotspotter urbanist josh cohen seattle police department juvenile detention 650k tim burgess budget committee b o sawant jenny durkan wonks south lake union cscc mayor durkan spog downtown seattle association predpol mayor harrell king county jail chief diaz

TSLP 159. Fear Street, partie 2: 1978 (2021)

Terreur sur le Pod

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2023 137:41

Invité: Marco Simoneau 2e film de la franchise de Bruno. Nous retrouvons certains personnages du 1er opus et nous faisons la connaissance de la jeune C. Berman et de sa sœur. Celle qui meurt 1 semaine plus tard! Nos protagonistes passent l'été au Camp Nightwing (qui nous fait penser au Camp Crystal Lake). Un endroit où rôde un tueur qui porte le même prénom que celui qui a "tué" Jason dans Vendredi 13: Chapitre final. Il y a même un personnage qui s'appelle Alice! Au menu: Le duo Marco et Bruno (qui fait la cloche), des rapprochements avec les slashers des années 80, des divergences de vision sur l'identité de la vraie C. Berman, présence spirituelle de David Bowie, de multiple jeux de mots et surtout, beaucoup de plaisir avec notre invité. Bonne écoute! Tu peux échanger avec nous sur: https://www.instagram.com/terreursurlepodpodcast/ https://www.facebook.com/Terreur-sur-le-Pod-111446400732063 https://www.instagram.com/lafreniere.serge/ @surlepod sur Twitter Tu désires avoir accès à plus de contenus de TSLP? Abonne-toi à notre Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/terreursurlepod La semaine prochaine : Fear Street, partie 3: 1666 (2021) Fear Street 1978 Résumé chanté Taylor Swift - Look What You Made Me Do https://youtu.be/3tmd-ClpJxA?si=aCQX6MxRb3LS90gG Instrumental: https://youtu.be/WWLIrXY3_OA?si=3fFC_aGzNG5NrHCt On se retrouve au camp Nightwing dans les années slasheurs Accompagnés de Sadie Sinks qui va contrer les tueurs A s'fait brûler en dessous d'l'aisselle avec un ptit lighteur "Ah Allo Thomas! Mais pourquoi as-tu une hache?" Où? Mais Fear Street, elle est où? Mais Fear Street, elle est où? Mais où est-elle cachée? Va-t-elle me faire un peek à B-- Où? Mais Fear Street, elle est où? Mais Fear Street, elle est où? Mais où est-elle cachée? Va-t-elle me faire un peek à B-- Ô! À Terreur sur le Pô La franchise à Brunô 1978, nous on reçoit le beau Marc-- Ô! À Terreur sur le Pô La franchise à Brunô 1978, nous on re... Livres audio FEAR STREET https://www.youtube.com/@nightfallaudiobooks "Vadim Krakhmal - Whales Of The North" is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: https://soundcloud.com/jeaniro/hydrosphere-whales-of-the-north-orchestral-cinematic Horror Ambiance - Ominous Background Music https://youtu.be/xAO3x-Uhfoo ESN Productions Fin: "Thirsty" Produite par Marc-Olivier Simoneau

Podcast #1116: CEDIA 2023 with DJ from Bright Side Home Theater

HDTV and Home Theater Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2023 69:50

This week DJ Briggs from BrightSideHometheater.com joins the show to discuss what he saw at CEDIA. We also read your emails and take a look at the week's news. News: Hisense upstages TCL by adding a gigantic 100-inch mini-LED TV 2023 CEDIA Expo Best of Show Winners Last week the Custom Electronic Design And Installation Association better known as CEDIA had their annual show in Denver CO. On today's show we will discuss some of the awards that were given out. CEDIA is the global industry association and central touch point for smart home technology, provides members with cutting-edge education, develops standards to ensure the highest levels of professionalism, and is the industry's only certifying body. CEDIA furthers collaboration with architects, designers, builders, and homeowners to deliver technology solutions that allow families to experience their best moments in life in the comfort of their own homes. Below are the awards from Residential System, TWICE and What Hi-Fi. We are not going through the entire list but we pick products that we feel our listeners not only are interested in but can afford to buy (well some of them anyway). We also have a bonus section where DJ Briggs of BightSideHomeTheater.com gives us his list of five things he thought were super cool. Check out his podcast to find out why he felt that way. Residential Systems entries were judged through the lens of the residential integrator, while TWICE based theirs on a consumer electronics retail view and What Hi-Fi? from the home entertainment enthusiast perspective. Residential Systems Best of Show Awards Winners AWOL Vision AWOL Vision 150” 4K 3D RGB Laser Projector LTV-3500 Pro $6000 All the AWOL Vision laser projectors have been officially Dolby Vision certified by Dolby Lab The Dolby Vision feature can be activated by updating the incoming September 2023 version firmware wirelessly regardless of when you bought it. True 3500 ANSI Lumens, the LTV-3500 UST projector is the brightest, triple-laser 4K UST projector on the market. Cinematic 3D Display With high enough brightness even during the day, LTV-3500 4k laser projector is the best choice for you. Paired with our ALR Day light projector screen, LTV-3500 delivers bright and sharp details even under high ambient light, no need for blackout curtains. The AWOL VISION UST 4K projector covers 107% of the top BT 2020 Color Gamut. It reaches 147% of DCI-P3 used for digital movie theater projection, giving you superior contrast and color accuracy. Epson America, Inc. Epson EpiqVision Ultra LS800 4K PRO-UHD Ultra Short-Throw 3-Chip 3LCD Smart Streaming Laser Projector $3500 Picture sizes up to 150" in 16:9 Modern Low Profile Design 4K PRO-UHD Resolution¹ 3-Chip 3LCD Technology 10-Bit HDR Color 4,000 Lumens of Color & White Brightness² Over 2,500,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio 2.1 Audio System by Yamaha Three HDMI 2.0 Ports (1 ARC) 16.7ms Input Lag – Ideal for Gaming Built-In Android TV³ Easy Setup App for iOS & Android 2-Year Limited Warranty Available in Black or White Ethereal 8 Meter Velox Passive HDMI Cable $240 Supports up to 48Gbps, 4K/120, 8K/60 & Dynamic HDR Advanced features in metallurgy, topology, dielectric and shielding 3mm Shield Strip-back - helps to reduce 6G jitter 100% Copper Shielding - reduces EMI Bypass ground - provides better return loss Conductors direct solder to connector Audio Return Channel (eARC and ARC) Grip-Lox™ terminal Furrion Aurora 2.1 Outdoor Soundbar Speaker with Wireless Subwoofer $770 Six speaker system with bass radiator for powerful sound output 130W of explosive, high-definition audio Wireless 8" subwoofer to add more bass Speaker Frequency response: 200Hz-18kHz Subwoofer frequency response: 16Hz-256Hz Multiple equalizer settings for customized audio tuning Bluetooth® 5.0 enabled for easy pairing with TV and other mobile devices HDMI and optical inputs for connecting devices IP45-rated weatherproof housing to protect against the elements Weatherproof remote control, HDMI ARC cable and mounting brackets included Furrion Aurora Sun 4K UHD LED Outdoor Smart TV with HDR10 starting at $3000 Smart platform powered by webOS Hub allows for streaming your favorite apps, movies and shows 4K ultra-high definition HDR10 Technology Anti-glare, 1500-nit LED screen RangeXtend™ external antennas for stronger WiFi signal IP54 rated, weatherproof housing Works with Furrion Aurora Soundbar, mounts & covers XtremeShield™ IK08-rated impact-resistant screen for protection against collisions and scratches Connects to Furrion soundbars via Bluetooth, HDMI or optical inputs HD Anywhere uControl Smart Remote uControl is a smart home system that focuses on the things you do in your home everyday. From enjoying your favorite TV shows, immersing yourself in music or effortlessly changing the lighting to suit your mood, all from one unified, universal and unintimidating interface. PSB Speakers Alpha IQ Powered Speakers $1300/pr A simplified approach to audio, the Alpha iQ comes equipped with a built-in digital amplifier and BluOS streaming so you can access and control everything from streaming services and digital music collections to EQ settings and multi-room speaker management. A versatile addition to any home audio system, whether in a stereo set-up, home theater, TV speaker or as bookshelf speakers. ¾” (19mm) Aluminum dome tweeter with ferrofluid neodymium magnet 4” (100mm) Polypropylene mid-bass driver with steel basket and rubber surround Tuned port and DSP-enabled bass extension Built-in network streamer based on BluOS platform Audiophile-grade DAC supports resolution up to 24-bit/192kHz Supports Apple AirPlay 2, Bluetooth, Spotify Connect and Tidal Connect Sony Electronics BRAVIA XR 65” Class A95L QD-OLED 4K HDR Google TV $3500 65” $5000 77” Sony Electronics STRAZ5000ES Premium ES 11.2 CH 8K A/V Receiver $2100 Sony Electronics STRAZ7000ES Premium ES 13.2 CH 8K A/V Receiver $3300 Sony Electronics VPL-XW6000ES 4K HDR Laser Home Theater Projector with Native 4K SXRD Panel $12000 Sony Electronics VPL-XW7000ES 4K HDR Laser Home Theater Projector with Native 4K SXRD Panel $28000 StormAudio ISR Fusion 20 AV Receiver Based on the award-winning ISP Elite MK3 platform, the Immersive Sound Receiver Fusion 20 is a 20-channels processor integrating 16 channels of the latest Edge amplification technology from Danish based ICE Power, exhibiting extremely low noise and distortion levels with 150W (8ohm) per channel, and up to 500W (8ohm) when bridged. TWICE Best of Show Awards Winners AWOL Vision AWOL Vision 150” 4K 3D RGB Laser Projector LTV-3500 Pro $6000 - see above Ethereal 8 Meter Velox Passive HDMI Cable $240 - see above Hisense 100″U8K $10,000 See News Story Samsung 77” Class S95C OLED 4K TV $4200 Samsung 98” Class Neo QLED 8K TV (QN990C) $40000 Samsung 85” Class The Terrace 4K TV (Outdoor TV Full Sun) $20,000 Samsung HW-Q990C Soundbar 11.1.4 ch. Wireless Dolby ATMOS Soundbar $1600 Sony Electronics BRAVIA XR 65” Class A95L QD-OLED 4K HDR Google TV $3500 65” $5000 77” Sony Electronics VPL-XW6000ES 4K HDR Laser Home Theater Projector with Native 4K SXRD Panel $12000 Sony Electronics STRAZ7000ES Premium ES 13.2 CH 8K A/V Receiver $3300 Sony STRAZ3000ES Premium ES 9.2 CH 8K A/V Receiver $1700 Sony STR-AN1000 7.2 Channel 8K A/V Receiver $700 What Hi-Fi? Best of Show Winners Hisense L9H TriChroma Laser UST Projector ($5500 - $6500) Trichroma™ Triple-Laser Light Engine 4K Resolution 25,000 hour lifespan Reaches over 1 billion colors (107% of BT.2020 color space) New Ambient Light Rejecting (ALR) Screen 3000 ANSI lumens brightness 2,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio Google TV Dolby Vision / Dolby Atmos 3 HDMI (2 x 4K@120hz,1 x eARC) Smooth Motion and MEMC Game Mode ATSC 3.0 Wi-Fi 6e Wi-Fi 6e 40-Watt Built-in Speakers Sizes: 100” and 120” Availability: Summer 2023 Sony HT-S2000 3.1ch Dolby Atmos® Soundbar $300 The HT-S2000 soundbar delivers high-quality audio and an upscaled cinematic surround sound experience for all your content. Built for the Sony ecosystem, this soundbar solution is compatible with Sony SA-SW3, SA-SW5 subwoofers and SA-RS3S rear speakers and integrates fully with BRAVIA XR™ TVs. DJ Briggs CEDIA Wrap Top 5 Room Experiences (5) JVC (8 New Projectors 6 8K and 2 4K) Amazing 8K Picture Amazing 4K HDR Stewart Screen Great Next Gen (2) tone mapping (4) Sony 7000 Projector and 7000 Receiver Fantastic Overall Experience No Amps 4 ohm Kef Speakers No Video Processing 180” firehawk 1.3 gain Stewart Screen $68K for EVERYTHING in the room (3) SVS No roof PB 16 Ultras ($2900) ROCKED the Media Floor Bang & Olufsen right next to them and they were drowning them out and they were IN A ROOM and B&O was in the open

tv black smart built winner sony picture wifi led samsung danish arc bluetooth eq 4k reaches wireless bt connects pb bright side denver colorado ports rocked tuned ultras aluminum paired 8k ltv projector hdmi dsp ethereal dac ust 6g tcl future tech audiophiles ios android conductors ansi home theater dolby vision jvc hisense lumens b o hdr10 cedia spotify connect led tv weatherproof polypropylene dci p3 in a room residential systems

Business Perspectives with GSBA's Gabriel Neuman

Care of Magical Shippers: A Harry Potter Ship Culture Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2023 37:05

On this Tuesday topical show, Gabriel Neuman, Policy Counsel & Government Relations Manager for GSBA, has a conversation with Crystal about the organization's work as Washington's LGBTQ+ Chamber of Commerce. With a focus on community building and inclusion work, GSBA stands out from traditional business-oriented organizations in the support and services they provide to their member businesses. Crystal and Gabriel then discuss the business perspective and how GSBA is getting involved on challenges faced such as business taxation, workforce development, childcare accessibility, public safety, housing and homelessness. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find more about GSBA at thegsba.org. Gabriel Neuman Gabriel Neuman (he/him) is GSBA's Policy Counsel & Government Relations Manager. Gabriel began working as GSBA's Office Manager in 2019, when he was attending evening classes at Seattle University School of Law. He has been thrilled to continue to serve GSBA after law school in the public policy world. Now, he collaborates with GSBA membership and local leadership to understand community needs and transforms those perspectives into advocacy. Prior to joining GSBA, Gabriel worked in the legal field and studied Political Science and Public Affairs, also at Seattle University, while collaborating with grassroots organizations on improving child welfare policy. Outside of work Gabriel enjoys crocheting, gardening, reading sci-fi, and live music. Resources GSBA GSBA and CHBA Present: District 3 Candidate Reception on Thursday, July 20, 2023, 4:30-6:30p Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am excited about today's show and to be welcoming Gabriel Neuman, who is Policy Counsel and Government Relations Manager of GSBA. Welcome. [00:01:02] Gabriel Neuman: Thank you - I'm excited to be here. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much - great to be able to have this conversation with you. I think I just want to start out by helping the listeners understand - who is GSBA, what does GSBA do, and what brought you to this work? [00:01:18] Gabriel Neuman: GSBA is Washington's LGBTQ+ Chamber of Commerce. We started in the '80s as a way for LGBTQ folks in Seattle to find organizations and businesses that will accept them and provide a safe space for them. And over the years, it's evolved to form this big organization we have now. We have a scholarship program, which we began in the '90s, and we provide four years of recurring funding for students that are LGBTQ+ and allied. In addition to that, our chamber focuses primarily on serving small local businesses. And so through our chamber programs, we have a ton - we have a Business Academy, which is small business support through classes, and then we have one-on-one consults - so we help you create and sustain a business through questions and support. We have our networking and business connections pieces of our chamber - we host a lot of events under that. And then we also have our advocacy wing, which really focuses on trying to create a sustainable economic landscape for LGBTQ folks in Washington. So that's kind of GSBA in a nutshell - there's a whole bunch more. And for me personally - why I decided to join this work - I actually started to work at GSBA as office administrator, where I worked full-time while I was in Seattle University School of Law part-time during evening classes. And I came to GSBA because I really wanted to do something within my community. And I stayed because policy has always been a passion of mine and something that I wanted to do in a career. And GSBA was really supportive in providing that opportunity for me, and it just kind of ended up working out, so excited to be here. [00:02:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And so for a lot of people listening, sometimes on the news you hear a lot about the Seattle Chamber, Downtown Seattle Association. There are a number of business-oriented organizations throughout the city, county, and state - what really differentiates you and the work that you do at GSBA, and some of the results or work that you've done with members that you're particularly proud of? [00:03:26] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, I think there are quite a few kind of different touch points. The Seattle Chamber and DSA are fantastic organizations, and we work well with them. But I would say that GSBA is focused a little bit more on the community-building aspect. And so we understand that to foster a collaborative environment and a business community that is sustainable for everybody, that means that everybody in the community needs to come and be invited to that table. And so GSBA really focuses on centering underserved communities in our work, and in connecting folks to each other in order to build and expand in that capacity. And then in addition, I think that a lot more of our work is centered on LGBTQ, but social justice initiatives in general - so we do a lot of DEI work, we do a lot of inclusion work for LGBTQ folks. And so it's really the kind of expertise we provide in that landscape that really differentiates us from those other orgs. [00:04:20] Crystal Fincher: In terms of policy, what have you been advocating for and have helped to pass, and what are the top things that you're working on now? [00:04:27] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, last year was a fantastic year for LGBTQ rights in Washington state. Unfortunately, nationwide, we did not have the same results. And so in Washington this past year, a lot of our legislation was built to support our community - both in Washington and then also to support folks who are coming from other states in which they experience discrimination - and making sure that they're safe here in Washington. So what that looks like is GSBA - so we have a Policy Council that consists of folks from our community. And if anybody is listening and might be interested in that, please let me know - it's open to the public. So we have a Policy Council that serves in an advisory capacity for us, so that we can hear from our members in our community directly. And then we prioritize based off of what we think GSBA, as both a business organization and a social justice organization, can take the lead on - which ones we can support, but make sure the leadership resides within the organizations that are better fitted for it and then which ones are more like tertiary support. So there's a ton of support for LGBTQ legislation that was taken and led by other organizations, but GSBA supported them through testimony and through connecting our members to testify. So what those bills look like are we have a fantastic Shield Law that was just passed. And what that means is that folks from other states who are coming here to receive gender affirming care or reproductive care will not be able to be prosecuted in their state - that our Washington resources will not be used to prosecute them for receiving those services. And so that's gonna be really helpful - again, to provide that shelter and that opportunity for people coming here, but then also it protects practitioners in Washington who provide those resources from facing persecution in those other states. So that's really fantastic. Another bill that we advised on was the privacy bill - there was multiple privacy bills, but this one protects - helps to protect - healthcare data and making sure that your information about your gender identity, and your sexuality, and your reproductive history cannot be sold or used by organizations that may not want to, might not have your best interest at hand. So we are really excited about those. Some additional ones are there's a bill that made it easier for folks to seal their name changes - so if you're trans and you want to seal that name change due to fear of backlash from the public, we now have the ability to do that. And I worked on that as a community volunteer before I came into this position, and so I was really excited to see that one pass as well. So that's the LGBTQ side. On the business side, we were really happy to support a bill that makes it - basically, it makes it easier to set up ownership sharing programs - so giving employees a stake in the company - and that has been shown to produce a much better work quality of life for employees. But it also makes it easier for - if you're an LGBTQ business owner and you want to make sure your business stays in the hands of the employees you worked with for 20 years, or it stays in community - you have more freedom to do that now. So we're really excited about that one. And then a lot of kind of trying to get an increasing in our tourism budgets and providing additional funding for things like that. So we've kind of been - had our hands in a lot of different pots here - but it's been a busy year. [00:07:42] Crystal Fincher: And that's something that I have noticed - in really over the years - is that you do have your hands in a lot of different pots and are doing a lot of that work. And it does look different than you sometimes might expect from a purely business organization. You do a lot of the social work, more of a focus on equity, hearing from your members - seems like more comprehensively than a lot of other organizations may. I want to talk about some specific issue areas, revenue starting off - big conversation, always a conversation both locally and at the state level. One big piece of really consequential legislation was the JumpStart Tax for Seattle, which GSBA was in support of. And there have been conversations about maybe redirecting that perhaps, maybe changing what we're doing with it. What's your evaluation of the JumpStart Tax - how it has been performing, especially for small businesses, and where would you like to see that go? [00:08:38] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, so from my understanding, the Seattle JumpStart Tax was intended to fund public housing - or affordable housing - and reinvest in our Green New Deal, and be attributed to some specific areas that our city needs additional funding towards. But right now, our general fund in the City is at a deficit, so we need more money in our general fund. And so they've been using the JumpStart Tax funds to help rebuild that deficit in the general budget. So what that means is that instead of the JumpStart funds being used for what the voters voted on them to be used for - affordable housing, Green New Deal-type things - it's instead being used to just furnish the general budget. That needed to happen - our city programs need to be funded. But it can't happen continually. It cannot be used as a continual, as a way for our city to lean on this tax in order to fill that shortfall - because there was so much political support brought behind this, and so many different people lent their voices into creating this tax and architecting it so that it would fill this very specific void in affordable housing that we have. And when it gets passed and that funding is not being used in the way the public thought it would be used, that results in a lack of - the public loses their confidence in our officials to delegate and to be able to actually reflect on those conversations they have with their constituents. And that really creates a compounding issue of how can we make sure that - that civic engagement and trust continues to exist, because that's literally the heart of our democracy. And so right now, I know the City has created a Revenue Stabilization task force. The goal of that is to find ways to basically fully furnish the general fund so that it does not have to pull from the JumpStart Tax. That task force - it'll be interesting to hear the results of the task force - they'll be releasing a paper to the City Council in July, outlining their plan and their suggestions. But there are some interesting conversations with participants on that task force around - the goal of the group was initially to just find ways to increase funding to the general fund. But some other folks in the group want to see if there are ways to cut current spending so that we can have a mixture of both taxes and spending cuts, so that we're not just increasing taxes on our businesses. And so there's a little bit of discussion there and I'm very curious to see how that'll play out. But - [00:11:07] Crystal Fincher: Is GSBA in favor of cuts, along with expansions of the tax? [00:11:13] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, I think that we would be interested in understanding where those cuts would go and what that would look like, and see if there are avenues in which we can try to lower the amount. Because the reason that our general fund has all these additional programs that are underfunded right now is because when COVID started, we got a huge influx of federal funds and that money was used by the City to create a bunch of programming to help support and sustain our community during the pandemic. And a lot of those programs were very successful and we want to continue those programs, but we're not receiving that federal funding. And so I think that, just in the interest of having a well-rounded and well-researched perspective on where our budget is in general, we do support the idea of looking into all aspects - including spending cuts and different taxes, but - so we're interested to see what the City is gonna do. [00:12:07] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. One of the biggest areas of spending in the general fund is in public safety. Would that be an area that you would be looking to find some room in through cuts? [00:12:17] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, I think that - public safety is a major issue for our members. And what our members are wanting to see is - they're wanting to see some sort of reassurance of their safety - and that's just not happening right now. People don't, they don't feel like those bases are being covered. And GSBA - we follow evidence-based approach to our policy - and the evidence right now says that increasing public health programming, increasing behavioral support for folks that need mental health support, and increasing resources like rehabilitation services that are supportive of folks that go through them, those are the types of things that promote a safe environment. And so GSBA is in support of programs like that that don't take a punitive approach to public safety, but rather a community-oriented and person-focused approach. So if that means less budgeting allocated towards the more punitive policy approaches within Seattle, then yes, we are in support of that. Yeah. [00:13:19] Crystal Fincher: Which is interesting 'cause it does seem like the City is increasingly moving in that direction. At the time of this recording, we have recently heard about the recent departure of Senior Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell, perhaps about some differences in opinion on how things should proceed in this way. So are you actively advocating for more evidence-based investments and policies at this point in time? [00:13:45] Gabriel Neuman: Yes, we are - so GSBA is - we're currently researching the different policy proposals that have been introduced and voted on and voted down by City Council. We're planning on - I'm going to be polling our members, and I'm gonna be using that poll as a way to create a letter from GSBA and from our membership to submit to City Council that demonstrates our members' experiences and what they would like to see changed in order to make their environments better. So we're currently planning and preparing that. And in addition to that, a lot of our conversations around public safety have been done more at the community level. And so what that's looked like is we've hosted - our Capitol Hill Business Alliance has been really on board with trying to prepare our businesses to protect and to basically just secure their own premises. And so what that looks like is we've had a lot of events with non-police related trainings - and so that looks like public defense trainings, personal defense. We've had events where we have private security folks come in and show businesses what are the best practices for environmental security, where should you put your lights and your cameras, and things like that. And we've had just a lot of different - we've been trying to promote a lot of different ways for community to help support each other. So on Capitol Hill, for example, we're creating a Slack channel for businesses to communicate amongst each other - where if there's an area of concern, or if there's an employee that needs additional help like walking to a bus stop after their shift or something like that - that businesses can talk to each other, and to connect in that way, and have that kind of additional safety net. So a lot of our response so far has been kind of community-based and creating those types of networks, but we're looking to, and we're wanting to expand, those conversations more into the sphere with our elected officials. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: That sounds good, and we'll definitely be looking forward to that letter also. I also want to talk about the issue of revitalizing the economy. Certainly businesses of all types struggled to get through the pandemic - the pandemic is still here and happening - and businesses are facing a number of challenges from hiring and retaining employees, to understanding benefits, to just dealing with this larger economy. What are you hearing from your members are the biggest issues businesses are facing right now and what would help? [00:16:06] Gabriel Neuman: One of the big issues is going back to the earlier topic of taxation - is that businesses pay a ton in business and occupation tax. As you know, Washington has the most regressive tax system in the nation - and so instead of relying on an income tax, a lot of our taxes come from B&O, or business and occupation tax, which is directly placed on our business owners. In fact, in Seattle, our business owners pay around 70% of Seattle taxes, so a ton of money goes in there and it's hurting folks. And so we're trying to find ways to promote a more equitable tax structure so that our businesses can continue to thrive and that our government is working to support that. So that's one thing on the advocacy space. In addition, a big thing that we see is - are gaps in workforce development. There are a lot of positions that are open that people just are not applying for and that there are just not enough - that people, that the skills related to those careers are just not being offered at or made available at an economic rate for people. And so they cannot get those skills and so they cannot work at those jobs. So we have been really going forward with workforce development - this has been one of our big platforms for this year - is really trying to find ways to support our community in entering into those spaces. So there are expected needs for a lot of totally niche and really cool industries, like maritime officers - they need people to run the ferries, or people to do mechanics on our buses in King County, or folks to work at the airports - really cool stuff. So through our scholarship program, we just created a new source of funding that supports folks going through certificate programs. So now you can sign up, you can apply to our scholarship - and if you're wanting to go through a certificate program, then we can work with you to find out funding for that and through that route. And then in addition, we're also creating a workforce portal to allow folks to - who have gone through our programming - to connect to our businesses. And so we're doing a lot of promotion and facilitation for our members to be able to have the skills they need to enter there. But then there's, on the flip side, there's also a component of - we need to make sure that these industries are ready for our community, that they are ready to support and to accept LGBTQ folks. And so - because we want to make sure that we're sending people into a work environment that's gonna be successful for them. So we have an amazing LGBTQ inclusion program that we offer for organizations - where we go in and we, first we meet with the org, and see what type of support is it that you need? What do you want that to look like? And then we help with making a plan, and we have presentations where we can come in and speak with you and your employees and just give you the one-on-one on how to welcome LGBTQ folks into your org. And so we're building out that program much more and we're really proud of that. And then in addition to the kind of presentation and consulting piece, we're also creating a suite of actual products that businesses can use - for example, a guide on how to deal with name changes in the workplace, how employees and bosses and colleagues can all support that and different things like that. Another thing is helping employers to understand what a trans-friendly healthcare plan looks like for employees. So we are trying to take the extra step of not just saying - Make sure that you have a DEI statement - but instead going deeper and saying - What is the infrastructure that you have set up right now? And what can we do to make it a better environment for folks who are going to be joining your industry? So those are two areas in workforce development that we're helping with, but this is a statewide issue and it intersects with many other issues that are also impacting Washington. Kind of the third thing that employers are facing is that childcare, or the lack thereof, is also having a huge hindrance on their employees and on workforce retention. Because how are you supposed to take care of your kids, and work at a job, or go get your training, or do these things? And so AWB - the Washington Chamber - Association of Washington Business says that childcare is going to be one of the biggest issues going forward in the business advocacy front, just because of how substantially that impacts. So we're doing some research into better understanding that piece as well and how that affects our members. [00:20:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And those are all really important - glad to hear that they are in the priority. And it really does bring home the point that businesses do have to contend with societal issues and the impacts on their employees, potential employees, other people in the community. So things like you talked about - just the absolute evil and hostile legislation against - starting against the trans community, but it seems to be expanding against everyone. It is just so challenging. And you talk about the important work and really helpful work of helping your members in the greater business community really structurally and institutionally set up processes that will sustain equitable treatment of everyone. When it comes to a wide variety of businesses - certainly small businesses are facing a lot of challenges. Do you find that with issues like the B&O tax, taxation overall, that small businesses are being burdened more than larger corporations? [00:21:34] Gabriel Neuman: I cannot - I am not too familiar with the full tax scheme of larger corporations, but I can say that small businesses are facing huge crises with what they're dealing with in terms of taxation. There's, like in Seattle, they pay 70% of our taxes here. And there's just this kind of gap where we're seeing - well, they're paying - while folks are paying these taxes, they're still not seeing a lot of their essential services getting covered, at least in Seattle. So for example, we field a lot of concerns around excess trash in certain areas in the neighborhood, or we're seeing businesses have to respond to behavioral health crises in a way that hopefully a medically trained person employed by a state agency would be able to better respond to. And even things like our roads not being sufficient for bikers or for walkers being able to go to those places. These issues continue, these kind of basic infrastructure issues continue to impact businesses, and so when they're paying these taxes and they're not seeing these kind of basic things being done in their neighborhoods - there's this question of, What am I, what is this for? And again, that kind of feeds back into this lack of trust in our institutions and it exacerbates this dynamic - this kind of us-versus-them dynamic that we really don't want to see and it's not helping anyone. So I think that it's the amount of taxes people pay, but then also just what are the actual material results that they're seeing out of this? And so that's what kind of, we're trying to do a lot of work with our City government to help them understand that issue and to expand programming and support into those areas that - the kind of bread and butter of our communities. [00:23:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another issue that everyone is contending with is housing and that absolutely impacts who can live in an area, dictates who can work in an area, and whether employers can retain employees, and what kind of wages are competitive. Are you active in housing advocacy? [00:23:42] Gabriel Neuman: We are not active in housing advocacy right now, but that is something that I want to get advocacy going on in the upcoming year. This is my first year in this position. And so there are a lot of areas where we really, for my first year, wanted to focus on setting the stage as a business organization and focusing really on the kind of business issues. But now that we are facing the intersection of all these things - housing is a business issue now, childcare is a business issue now - businesses are having to have opinions on and stances on things that they never had to before. And so GSBA, as a result, is now expanding into more of these different areas too. We want to make sure that we're educated and that we're having - that our analysis is reflective of the evidence. And so I've been doing a lot of research and trying to understand the housing issues from multiple different lenses, and as well as our Policy Council as well, so that we can have more of an engagement with that next year. But that is another - that is one of the major issues for our businesses - is housing, because how are you supposed to find employees? Again, harking back to that workforce development issue, how are you supposed to find folks that can afford to live near your business, or can afford to drive - transport to your business - and who have the skills to do that? Like it's just incompatible - something needs to change. So yes, we're going to be entering that field a lot more. [00:25:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we're in the midst of City Council elections in the City of Seattle - you have a lot on your docket and you have a lot of advocacy that you do within the City - it's a major economic engine for the county and the state. Are you engaging in these City Council elections? [00:25:33] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, so we are - we're working with Capitol Hill Business Alliance, which is the Chamber of Commerce on Capitol Hill. They also are under the GSBA umbrella, so they're part of our org. We're collaborating with CHBA on a District 3 reception, and that will be a space for - we're inviting all the candidates that are running for District 3 to Optimism in a very kind of casual atmosphere where folks can come and they can have those one-on-one conversations and meet those people as people. So we're really excited about that, and that'll be on July 20th. And then after the primaries are over, we're partnering with Seattle City Club to host a series of four debates in the contentious elections. And as someone who's done debate for more than half my life, I'm very excited to help with that. So yeah, we're really focusing on trying to get the word out about those elections and increase engagement 'cause it's really important. [00:26:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Are you seeing any specific policy directions that your membership or that you could say your membership is looking for, leaning towards from these candidates? [00:26:38] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, I think that we - our members want something - they want to see, they want a representative that will listen to them and that will come to them and say - I'm your representative, here's who I am. What can I do for you? They want a representative that listens to them and that will - that wants to incorporate that perspective. Because every neighborhood in Seattle is unique and every neighborhood has its own character, and that's important for representatives to embody that and to reflect that. And especially in Capitol Hill, businesses want to know how they can stay safe and they want to be able to know that their neighborhood is going to retain the aura of safety so that folks will continue to go there. But again, they also do not want to see that reflected as more uniformed police officers walking around Capitol Hill. They want to see a community-oriented solution to this. And what that means is a representative that really understands the community and that knows how they can talk to the community to come to ways to bridge these issues. So definitely someone that's willing to come to the table on that. So I definitely say public safety and business taxation as well. There's a recent - recently Councilmember Pedersen brought forward the idea of a potential capital gains tax in Seattle, which would again impact the business community. And we're still - right now we're trying to find ways to enter that conversation and explain and try to find ways to make sure that that taxation doesn't actually affect our members. They want equitable taxation, is what I'm saying there. And housing - they want people to work at their businesses and that means access to housing, access to transportation. It's interesting, especially over the last few years, I've noticed that a lot of organizations are taking a much more social justice-oriented lens to policy issues because - again, that area of intersectionality is becoming much, much more apparent and it's not something that companies can ignore anymore. And it's been really fun to see this kind of increase in desire for participating in those conversations and how those partnerships can look in the future. [00:28:53] Crystal Fincher: Sure. Another issue that is top on the minds of residents and businesses both is that of homelessness and the struggle that the entire region is having with this. What do you advocate for at GSBA to try and meaningfully address this issue? [00:29:13] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, there's - the one thing that comes to mind is we are trying to help connect those folks to - back to their community. We want unhoused folks to know that they are a part of a community and that they have a space for them. And one part of that looks like initiatives helping businesses to prepare to hire folks that have been involved in the criminal justice system. And so there is a Ban the Box initiative in Seattle and now what we're doing with our business consulting services is making sure that employers are aware of - that they should be hiring folks that were formerly incarcerated, that these people are awesome and still need to be considered as members of our community and helping them to onboard and prepare for that. That's one thing we're doing. Another thing is we are - I want GSBA to get more involved in the local referendums. And I've been in communication to see what we can do to support the new Housing Levy that'll be introduced to expand housing. We were very supportive of the behavioral health crisis levy that was just passed, we're really excited about that. And we're wanting to continue to work with those groups as well so that we can have pipelines of - Okay, if you know someone that wants to work at this, in this industry, in the maritime industry who is unhoused and they're going through your program to get housing, how can they connect with us so that we can support them in the workforce development area? So really trying to bridge those resource gaps and communicate with our community partners in that. [00:30:49] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another issue facing the region is that of transit and transportation. We have lots of investments, continue to need more in road maintenance and safety - but also a focus on people who don't drive, or who choose not to drive, or can't drive and who are walking or riding or rolling or on transit. What are the top priorities in terms of transportation and mobility for GSBA? [00:31:19] Gabriel Neuman: Yeah, transportation is - it really is about being able to get from where you're living to where you're working. And we wanna make sure that there are bus routes that enter into the lesser-served neighborhoods and that transportation options are being introduced and promoted in those neighborhoods, so that those folks that don't have access - that might not have a car - can actually get access to those major transport hubs. So increasing bus access and then also increasing - again, particularly increasing transportation to those major transport hubs, like the light rail stations and things like that, so that people can get into the core area and then go off to where they need to go. That's one aspect. And then another thing that we've been doing is we've been working with our ride share companies in helping to aid them in setting up ride share infrastructure in cities that are not Seattle - having Lime bikes in smaller towns, for example, or in Eastern Washington. Or the scooters, as well - seeing those types of services in smaller areas, because they're fantastic in enabling people, again, to bridge those transportation gaps. And you see a lot of those transportation gaps in smaller towns and smaller areas. And that's where those kind of ride share programs can go a really long way in allowing people just the accessibility and the freedom to move around where they live more. We've been really excited about that. And then on the LGBT side, working with the ride share companies to understand what are the specific experiences that LGBTQ community has in accessing those services and how can we expand that into, again, into expansion into those smaller towns - like where do queer people go in those towns? Where are the routes most likely gonna be taken and how can we make sure the infrastructure is built up to facilitate that? Lots of kind of little niche things in there that we've been having a great time with. [00:33:19] Crystal Fincher: That sounds good. And as we close today, are there any thoughts or particularly helpful things that you would leave people with that they should know or that would be particularly helpful in helping and supporting our small business community? [00:33:36] Gabriel Neuman: Our small business community, I think - honestly, I would say that the best way to have your voice heard is to really talk to your elected officials. And we can help that, we can help facilitate that. Or if you just call or email their office - they want to hear from you and they want to know what it is that you're experiencing. And they literally cannot hear from you unless they hear from you. Please do that outreach and please let them know when they do things that you like as well, because they need that positive feedback. But more than that, just know that you have some really awesome advocates behind you. The GSBA is one wing of a much larger business support network across Washington State. And I've had the pleasure of meeting with a lot of these folks and everybody's in it for the right reasons and they are in it to support you. And that is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And utilize us as well - not just GSBA - utilize us, but utilize your business support community writ large around you to see what avenues and resources are available for you, because there are so many too that you might just not be aware of. I would say that to the business community. Can I have a shout out to our LGBTQ community as well? I just want to say, I know this year has been very tortuous and very sad, with the legislation and the legislative attacks that our community has had nationwide. It's just been one thing after another, but Washington has your back. Washington has just passed this suite of transformative policy that will help to shield you if you are thinking of coming here, or if you are here thinking of and have a family that want to come spend time with you, or whatever - Washington has your back. And we are also continuing to build on that infrastructure. And we're continuing to look at these and have a proactive stance and a proactive approach to what is it that people in our community need and what is it that they're not getting, and how can we bridge that? Please know that in spite of what you've heard nationwide, Washington is continuing to be a safe space and we've got you. [00:35:47] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for that. And as a queer business owner myself, appreciate the work that you do and that you continue to do and the policy that you're pushing towards. If people want to find out more information about GSBA, how can they do that? [00:36:01] Gabriel Neuman: You can visit us on our website, thegsba.org. You can also see us on social media - we're just GSBA on Facebook and Instagram and all that. And you can also email me - I'm gabrieln@thegsba.org. [00:36:16] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:36:18] Gabriel Neuman: Thank you so much for having us. [00:36:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

43 | Drarry Deep Dive #3: The Trope Edition ⚡️

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2023 77:00

It's time for our final Drarry episode! (for now...) We're discussing Tropes! Find out our favorites, as well as some of yours: from A/B/O to Soulmates, Auror Partners and AUs, there are so many ways to enjoy Harry x Draco! CWs Fic spoilers (The Boy Who Died A Lot by starcrossedgirl) Major Character Death (MCD) Hurt Heavy Angst Omegaverse Social Class (A/B/O) Dub-con Non-Con Power Imbalance Mpreg Greyback's Child Abuse Intoxication Links ⁠AO3: The Boy Who Died A Lot by starcrossedgirl (Snarry) Draco Malfoy is a Werewolf Meta AO3: Written on the Heart by who_la_hoop Episode Transcription: https://otter.ai/u/_AaGpvzKAbvXmPAPX90g6U3sxjw?utm_source=copy_url ABOUT THE POD Welcome to Care of Magical Shippers! A Harry Potter ship culture podcast! Join Megs & Nathan as we dive into the when, why and how of your favourite Harry Potter ships! From OTPs to the rarest of the rare, we are ready to get ship-wrecked! Join us on PATREON for exclusive content like our patron Discord server, early episode release, uncut episodes, bonus episodes, and more! (subject to tier perks): ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/careofmagicalshippers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ JOIN OUR PUBLIC (18+) DISCORD SERVER 18+ HP multi-ship/trope/kink research server! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/3AFGrPtGCA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: @magicalshippod ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: @magicalshippod ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tumblr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: careofmagicalshippers ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: careofmagicalshippers.com ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mastodon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: @careofmagicalshippers ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AO3⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: CareOfMagicalShippers SHOOT US AN E-MAIL! Send us your thoughts/recs: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠careofmagicalshippers@gmail.com ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Telegram: @careofmagicalshippers - text or send a voice message! Leave a voice message on Spotify! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://anchor.fm/care-of-magical-shippers/message⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ CoMS Podcast Feedback/Suggestion Form: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3J2lmrq⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ CoMS Spotify Playlist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spoti.fi/3e8wR22⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Featured music: "I Ship It" by Not-Literally ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3FbBvZ8 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/care-of-magical-shippers/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/care-of-magical-shippers/support

spotify care heart harry potter deep dive discord hp soulmates tropes trope discord server draco draco malfoy b o drarry i ship it

How Much Should You Spend on Digital Advertising?

Perpetual Traffic

Play Episode Listen Later May 16, 2023 40:14

In this episode of Perpetual Traffic, Ralph and Kasim cover various aspects of online marketing. They discuss challenges in running A/B/O campaigns on Facebook, the benefits of campaign budget optimization for e-commerce brands, and the calculation of customer acquisition cost. They also explore the advantages of starting with Google Ads, understanding the competitive landscape, and how small businesses can succeed by niching down. Ralph and Kasim emphasize the importance of integrating different marketing channels and creating compelling content. They provide insights on finding the best feature and avatar through a shotgun approach and using paid traffic to amplify successful posts.In This Episode, You'll Learn:00:00:00 Perpetual Traffic Podcast: Tackling Current Problems in Marketing00:02:54 Media Buyer's Strategy for Running Multiple A/B/O Campaigns on Facebook00:05:30 Leveraging Campaign Budget Optimization for E-commerce Brands00:07:47 Exploring Media Buying and Common Challenges in Online Marketing00:11:15 Unlocking the Value of Customer Lifetime Worth in Acquisition Costs00:15:49 Calculating Customer Acquisition Costs through Online Traffic00:18:16 Analyzing Inefficiencies in Your Business Model for Growth00:21:38 Understanding the Competitive Landscape for Business Success00:25:11 Niche Down: Thriving as a Small Business in a Hypercompetitive Market00:28:04 Mastering High-Intent Keywords for Effective Marketing00:33:13 Crafting a Unique Selling Point in a Competitive MarketTool Mentioned:PT Episode 4835 STEPS to determine what your customer should costProfit Margin Math: A Visual ExplanationHow to Increase Your CAC & Make MORE MoneyTargeting Avatars in Your Digital MarketingLINKS AND RESOURCES:Perpetual Traffic on YouTubeTiereleven.comSolutions 8 Perpetual Traffic SurveyPerpetual Traffic WebsiteFollow Perpetual Traffic on TwitterConnect with Kasim on Twitter and Connect with Ralph on LinkedInThanks so much for joining us this week. Want to subscribe to Perpetual Traffic? Have some feedback you'd like to share? Connect with us on iTunes and leave us a review!Mentioned in this episode:CSO Link

strategy unlocking small business crafting google ads digital advertising common challenges kasim competitive landscape unique selling points b o media buyer perpetual traffic marketing00 your business model

Week in Review: May 5, 2023 - with Brittney Bush Bollay

sound innovation speaker nfts views bang ethereum collaborating christoffer new partnership chainalysis super rare central bank digital currencies cbdcs olufsen b o public key bang olufsen

Play Episode Listen Later May 5, 2023 48:32

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by King Conservation District Supervisor and Seattle sportswriter and enthusiast Brittney Bush Bollay! They talk about several developments this week including Governor Jay Inslee and Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler announcing that they do not plan for reelection and the candidates that are vying to replace them, Gov. Inslee calling for a May 16th special session to address personal possession of controlled substances, a potential trafficking victim found in the Seattle hotel room of a Colorado Avalanche player, interests aligned with the Seattle Chamber fielding a message testing poll to raid the JumpStart Tax, and the King County Council shortchanging the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services Levy on a 5-4 vote. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Brittney Bush Bollay at @BrittneyBush. Brittney Bush Bollay Brittney is a King Conservation District Supervisor and climate activist who is passionate about the role cities play in preserving the environment. They serve on the city and state boards of the Sierra Club and helped write the organization's national Urban Infill Policy Guidance. In their spare time, they're almost certainly yelling at sports. Resources Governing as an Eastern WA Democrat with Spokane City Council Member Zack Zappone from Hacks & Wonks “WA Gov. Jay Inslee won't seek reelection for fourth term” by Jim Brunner, David Gutman, and Paige Cornwell from The Seattle Times “Early WA governor's race skirmish? Campaign finance loophole scrutinized” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times “Washington Republicans believe governor's race is winnable” by David Hyde from KUOW “Longtime WA Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler will not seek reelection” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times “Inslee calls WA Legislature special session to address drug possession” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times “Progressive Democrats Want to Compromise on a New Drug Law” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger “Proposal to Make Public Drug Use a Misdemeanor Unlikely to Have Much Visible Impact” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “New Drug Law Negotiations Still Messy” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City “Colorado Avalanche player involved in incident at Seattle hotel” by Matt Markovich from KIRO 7 “Seattle Cop Mocks Trans People, Blames Jan. 6 Riots on Pelosi; County Council Plays It Safe by Proposing Flat Levy Renewal” from PubliCola Find stories that Crystal is reading here Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Spokane City Council Member, Zack Zappone, about his approach to politics and policy as a Democrat in a more conservative area of Washington state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: King Conservation District Supervisor, Seattle writer and enthusiast, Brittney Bush Bollay. Hey. [00:01:20] Brittney Bush Bollay: Hello, how are you? [00:01:21] Crystal Fincher: I am excellent. I'm so thrilled to have you on the show. You are basically a Seattle celebrity when it comes to all things politics and sports, and bring the analysis and the fun to all of our favorite Seattle sports and sports stars. So I am so excited to have you on the show today. [00:01:39] Brittney Bush Bollay: Well, thank you. I'm excited to spend my Friday doing what I do anyway, which is hanging out with my friends talking about politics and sports. [00:01:46] Crystal Fincher: That's right. And one big topic that everybody has been talking about this week is that Governor Jay Inslee has announced that he will not be running for reelection. So as you think about Inslee's - I don't know - legacy, what he's known for, and what this election presents, what are your thoughts on what's going on with Inslee? [00:02:07] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's funny - I actually got polled a few months ago on the idea of him running again. And I was really surprised that he would even consider it. Not because I think he's been a bad governor or ineffective or anything like that, but precedent - really, honestly - three terms is a lot. Four would be kind of gauche. Don't you think? It's a lot, it's time - it's time for someone else to have a go. So I think that he's had a solid legacy as a governor. And I think he's also, for the left wing of the Democrats, not gone as far as we would like on a regular basis. And I'm interested to see what the new candidates - what their angle is, what's their new message? What's their - are they gonna be running on a voice of change? I'm the new Inslee. It's exciting to see a fresh race shaping up with some good candidates and also some terrifying candidates. [00:03:06] Crystal Fincher: You nailed it right there. Good and terrifying, as far as the candidates go. For the left wing of the party, certainly - and coming out of Seattle, where Seattle's no stranger to kind of nation leading or early legislation pushing for progressive solutions, certainly compared to the rest of the state and country. I do think that he has shepherded the state through - we just, through the pandemic that we had - an unprecedented crisis and against some really vitriolic pushback as one of the first states in feeling the impacts of COVID in the country, taking decisive action in pursuit of keeping people safe and following the CDC guidance. That was certainly there. Trying to navigate through the situation with schools and students - while certainly there's a lot to learn and a lot that can be done better, I think people were trying to do the best that they could at that time. We've seen some recent - kind of, I think - what he would call crowning achievements. Certainly the Climate Commitment Act, which is a huge piece of environmental legislation that will be creating hundreds of millions and beyond dollars that hopefully will be reinvested in ways that spur a green economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and impacts. And we just saw him standing up for reproductive rights and purchasing our state supply of mifepristone. There've been a number of issues - certainly we're leading the nation in gun safety. So he has certainly worked in conjunction with the Legislature, our state's elected leaders, to get a lot of this done. He had a run for president. He does have some crowning achievements there, and some things that I think he can walk away and be proud of. And also there's the opportunity to do so much more. And we'll see that from these candidates that we have coming up - some exciting, some intriguing, some terrifying. So we have Bob Ferguson, who's already announced. We have Hilary Franz, who's announced an announcement. And we have, evidently, Mark Mullet - moderate to conservative Democratic Senator, who said he's considering a run. And then some GOP candidates - one already announced, Semi Bird. I know there has been questioning about Jim Walsh, JT Wilcox. We'll see how this turns out. How do you see this race shaping up? Or what do you think are going to be the dividing lines in it? [00:05:31] Brittney Bush Bollay: Honestly, I think Bob Ferguson's gonna run away with it. But I don't know - it'll be interesting to see who the second candidate is who comes through. I think the GOP candidates probably will just fight amongst themselves and get - if they can't work it out, then get little pieces of the various sort of right-wing voter bloc. I think Ferguson has a lot of respect. He has a lot of name recognition. He got a lot of fans for his standing up to Trump, and his helping the state navigate and protect people during that really scary four years. I think it's funny that he announced an exploratory committee, and then the next day was announcing endorsements. That was a little transparent - everybody knew, everybody knew. Hilary Franz has been pretty good in her role, but I'm interested to see what she - how she translates her more niche work that she's been doing with state lands, and what that looks like as she has to expand her platform into governor. [00:06:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also news this week that our Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is also stepping down. This is another statewide elected position. Now, Mike Kreidler has made a lot of unfortunate news for racist, sexist, other very problematic statements. He has been asked to resign by the governor, leaders on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers. He refused to do so, but has announced that he's not running for reelection. Patty Kuderer has announced that she is running for that seat. We'll probably - gonna see some others coming up before the filing deadline for candidates on May 19th, but it'll be interesting to see what this is. And it'll be interesting to see, in both of these races, in my opinion - looking at now versus - what was it 2012 - the last time these races were competitive, 2008 - somewhere around there. It's been a while. [00:07:29] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's been a while. [00:07:30] Crystal Fincher: I feel like 2012. But time is a unique construct for me at this point in time. But the world is very different than it was the last time these races were competitive for governor and for insurance commissioner. In that time, we've had a pandemic that has reshaped the way a lot of people think about and live their lives. We have increasing threats to democracy, attacks on people's personhood, attacks on just whether people should be able to freely live their lives as who they are. And a lot of troubling things happen. And I think there's gonna be much more of a conversation this time about how people use their power. And I think from both sides - both Republican and Democratic - if you're looking at the party's bases now, both sides have an expectation that leaders use their power in more definite and comprehensive ways than they did before. That some precedents may be limiting - following tradition and rules - we're seeing tradition thrown in the trash and rules broken right and left. And some people's literal survival may depend on really taking an affirmative stance and standing against hateful rhetoric, hateful policy - policy that is restricting, stripping rights, first and foremost, but also when it comes to the biggest challenges that we're facing. If it's poverty, if it's homelessness, if it's inequality - the insurance commissioner taking on issues like barring the use of credit scores for insurance pricing, which doesn't reliably predict what your insurance risk is gonna be. Or the governor taking steps to make sure we have access to abortion pills here in the state, if that is restricted on a nationwide basis. That those are things that maybe would have been viewed as extreme actions 10, 12 years ago, but today are viewed as necessary and welcome, certainly by this side of the base. If you're talking about Republicans, they are especially riled up that perceived overreach and all of the stuff that they say about the liberal stuff - we don't need to go into all of that - but it's gonna be interesting just to see what the fault lines of this are and how what sometimes used to be more narrow and targeted policy intersects with other policy and all of the issues that most people are dealing with now. [00:09:55] Brittney Bush Bollay: And it's funny 'cause of course, the Republicans were the first ones to start to use and leverage the state legislatures for things that previously had been considered overreach. And now Democrats are doing it as a defensive measure, against those policies. Again, it's always every accusation is a confession. But it's really interesting to me - we're in a time where we're really re-examining sort of the idea of a state and the role of the state government, and sort of the concept of individual states and their relationships to each other has gotten very different as these policies - some states, for example, or one of the most conservative states in the country, in Idaho. And not only do we have to affirmatively protect our people here in Washington, but we have to think about the neighbors in the states around us and the people who are gonna need the help that they can't get in their locations. And how to welcome them, how to make sure that we're prepared to help them and make them feel safe. And that's something that I do think that Inslee has done a good job about. And the Legislature has, seems to have really been thinking about making sure that people who do need reproductive care, abortion access, gender affirming care, and things like that - that they can come to Washington, that they can be safe, they can get what they need. And I think that that's some creative governing - that I think is great. I think that's what we need to do in unprecedented times - is you have to use the office in unprecedented ways. Because at the end of the day, the role of the government - in my opinion - is to help people out where they can't help themselves. [00:11:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Think you nailed It. And Inslee is still at work. And even looking at the work that they're doing - and it actually seems to be going well - they seem to be working well with partners in terms of right now, they're working on the freeway encampments and trying to move people into housing. Looking at updates from at least the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and the work that they're doing in partnership with the state, that seems to be actually going pretty well and getting good results - in working with the people at these sites to move them into shelter or temporary housing on the way to trying to find permanent housing. So Inslee is still at work, and he also called a special session for May 16th? [00:12:23] Brittney Bush Bollay: I believe it was May 16th, yeah. [00:12:25] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so coming up here - a special session to deal with the Blake fix, or what to do about the - once again, pending potential of not having any statewide drug law to address simple possession of substances. Now, certainly we've talked about many times before, lots of evidence points towards - one, the War on Drugs that we've undertaken is a failure. We've spent billions upon billions, if not trillions, of dollars worldwide, trying to eradicate drugs and drug use and have failed spectacularly to do that after all of the expenditures. And many places concluded - You know what? Treating drug use as a crime actually seems to be counterproductive, really expensive, really derails a lot of people, destabilizes lives. And what people really need is treatment for substance use disorder, not this punitive lock-them-up that doesn't address the root cause that landed them there. So they're gonna take this up. They had previously considered a bill that would have made substance use personal possession a gross misdemeanor, which is different than a simple misdemeanor. It can carry penalties actually worse than a low-level felony, but we'll see. They're saying that they're trying to work out a compromise, an agreement - what that is going to be, I don't know. Certain localities have said that they plan to move forward on recriminalizing if the State Legislature doesn't. And what they're saying is they want to avoid a patchwork of different laws and policies across the state. So it'll be curious to see what happens here. How do you see this? [00:14:09] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's wild, isn't it - that when you take someone who's using substances, generally, to cope with trauma and then throw them in jail and further traumatize them, it's wild that doesn't solve the problem, isn't it? It's frustrating to me to see what I feel like is a rush to recriminalize a behavior that I don't think should be criminal in the first place. And especially when you consider - you've talked about this on here before - we all know it's not all drugs there's a war on, and it's not the same war on all drugs. And there's no war on alcohol. There's not really a war on marijuana anymore. It's the drugs that we've just decided are the bad ones. And it gets so tangled up - I think that people have a real morality ingrained in them around drugs. And again, around certain drugs, that I think it's really hard for people to escape, to analyze, to pull back from. Like I went through DARE, all of that, and we're taught - drugs are bad. And again, some drugs are worse than others clearly, because for a variety of reasons, we've just decided that. So I think it frustrates me that - I don't think we're seeing evidence-based policy proposals from a lot of people around this. And a lot of people seem really hung up on the idea - drugs are bad, we must punish them. And it doesn't do anything. It doesn't do anything except waste money and make more people sad. [00:15:37] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I've been particularly disheartened to see several legislators from King County - from areas where their population is ahead of where they are, their residents are ahead of where they are in terms of this policy. Their residents recognize that people need help and treatment over being thrown in jail. And lots of people are recognizing, who don't want to see people struggling with substance use disorder and all the consequences that that causes, and we're seeing more and more of that. And people going - Yeah, I don't want to see the consequences, whether it is losing property, losing a home, financial instability, criminal behavior, right? No one wants to see that, but looking at locking someone up - they're just going to get out. It's not like we're locking them up for life and - nor should we be. And then they get out, and if we want them to be able to build a life where they can sustain and thrive however they choose to, doing things like doing something that will lose them their job, that will cost them money that they don't have, that requires them to adhere to things that may not do anything to help their current situation, but could further destabilize them - is just not helpful to anyone. And it's really expensive to take care of from a societal perspective. It is actually less expensive to provide someone housing or to provide someone with treatment, than to jail them and then have them come out not healed and too many times wind up back in jail where it's really expensive yet again. So we just have to figure out a different approach. The current approach has failed, and we keep on trying to double down and triple down on that. And I'm particularly disappointed in some Seattle and King County representatives who are eager to double and triple down on seriously recriminalizing this possession - just doesn't make sense. But we will see what comes out of this special session. [00:17:33] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's just so frustrating to me, 'cause it's just based on such a complete misunderstanding of why people are using substances in the first place. And when they get out of jail - like you said - nothing's changed, except that now they have more instability in their life and a harder time getting a job and finding somewhere to live and are probably further in debt. [00:17:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now this next item that we're gonna talk about is - I think people are still struggling to put together the pieces, but we just got some updates this week that have added a couple other elements. But it's really troubling. So - super exciting - the Seattle Kraken have started off playing the Colorado Avalanche in the playoffs, dominated that series. [00:18:19] Brittney Bush Bollay: That part was fun. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: Yes - won in seven - super exciting time for hockey fans in this town. But sometimes what comes along with major sporting events, especially during playoffs, are troubling activities surrounding that. And there was an incident related to one of the Avalanche players that happened in a Seattle hotel while they were here in town. Evidently as this happened - for some reason that we don't know - the Avalanche were looking for one of their players, they went into his room, did not find him in his room, but found a woman in the room that was under the influence of something - don't know, has not been determined, at least from the information here. Speculation has ranged from - was it close to an OD situation? Was she given a substance that she did not consent to? Those were all possibilities and called out. But in this - she was alone, she was heavily intoxicated - by the reports, very extremely intoxicated to a degree where she pretty much did not appear okay to go anywhere, do anything on her own for her own safety. But in talking to this person, she said she was from, came over from - she was Russian, but came from Ukraine - came here and someone, a bad man, took away her passport. Now for people who pay attention to trafficking, this is a huge red flag of - something isn't right here. This is something that we see often in human trafficking and oftentimes people forced into - whether it's in servitude, whether it's sex work - they're forced into these things, right? And so she was combative, she was not happy - which is not odd for someone who is a victim of this and talking to other unfamiliar men and heavily intoxicated. Turns out part of the Avalanche's security detail is actually Denver police officers who were involved in this. Call was placed to 911. They said, You can find her at the door. So I guess they just moved her to the door. Paramedics came and she was combative. Unfortunately it looks like they considered, according to KIRO 7 reporting, institutionalizing her in mental health hold in the hospital - paramedics inquired about doing that. And it is just really concerning to me that there is a situation where it looks like Denver police, who may have been off duty - but they're still police - were involved in, Seattle police were involved in, this woman who exhibited signs of being trafficked and who said that was just shoved out of a hotel and said come pick her up. And they seem to more seriously consider institutionalizing her than providing her the help and services she needed as someone who really looked like a victim of trafficking. How did you see this? [00:21:21] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's weird. It's very weird. There's a lot of big holes in this story, aren't there? The team doctor made the call, but he said that someone else told him to make the call, but we don't know who. We don't know where they found the player. We don't know where the woman is now. It was like the middle of the afternoon, so it's not like they had probably been out partying late at night. Yeah, it's all very strange. And if you know anything about the NHL, you know that they're not good at this type of situation. There's been many a coverup and a bungled scandal in the NHL's history. There's not a lot of people to trust here either to handle this well or appropriately. [00:22:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it looks like there was - if, again, there's a lot of information missing - but also what we know is this player was rushed out of town that day. They now say that he's suspended or gone for personal reasons. [00:22:24] Brittney Bush Bollay: Personal reasons. [00:22:25] Crystal Fincher: No other information attached to that. No follow-up on what happened to this woman. I hope she's okay. I hope someone followed up to try and figure out - who is the person who took your passport, how did you arrive here? Is this part of a trafficking? It seems like this should be ripe for investigation. Nothing reported so far suggests that that's the case. So I hope we just didn't basically return this woman to her trafficker. But all of this is open and no comment about this has come from the Colorado Avalanche. It looks like they're just hoping to get away with not saying anything about this, particularly since their season is now over. But this is really, really troubling. And lots of people have heard many stories about how - even police - and it was a major detail that Denver police officers are here traveling with the team, and how often they fail people in these situations, how often they fail to recognize when someone is in need of help and not just a burden. And certainly this woman had been reported - she'd been combative - and it just seemed like they viewed her as a problem, whether it was a PR problem, or that they were just trying to get rid of her and get her out. And that was the exact wrong thing to be doing. If you're getting out, are you following up at the hospital? Are you investigating why she doesn't have her passport? Who is this bad man that took it? What is the connection to the Avalanche player? Is this a trafficking ring happening that they're ignoring, while saying that they're taking public safety seriously here? And as we all know in Seattle, the Seattle Police Department was caught not investigating sexual assaults of adults - what, last year, year before last - just made the decision on their own to stop investigating those crimes because they said they were short-staffed. Seems like if you were to prioritize any crime, it would be that. [00:24:27] Brittney Bush Bollay: Especially 'cause that's the one that they like to dangle out a lot of the time when they're looking for more funding. They're like - well, what about the rapists, right? [00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: While they're insisting on going to every overdose call, evidently, where - in most other cities - they're not needed for that at all, something that paramedics usually handle on their own. So it's curious how they prioritize spending their time, and who they're prioritizing spending that protecting and not protecting. I just am very troubled by this. And it just seems to be another coverup where - did we just, did we as a society really just fail this woman and however many more that are like her? [00:25:10] Brittney Bush Bollay: And you would want to think that there would be procedures in place for this. And you would want to think that they would be followed by - procedures from the Seattle Police Department, procedures for the Denver Police Department, procedures probably in high-end hotels. They should be prepared for this sort of thing. And I know that they're private business and their personal interest is gonna be in making it go away, just like the NHL's interest is. So again, like you said, who's gonna protect this woman? No one seems like they're looking out for her right now. And yeah, I just really - I hope that she's not just falling through the cracks. [00:25:44] Crystal Fincher: I hope so. And this happened a week ago - about a week ago, I think. So hopefully she's not lost at this point in time, but I hope this is followed up on. I hope - I have seen some Denver media demanding answers from the Avalanche. I hope that they continue to press that, and national media continues to press that. This is a big issue, especially because this is unfortunately common around playoffs, around big sporting events. We have a number of big marquee events coming to Seattle. So being very interested in making sure that this doesn't happen. If it is found, that it is investigated and figured out and broken up is really key and critical. And I hope they are paying attention to this. And that this is just another reason why it is critical to have people responding who are appropriate to the situation that's happening. I have to think that if there was someone more familiar, or whose job it was not to enforce or contain, but to help - but to recognize this and is there for potential victims of trafficking, to help them understand how they can get out, to help them with resources. Because people in this situation - notable they take the passport because you can't go anywhere, you can't do anything without that. You don't have ID. And usually people - she said that she came over from overseas - don't have a driver's license, don't have anything. So they are completely dependent on the person who is trafficking them, who is forcing them into situations that they have not consented to, that they do not want to be in, that they have to be in just to stay. And so if this person doesn't have their own money - usually no accounts, no money, everything is coming from that person - it wouldn't be surprising at all to see that this person wound up right back in a potential trafficker's hands. We'll continue to follow this if any other information comes out, but this is something that I just don't want to disappear and go away. Other news this week is - so the Seattle Chamber is really actively message testing a plan to raid the JumpStart Tax. They are polling right now. And they've said that this is their intention, basically - a plan to revitalize downtown. And it's so curious because they were not supporters of this tax. They opposed this tax when it was being put together and being passed, but now they want it for themselves. How, what do you think about this? [00:28:27] Brittney Bush Bollay: It's so - it's not even subtle. It just makes me laugh honestly, in a way, because like you said, they've tried so hard - everything they could to keep this tax from existing in the first place. And now that it's here, they're like - Oh well, since it's here, since you have this nice little tax file, what if I just take some of it? What if - and you showed me the questions on the poll and it's hilarious. What if we told you that Amazon and Starbucks are sweet baby angels and the Seattle Council is populated entirely with demons - would that make you oppose or support our position? They can't have it. Not that I am the only one who gets to say, but no. We've - this is a tax that was organized and pushed for by the community for very specific needs in the community. And I don't think that the Chamber can just waltz in and just take it for their own very specific ends that are different from the very specific ends that we already decided it was for. [00:29:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:29:35] Brittney Bush Bollay: And what are they going to do? Are they going to reopen Gap? I don't know. [00:29:40] Crystal Fincher: It is - it's interesting, but you can see some of the messages that they're testing. Some of the questions in this survey - I'll read them. This is one. Currently, officials claim that the City of Seattle is facing a budget shortfall of $225 million. Which of the following approaches to addressing the issue do you prefer? Some say the budget shortfall is driven by things beyond the City's control: declining tax revenues, inflationary pressures, dramatic increase in demand for city services. They need to say we need to find additional progressive tax revenue to maintain the current level of city services so our city's most vulnerable don't suffer. Others say tax revenues have been increasing, but the City is increased, but City spending has increased even faster and the Council still doesn't have an effective plan to address critical issues like homelessness and public safety. They say instead of taxing residents and businesses further, the City Council needs to be held accountable and deliver better results with the money they already have. Now one, we've heard this used by some prior City Council candidates who are definitely anti-tax. It looks like they're testing that to do. They - I'm trying to find ones where they are like - Oh, businesses already pay so much. Microsoft and Amazon pay so many taxes. They're paying the majority of taxes and why would you want them to pay anymore? Now, obviously when you consider that those are among the richest businesses in the entire world - yeah, it makes sense that they would pay a significant amount of tax and that represents a tiny percentage. But you see them stressing the percentage of the City budget, the percentage of - that the flat dollar tax. So right now - Seattle businesses, large and small, already pay 64% of Seattle taxes, including JumpStart which brings more than a quarter of a billion dollars of new money each year and is the largest tax increase in the city's history. Further increasing taxes on businesses will push them to leave, creating an even bigger budget gap and shifting the tax burden to Seattle households. Then asking how convincing is this statement as a reason to oppose a further increase in local business taxes? Right? So you can hear them basically say - Well, they're paying most of the taxes anyway, so they should get to decide how to use it and not the residents of Seattle. In fact, they shouldn't just get to decide, we should basically just hand it over to them to let them spend it. A rebate, in effect - they're asking for. Obviously this came into place because while those companies were becoming the richest in the world, the impacts of that in this community were felt - and they're both positive and negative impacts, right? It's not like people are saying there's never been any positive impact, but it is true that - wow, a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people moved to the region. Because of them, that puts a strain on local resources, especially without - for so long, without them contributing to this tax. After the repeal of the Head Tax, they weren't paying hardly any taxes to the city that was enabling their meteoric rise - the talent provided by public education, public universities here, our infrastructure. They're finding talent here to the degree that they aren't finding it in other places, which is why they're coming here and relocating here. And I always laugh at the suggestion that raising taxes or more revenue will force businesses to flee because we have literally heard that for decades - with every increase in the minimum wage, with every single business tax, B&O tax - we've heard, Well, this is going to scare businesses away. This is going to really make the town go bankrupt. And all that's happened is that more businesses have come, and the businesses that have been here have become more successful to a large degree if we're looking at large businesses. So there is a conversation to be had on - should we all sacrifice and continue to pay a disproportionate price societally compared to how much wealth we have or what income we make in comparison to literally the richest people and the richest companies in the world? Of course they're going to be paying a dollar amount that looks large, but what percentage of almost trillion dollar companies, hundreds of billions of dollar companies relying on our infrastructure, relying on our roads, relying on our utilities, relying on our education system and talent. Seattle said - absolutely yes, 100%. They are not currently paying their fair share and this represents it. And they're trying really hard to message against that and paying quite a lot of money to test this poll, to test their messaging, and really trying to hone in on what they feel will be most persuasive here. [00:34:25] Brittney Bush Bollay: Yeah, and that right there tells you that they think it's a good investment for them. I feel sometimes like Amazon is this shadow extra branch of our government because of the gravity that they have in the City. And just - all you have to do for a certain portion of the voting population is say, Oh, Amazon's going to leave. And everyone's - Oh no, that can never, we can't do anything that will make Amazon mad. And it's frustrating, and it's inaccurate, and it creeps me out. I mentioned to you earlier - when I see Amazon ads now on TV, it's starting to feel like propaganda because they have so much sway. The other thing that these polls and these narratives never mention is that there's a mayor and a whole executive branch in this town. And the City Council actually does not run the City by themselves. They don't even put the budget together by themselves. Obviously they do the final passage. They do a lot of editing. The mayor also has to sign it. And then the mayor and the executive branch have to take that money and they have to execute. They have to use it. And so it's not just these seven people's responsibility for everything that's going on. But somehow they're the only ones that ever get their fingers pointed - that get fingers pointed at them. [00:35:46] Crystal Fincher: Oh yeah, and that's very intentional. Fingers pointed at them by the same parties that coincidentally are interested in dramatically reducing taxation for the richest companies in the world. It's all very curious. Also curious in this to me continues to be the representation that this is both big businesses and small businesses that are in favor of this. Usually in the case with these things, and especially for taxes like this, they're - like the GSBA, the Greater Seattle Business Association, was in favor of the JumpStart Tax - which is a chamber made up of mostly smaller businesses, right? The biggest businesses are part of the Seattle Chamber and driving that Chamber activity. You see other smaller chambers that are predominantly small businesses supporting this because it does include a lot of help for small businesses. But it's these gigantic corporations that are trying to steer the money away. And so this JumpStart Tax is popular in part because it actually is really going to the people who need it most in our community. It is going to small business owners who do need the help, who aren't able to just decide not to pay a lease without consequences, who can decide just not to pay their vendors without consequences, and wield their influence, and bully other people for lack of a better word. They're more at the whims of just rules and laws and the market. And they need help and they appreciate the help. They're suffering from rising rents and income inequality in the business world in a similar way that we're seeing it among individuals. So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I just think a lot of people are not prepared for the effort that's going to come to divert this JumpStart Tax revenue to downtown and, for a tax that the full city voted on and that really the full city needs to benefit from, and that several neighborhoods in Seattle need help. Are we once again focusing on downtown to the exclusion of other neighborhoods? Are we giving money to downtown to the exclusion of other neighborhoods? And certainly downtown is a vital economic engine. I don't think anyone is disputing that, and we need to do things to make sure that we are fostering business as well as - the end to that is part of that bargain is we want to foster business so that people can have good living wage jobs so that they can have a house and a home and build a life that they can. In the absence of that second part happening - it's not just we want a big business just to say that it's big, it's for the benefits that it brings to the community. Those benefits were not coming. And so this is the correction that Seattle residents felt was appropriate. And so that is - there's a target on it. They're going after it, and people better be prepared. Also this week, we got news that the County, King County, voted to maintain the same level of the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services Levy. In a vote - they had a choice to say, Okay, we're going to maintain the same levy amount. Basically they put together a package and said - you're gonna get this housing help - all of this for Veterans, Seniors and Human Services - a lot of very crucial services for the community - helping people avoid homelessness, special services and providers that are crucial and necessary. I think most people agree with that. Unfortunately, because of inflation, because of all of these costs - what this money buys now, it buys so much less than it did before. And so we're looking at not getting as much as most people would have hoped. And so they were also considering raising, really by a couple cents, per value assessed. I think total, they estimated it would cost the average person $17 per year to say that would actually provide the level of services that we feel is necessary to help in this situation and not the trim-back-austerity light. And this is yet another example, in my opinion, of a short-sighted decision. One - just politically - people don't make decisions on taxes and going, Okay, this is 0.012 of my assessed value property, but this is 0.014. And man, that difference between 0.012 and 0.014 is untenable. People don't vote like that. They don't vote like that. They vote on the tax overall, and do they feel they're gonna get their money's worth? And so just putting the tax on is the big thing. Unless you're doubling or tripling - that's gonna cause a conversation - but modest increases are, people just flatly do not make decisions like that. We can say that confidently with tons of evidence. But what does happen, unfortunately, in situations like this - especially with the renewal - people pay for something. People are fine paying taxes if they feel that they're getting value for their dollar. The problem becomes when they feel like they're getting short-changed or they're not getting value for it. And so right now, for the same price, you're saying - and again, a price that they aren't very sensitive to - you're saying, Okay, you're gonna get less. It's not gonna do as much. And so then the next time that we go to renew this, people are gonna have gotten less. People are gonna see less help, less change, and they're gonna feel like this tax is less justified. So it actually makes it harder to pass next time. And then when you shortchange this, or when you know you're going in with less funding than it really needs and that you can get - when you leave money on the table, you also leave helping people on the table. And you build the case by helping lots of people in your community. That is your case for reelection. Fewer people are going to be helped. There are people attacking - Hey, you're spending this money and we aren't really seeing the difference. You can spend large sums of money because if it's going to help people, that is the justification, that is the value, and people feel that value. But without doing that, then the tax starts to feel burdensome to more people. And the people fighting against that, who would fight against any tax - the people who are most opposed to this, generally are opposed to all taxes - and it's not an issue of two tenths of a percent or whatever, or cent. It's just different. So I'm frustrated to see members that voted for this lower amount. It ended up being a 5-4 vote. It looks like Dave Upthegrove was actually the deciding vote against going for the full amount needed in this levy. And he and some other suburban members said that they - think he said - I don't have any problem with this politically, I just don't know that with some of the pressures that this could pass, that people would pay for it. And that is just not consistent with all available data. And it's just a shame to see money left on the table that could help people, and that could provide value for the money that we're spending. When we have a constrained ability to raise revenue - and especially when some of the options aren't that great - we have limited options for progressive revenue, few options. In those situations and even across the board, it's - yeah, we are asking more from some people, but hopefully the people who need it most are the ones getting helped. And the value is delivered to them first, and we don't burden people who can't absorb it comfortably. But we'll see. How did you feel about this? [00:43:20] Brittney Bush Bollay: You know, it's - going back to these messages that we hear over and over again - that every time there's a levy, and there's always a levy, we hear - Oh well, people are getting levy fatigue. They're getting taxation fatigue. If we keep raising the property taxes, people are gonna stop voting for it because they just, they're tired of it. Which is, as you just said, it completely contradicts the actual messaging or the evidence about why people vote the way they do. And so it's, again, it's just tiring to see us shoot ourselves in the foot, on the basis of a non-evidentiary-based supposition. And so not only are we - we're quitting before we even have a chance to lose is what it feels like. It feels like they're not even gonna try to do the full amount 'cause they've just decided that they can't. And so not only are we denying ourselves that potential opportunity, but then we're locking ourselves in to this lower rate as well. It's not like this is something that we can re-examine every day. So I guess frustrated too - for one word, frustrated - yeah, let's do more. Who doesn't wanna help veterans and seniors? Come on, man. And I think that Seattle and King County - we really like to think of ourselves as the kind of place where we help each other out. And I think people - you said people do vote for that. When I was, when we were working on the Transit Levy a couple of years ago, we found people really were compelled to help people who couldn't afford transit get transit - because they understood - it gets them to work, it gets them to the doctor. It makes people feel good. They wanna do that. [00:45:04] Crystal Fincher: It reduces my traffic. [00:45:06] Brittney Bush Bollay: Right - let people do that. Let people help each other, man. [00:45:12] Crystal Fincher: I wish, I just wish more people understood the value proposition of taxation and how important it is to provide value. And that when you cut back on what you're going to provide - and this is applicable to Sound Transit, this is applicable to school levies and things, we've talked about this before. One time I wound up chairing a school levy because of this issue here - of the higher versus lower amount thing. Again, the issue here isn't tax versus no tax. It's tax at one amount, tax at a tiny bit above that other amount. And people just don't differentiate between that amount. So go for what you know is going to deliver the value necessary and the value intended, instead of saying - Sorry, we're just gonna have to do a lot less. When people look at their own personal finances, they make these judgments all the time, right? And if they feel like - Okay, yeah, I think that's good. I think that'll help. Okay, that's fine. But if it's - This isn't helping much, I don't know that this is gonna do much - then no, they're not as inclined to do it. And making these decisions repeatedly, as you said, just locks us into lower rates and into funding that we know is not going to provide the relief that it's intended to. And when people feel like they've been bamboozled - like we do with the Waterfront, like we do - Hey, I thought I bought this other thing and you delivered something completely different. Hey, I thought I was buying the same amount of things that I did before for the same price, but turns out you cut back. People notice that - that they will notice and feel that more than they will notice and feel the incremental difference in the tax amount. And I just wish more electeds understood this. We would save ourselves a lot of peril. [00:46:59] Brittney Bush Bollay: And I think that a long term degradation of trust in government has very, very serious consequences that add up over time far more than incremental taxation increases do. [00:47:11] Crystal Fincher: I agree. Delivering what people expect, also the implementation of stuff - we've talked about before - getting the implementation right are absolutely critical, especially for the advancement of progressive policy. With that, I will thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, May 5th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was King Conservation Supervisor, Seattle sports writer and enthusiast, fashion maven, Brittney Bush Bollay. You can find Brittney @BrittneyBush, that's two T's in the middle. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter and Blue Sky and Mastodon - finchfrii everywhere. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

covid-19 tv amazon donald trump washington pr ukraine seattle russian microsoft veterans republicans democrats council starbucks nhl id campaign hacks bush dare idaho cdc democratic stranger treating chamber gop proposal nancy pelosi compromise ferguson gap delivering gov riots speculation fingers seniors blue sky od war on drugs city council avalanche human services mastodon jumpstart legislature colorado avalanche seattle kraken week in review waterfront seattle times state legislatures sierra club emerald city paramedics jay inslee king county democratic senators kiro seattle police department kuow b o jim walsh bob ferguson sound transit denver police department wonks david hyde climate commitment act king county council semi bird head tax erica c barnett seattle chamber

Innovation in Sound and Art: The Bang & Olufsen NFT Journey

Public Key

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2023 26:41

Innovation in Sound and Art: The Bang & Olufsen NFT Journey With luxury brands entering the NFT and web3 market at rapid speeds, Bang & Olufsen is not only planning to create an immersive metaverse experience with their high end audio equipment, but also provide digital and physical assets to enhance the experience. In this episode, Ian Andrews (Chief Marketing Officer, Chainalysis) chats with Christoffer Østergaard Poulsen (Senior Vice President, Business Development & Brand Partnering at Bang & Olufsen) to explain how they are combining nostalgic audio equipment with bleeding edge web3 technology and NFTs. Christoffer shares a behind the scenes look at B & O's collaboration with musicians and artists and how onboarding their traditional customers into web3 could enhance their experience. He also shares their thoughts around sustainability and how being environmentally conscious led them to mint on Ethereum. It is noted that Bang & Olufsen is a Chainalysis Partner Minute-by-minute episode breakdown (2:35) – Bringing back 1970s turntable nostalgia with a century old luxury audio brand (5:35) – How a history of collaborating with artist and musicians easily transitioned Bang & Olufsen into web3 and NFTs (12:35) – Combining physical assets and in-person experiences with digital assets and the metaverse (15:50) – How the metaverse may change the way consumers experience a concert or engage with musical artists (20:01) – The experience of launching their first NFT and deciding on Ethereum as a more environmentally conscious blockchain (23:30) – Collaborating with Super Rare and what is on the web3 horizon for Bang & Olufsen Related resources Check out more resources provided by Chainalysis that perfectly complement this episode of the Public Key. Report: The Chainalysis 2023 Crypto Crime Report Conference: Chainalysis Links Conference 2023 in New York City Website: Bang & Olufsen: DNA NFT Collection Press Release: A9: The Next Generation of Powerful Home Speakers Tweet: B & O's New Partnership with SuperRare Chainalysis Blog: The Current State of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) in 2023 Twitter: Chainalysis Twitter: Building trust in blockchains TikTok: Newly launched Chainalysis Tik Tok page YouTube: Chainalysis YouTube page is completely revamped Website: Chainalysis: We are paving the way for a global economy built on blockchains. Speakers on today's episode Ian Andrews * Host * (Chief Marketing Officer, Chainalysis) Christoffer Østergaard Poulsen (Senior Vice President, Business Development & Brand Partnering, Bang & Olufsen) It is noted that Bang & Olufsen is a Chainalysis Partner This website may contain links to third-party sites that are not under the control of Chainalysis, Inc. or its affiliates (collectively “Chainalysis”). Access to such information does not imply association with, endorsement of, approval of, or recommendation by Chainalysis of the site or its operators, and Chainalysis is not responsible for the products, services, or other content hosted therein. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide legal, tax, financial, or investment advice. Listeners should consult their own advisors before making these types of decisions. Chainalysis has no responsibility or liability for any decision made or any other acts or omissions in connection with your use of this material. Chainalysis does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of the information in any particular podcast and will not be responsible for any claim attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies of any part of such material. Unless stated otherwise, reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by Chainalysis. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by Chainalysis employees are those of the employees and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

March 27, 2023 show

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2023 101:22

6am hour--more evidence that people are leaving Seattle area in greater numbers than all but one other US city, 10% in Seattle report they're moving out of the metro area, one notable wealth management firm announces they'll move out of state from Camas WA to Texas after capital gains tax ruling by St. Supreme Court, key words from a dissenting State Supreme Court justice on the capital gains tax ruling, update on zoning bill HB1110 that would take local zoning control away from cities and allow the state to impose zoning decisions, KVI's Lars Larson tackles the WA Sup. Court ruling that upholds the Gov. Jay Inslee capital gains income tax. 7am hour -- WA health care workers are upset that federal mask mandate for health care workers is coming to an end in April, WA St. Supreme Court justice is reaching a political conclusion not a legal conclusion, GUEST: chief legal counsel at Freedom Foundation, Eric Stahfield, says he is looking at the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution as a way to possibly appeal this state Supreme Court ruling to the US Supreme Court. 8am hour -- GUEST: St. Sen. Lynda Wilson discusses the SCOW decision on capital gains (income) tax, the State Supreme Court about as politically balanced as they Seattle City Council, one financial management company in Clark County WA already announced they'll move HQ because of this capital gains tax ruling, Wilson points out that the B&O tax in WA started as a temporary tax but is now heavily relied on for the WA budget, GUEST: ShiftWA.org's Randy Pepple, explains how the WA Legislature used an "emergency clause" to pass the capital gains tax which limits how the tax can be checked and balanced by WA voters, the mania of Legislative Democrats to jack up taxes on "the rich" in WA, HBO's Bill Maher says its "a colossal mistake if they bring these charges" against Trump with the Stormy Daniels payout.

texas donald trump seattle hbo court supreme court wa gov hq us supreme court bill maher stormy daniels us constitution jay inslee state supreme court freedom foundation seattle city council commerce clause b o lars larson kvi legislative democrats lynda wilson

Cautionary tales about WA Supreme Court upholding capital gains tax

texas washington supreme court occupation state senators cautionary tales upholding capital gains tax john carlson b o fisher investments kvi wa supreme court

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2023 12:24

KVI's John Carlson interviews State Senator, Lynda Wilson (R-Vancouver), with her reaction to the Supreme Court of Washington (SCOW) ruling 7-2 to legalize a capital gains tax on sale of financial assets. Wilson provides a pair of cautionary tales regarding the newly validated capital gains tax. First, she notes that the financial management company Fisher Investments has announced they will move their headquarters from Camas WA to Texas which will allow them to avoid this new tax and allow their clients to keep more of their investments. Also, Wilson reminds us that the Washington Business and Occupation tax (B&O tax) started off as a temporary tax in the 1990s and it has now been expanded and increased to generate more money from Washington businesses.

March 2014: Into the TriadVerse

This Week In Fandom History

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 19, 2023 56:12

Good mornin'! (Good mornin'!) This week, Emily and V dive deep into Multiamory March with a look at the 2014 invention of the TriadVerse, which is like A/B/O minus the A and O. With deep and evolving lore, a fest week, and an evolution into Multiamory March itself, the TriadVerse used ships like the eternal Don/Cosmo/Kathy from Singin' in the Rain to enchant both of our intrepid cohosts. Have you ever heard of the TriadVerse? What's your fave OT3?

rain fandom polyamory fanfiction singin triads b o multiamory ot3

WA Legislature: which is more important? Climate change or tax breaks?

climate change legislature tax breaks john carlson b o solyndra kvi

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2023 12:37

KVI's John Carlson and interview guest, co-founder of ShiftWA.org's Randy Pepple, discuss a Washington Legislative bill that will give a B&O tax break to fossil fuel companies that promote bio fuel as an alternative jet fuel. The bill brings up recollections of the federal subsidies that went to Solyndra in the mid-2010s before Solyndra went bankrupt.

March 16, 2023 show

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2023 108:38

The John Carlson Show 6am hour -- safety concerns escalate after a woman is stabbed on board Seattle light rail train, a complex trial is set to start in Washington DC on March 27th involving a well known rapper accused of being a proxy for the Chinese government, final legal hurdle insight for Bremerton HS assistant football coach--Joe Kennedy--getting his job back, KVI's Ari Hoffman breaks the story about Seattle's Fire Chief cooperating with Anti-fa and BLM protesters during the CHOP zone occupation in Capitol Hill. 7am hour -- New video released of the Russian fighter jet crashing into the US drone over the Black Sea, Pierce Co. Council votes next week on a sales-tax hike that will fund the grossly mis-named "affordable housing" to the tune of $20 million a year, a county school board in CA is suing TikTok for student mental health problems, an on-air tutorial on how to download the new KVI app and how you can better access what you want from KVI on your phone, 8am hour -- GUEST: ShiftWA.org's Randy Pepple asks the political question, "climate change or tax breaks? Which is more important?", SB 5447 would give a Finnish oil company a B&O tax break to make bio-fuel for commercial jets, GUEST: KVI's Ari Hoffman shares his exclusive story about the Seattle Fire Dept. Chief's cooperation with Anti-fa and BLM groups during the 2020 CHOP occupation, Scroggins was handing over city owned emergency & medical equipment to the CHOP zone occupants/medical team, Scroggins falsely portrayed that his SFD crews were not allowed to respond to 911 calls inside CHOP--which turned out to be not true, KC Exec is now pushing a plan to "reimagine" the County's shuttered administration building for residences, restaurants and gathering places at 4th and James Street.

tiktok chinese washington dc seattle russian chief council blm capitol hill finnish sb chop black sea fire chief joe kennedy scroggins b o sfd james street ari hoffman kvi

Betas: The Weird Middle Child

weird stronger hates jokes never alone squeaky betas middle child b o have questions

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2023 43:36

Hey Fangirls! In this episode, M and Bea try to find the distinction between Betas and how they're used in fic. Who are Betas within the context of the A/B/O world? What do people generally use them for in fic? It may be stranger than you think! fic!Club:“Something Smart to Do” by Kianspo https://archiveofourown.org/works/14501889?view_adult=true “My Love Will Forever be Stronger than Stone (Don't be Afraid You are Never Alone)” by Resacon1990 https://archiveofourown.org/works/24118522 “Someone that Hates to see me Go” by Autumnhobbit https://archiveofourown.org/works/8113246 Rec Corner! “I want your hot love (and emotion)” by Squeaky https://archiveofourown.org/works/15591912?view_adult=true Support M and Bea on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/fangirlsanonymous?fan_landing=true Visit the podcast's website at https://fangirlsanonymous.com/ Have Questions? Comments? Jokes? Email M and Bea at mandbpresents@gmail.com. Hosted by M and Bea Music by Gabe Jensen Produced by Miranda Sherrell Edited by Miranda Sherrell Consulted by Erica Bravo FAIR USE: Copyright Disclaimer: under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

RPF and Omegaverse (J2 and A/B/O FanFic)

Idling In The Impala

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2022 75:22

Karlee and Sandra were lucky enough to have SPN lovers and writers Carole, Tammy, and Sandy back to discuss J2 and A/B/O fanfiction. Great discussion, as always. They got a little sidetracked along the way, but that's half the fun! Reach out to these lovely ladies and read their work! Carole AO3 and Twitter ~~~ Tammy AO3 and Twitter ~~~ Sandy AO3 and Twitter ~~~~~ We're taking you for a spin in Baby's backseat. Dean's House Rules - Driver picks the music, shotgun shuts his cakehole, and the ones in the back enjoy the ride... idling in the Impala. ~~~~~ We'd love to hear your thoughts. Send us an email (idlingintheimpala@gmail.com)! All the Socials and AO3 and Fiction links: https://linktr.ee/idlingintheimpalapodcast Discord #backseat Channel Interested in being a guest on the podcast? Give us some info about you here so we can connect. Feel inclined to leave us a tip for all this AWESOME content? Visit our Ko-fi page. Supporters will get access to our #behindthescenes channel, content self-explanatory. ~~~~~ Charities supporting people affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine World Central Kitchen and GlobalGiving ~~~~~ For Those in the US: Educate and Empower Yourself, Find Ways to Take Action Support Basic Human Rights - American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Prioritize Your Mental Health - National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Thrive (Not Just Survive) After Abuse - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) ~~~~~ LGBTQ+ Charities Switchboard LGBT UK The Trevor Project - USA and Global --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/idlingintheimpala/message

babies russian reach fiction abuse ko socials charities fanfic impala ao3 j2 spn empower yourself b o

Ep. 75 [Carlos Andreazza] Ponderação no debate político

Patada de Pantufa

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2022 78:29

Bicha, devo dizer que estou sim um NOJO depois desse papo com o incrível Carlos Andreazza (@andreazzaeditor), âncora da CBN e colunista do O Globo. Trocamos uma ideia sobre a importância da ponderação no debate político e indignações. Vem ouvir que foi BÃO! [IMPORTANTE] Desde SETEMBRO/22, todo o valor arrecadado pelo financiamento coletivo do picpay do Podcast é destinado a uma instituição que ajude animais ou pessoas em situação de vulnerabilidade. Participe do financiamento coletivo e vamos ajudar quem precisa

debate vem participe cbn curta responda o globo trocamos b o bicha nojo carlos andreazza

Mortified! Episode 122: 238 Works in Luke Hobbs/Deckard Shaw, M/M (Hobbs & Shaw)

Mortified! The Friendship Quest

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 7, 2022 41:44

This week, we get fast and a little more furious with the F&F spinoff, Hobbs & Shaw! Join Aaron and Leyla as we talk about the Hattie Shaw-Uchiha standalone spy flick that could have been, Idris Elba being a little sexy and evil (like we all should be), and the unhinged sexual tension between two large and strong men. Omegaverse: What is A/B/O? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLoDTQ6B7cc Avatar: The Way of Water | Official Trailer - https://youtu.be/d9MyW72ELq0 You Wrote it Gay: Why Gendered Conflict is Queering Up Your Narrative - https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Wrote-it-Gay-Why-Gendered-Conflict-is-Queerin-I3I06O1RL --- Twitter: @MortifiedPod Hosts' Twitters: @aaronsxl / @leylses Hotline: ‪(775) 573-8882 Sign up for our monthly newsletter, which has additional content and our personal recs. Our theme song is "Obsolete" by Keshco, from the album "Filmmaker's Reference Kit Volume 2." Our other projects: Aaron's TTRPGs Aaron's TTRPG Reviews The Bible Boys Astral Heart

filmmakers shaw hobbs idris elba ff obsolete hobbs shaw deckard mortified b o keshco you wrote

Chipalo Street, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2022 46:20

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Chipalo Street about his campaign for State Representative in the 37th Legislative District - why he decided to run, how he would approach legislating and his thoughts on addressing issues such as housing affordability and zoning, data privacy, public safety, homelessness, and climate change. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Chipalo Street at @ElectChipalo. Resources Campaign Website - Chipalo Street South Seattle Emerald's 37th LD Representative Position 2 Debate (October 4, 2022) - Moderated by Crystal Fincher Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm excited to welcome Chipalo Street, who is running for 37th Legislative District State Representative. Welcome to the program, Chipalo. [00:00:49] Chipalo Street: Thank you for having me. [00:00:50] Crystal Fincher: Excellent - so what made you decide to run for office and what are you bringing to this race? [00:00:57] Chipalo Street: Yeah - the two second answer is I came to this race through a program called Institute for a Democratic Future. But I think - as I look back on even how I got to IDF, which is the shorthand term for Institute for a Democratic Future - [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Which we are well aware of - and I am on the board of, as are you, full disclosure. [00:01:18] Chipalo Street: Yes, it goes back to how I have tried to give back to different communities throughout my life. And so - I grew up in D.C. and was very lucky to have a family that valued education - going to college was not a question for me. I actually got to go to my grandmother's college graduation because she had to drop out to have my dad and his family, but education was so important to her that she then got a job at Akron University and took night classes slowly to graduate, even though her kids had already gone to college and graduated. So when - I think I was in junior high school, going to my grandmother's graduation - whether I was going to go to college or not was not an option for me. But I didn't really understand why I wanted to go to college or what I would do with that degree. And so my parents had made sure to get me into the best public schools in D.C. And I was thankful for that because by the time I got to high school, I was in a school - the only public school in D.C. - that had a computer science department. And that's where I really learned that I loved computers, loved programming. And then that sort of motivated me, and I knew what my purpose was for in college. Went to Brown University and realized that there weren't a ton of people in engineering that looked like myself. We had a lot of folks in pre-med that had created a group that would support each other through the pre-med process, but we didn't have that at Brown University. And so I co-founded our chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers so that we had that support group to help folks go through engineering. After I left Brown, I came out to Seattle and again, realized there weren't many people that looked like myself in computer science. And so I worked with a woman named Trish who founded Technology Access Foundation - and myself and three other Microsofties created a computer science curriculum down at TAF and taught that for six years to a school in South Seattle. And that sort of pattern is - finding ways where I can use my time to give back to the community, but also leverage it. I think there's a 100% place for direct service, and I am so grateful for folks who do direct service. But for myself, I've always tried to figure out - hey, if I put an hour in here, how do I get five hours out? If I put two hours in here, how do I get 10 hours out? And so starting our chapter of National Society of Black Engineers, creating curriculum and teaching that at TAF - I thought would create a legacy that lived on past me. Again, then start looking around - hey, these state laws and policies really impact and shape our society - how can I help get involved in that? And so I went to United Way of King County - served on their Public Policy Impact Council. And while we did advocate for laws and policies, it was frustrating because that's a very - we had to advocate for very middle-of-the-road policies because we didn't want to alienate our more conservative donor base, and so that felt like my time was not best used. At that same time, I was going through this program Institute for a Democratic Future - they were really pushing for progressive policies and training a next generation of Democratic leaders. And so - I loved that program and then started serving on the board after that point. So I've been on the board for maybe six or seven years - and that has been a very fulfilling experience because I love the work that they did, but one of the things I did not see was as much equity and inclusion. So I've been trying to push for more board members of color, and also more fellows of color, and also geographic diversity - because we are a statewide program and so having folks east of the mountain is really important. And that's a long way of saying that's how I've gotten actually to this opportunity because through that board service - when this opportunity came up - some of the board members approached me and said, Hey, you match the district really well, you should consider running. I was like, Oh no, you got the wrong guy - I love my full-time job - I don't think I'm ready to take on that type of extra work, my ego couldn't take the loss if I was to lose. And so we talked about all my bad reasons not to run. Senator Nguyen - he serves in the Senate, he works at Microsoft - he's able to do it. So talk to him, talk to your boss, see if they're both supportive of that - they were, that conversation went well. And I was like, Oh well, you just retired from being a pro-soccer referee, you have some extra time - so what about that? I was like, Yeah, I know - the work is an excuse, I always do a good job of what I do - I will put my all into it. It will be fine. But my poor little ego couldn't take a loss. And they're like - Look, ego-based decisions aren't how you should be making your decisions. And even just running would help the community - you'd learn it better, you'd expand your network. And we think you'll win because you have great experience. It's - Man, I'm not really excited to do this - it's changing my plans for all of my summer and fall. So since then, I've just been knocking on doors, fundraising, attending candidate forums, talking about the different experiences that I think I can bring to this district. And we could go into that, we could go somewhere else - all these things are great. And I know that was a long-winded way of answering your question. [00:06:22] Crystal Fincher: And so I'm wondering what are you running to accomplish? [00:06:25] Chipalo Street: Yeah, for sure. So there are things that - there's some really major issues that are affecting everyone, and then specifically the 37th. So for example - housing. I think housing prices are going up across the country, but it is impacting the 37th District in specific ways. So we're a historic district - we have been generally a district - we were the most diverse district in the country for quite some time. However, as those housing prices are rising, folks are getting displaced, neighborhoods are getting gentrified, and it is having unique impacts on our district. So fixing housing, I think, is super important. And the way I think about that is - three buckets of solutions. One is how do you stop harm now? How do you get more units on the market in the long term? And then how do you tide ourselves to the point where those units are on the market? So stopping harm now looks like anti-displacement measures - so we can't stop people from moving to the 37th. However, we can make sure that the folks who live here have an opportunity to take part in the evolution of that community. So seniors who are on fixed incomes - making sure they have tax breaks so that as the property values rise, they can afford the taxes. That generational homes that have been passed down through families - those families can afford the taxes and aren't forced to sell. And then we also need increased renter protections. There's some pretty crazy things that landlords can do from the types of fees they charge, to who they provide housing to, and who they discriminate against based on prior felonies or involvement with the criminal justice system. Or even just lifting the statewide ban on rent control so that municipalities have different tools in their tool belt to address housing affordability. So that would stop harm right now. Investment in low-income housing through the Housing Trust Fund will get more units on the market and that's something the State has to do. There's also - we need to figure out something around workforce housing. We underpay our teachers, but even two teachers living together can't afford housing in the area. And then we also need to invest in mass transit so that we can increase density. Mass transit gets us towards a greener climate future, which is a whole 'nother set of issues that we can talk about. But also increasing density around that transit allows more units to get on the market. And those are three things that are going to take a while to come to fruition. And so we also need means to tide ourselves there. So increasing temporary rental support, I think, is important so that a short-term hardship doesn't snowball and turn into someone losing their house - makes it harder for them to work, makes it harder for their kids to go to school. And then making sure that we have a robust voucher program so that working people can live in existing market rate units without spending their full paycheck. So housing is super important - it's the number one issue I hear at doors. Then there's things around criminal justice reform. Climate justice is really important in that, again, if we don't have a habitable world to live in, it doesn't really matter. But the 37th itself gets disproportionately impacted by our environment - like we have planes flying over Beacon Hill, one of our large borders is created by I-5 - and so we have air pollution, noise pollution that impacts our district on top of all of the other things like climate change and global warming and stuff like that. And then there's some unique experiences that I bring that I think are necessary for our society. For example, I work at Microsoft. I think it's really important that we have people who understand technology in the Legislature. And we could snicker about that - six months ago, where you'd see federal hearings where you have senators saying, Why didn't my tweet go to my inbox? And it's just, Oh, God - no, you should really understand this. But with the Roe decision, we're getting tangible examples of how our data can be used against people. So I think it's really important that we don't have our data used to go after folks who are seeking abortions, but it also applies to our providers as well, right? Telehealth is a thing - providers can work across state lines. And if they're working in a state that has banned abortion, what does that mean for their ability to be sued, to be subpoenaed, to possibly lose their license? So making sure that we can protect everyone involved in the abortion ecosystem through our data and technology legislation, I think, is really important. It's given us a tangible reason why this is so important to us today. So that's a quick way of saying there's many issues - I would love to support on all of them, and then bring unique experience and to solve things and apply them to things like data privacy. [00:11:13] Crystal Fincher: So now you mentioned housing, you mentioned a number of things, lifting the ban on rent control and rental assistance. There is a bill that has been attempting to make its way through the Legislature, the middle housing bill, to address the housing shortage - up-zoning in single-family zoned areas, which would impact several neighborhoods around the City, including those in the 37th district. Do you support that bill? Would you be a yes vote on that bill? [00:11:39] Chipalo Street: Yeah, you're talking about Jessica Bateman's bill - the missing middle one. Yeah, I think that's a great bill. What's interesting with any of these conversations is understanding how it will impact the existing communities and my impression is that that will not have a disproportionate negative impact on the 37th - because Seattle has already done some pretty progressive zoning reforms in terms of land use, in terms of ADUs and detached - with DDUs, or ADUs and DDUs - but what's really important about that bill is that it enforces it statewide, right? So that we can't just allow Seattle to increase density. And then when Seattle increases density, it really gets pushed into a neighborhood in Seattle because certain enclaves within Seattle say, Oh, no density in my backyard - let's push it down into - usually communities like Black and Brown communities. And so doing it at a statewide level makes sure that we're all in density together. And understanding what those impacts are, I think, is really important. And luckily, I don't think it would increase displacement given the existing zoning laws of Seattle, but that is the one area that I would want to dig into that bill and make sure that we aren't, again, increasing displacement within the 37th. But at a statewide level, it's 100% necessary. [00:13:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely at the statewide level. And some would argue that within the City, as you - I think - alluded to, that there are disproportionate impacts of development and the 37th Legislative District is being more negatively impacted to date than others are. And the 37th having accepted more density already, already having a lot of development and redevelopment that has resulted in the way that it's done in displacement. And so how do you balance looking at that within the district and the need to build more housing in the city overall, but to do so equitably throughout the city - and other districts that have a much higher percentage of areas zoned for single-family and that are basically exempted under current zoning laws from additional development and not having to deal with some of the impacts of that the 37th is? How do you manage wanting more density, but making sure it is equitable throughout the city and doesn't displace more people in the 37th? [00:14:04] Chipalo Street: Yeah, I think this is an example where the devil's in the details. So here's my understanding, and I would love to make sure that my understanding is correct as I move into the Legislature. But one of the things that has been so harmful to the 37th is upzoning. And so let's separate upzoning from, say, increased density on single-family lots - whereas upzoning is, Hey, here is a small area that we can build extremely tall buildings on. Generally, I believe they've been called urban villages - I think there are four or five areas within the city that were zoned for urban villages. Compared to - okay, any single-family lot can be built up to four units - you can put a very small garden apartment there or a set of townhomes on there. So Jessica Bateman's bill is the latter, the any single-family home can be built up to four or six units, whereas serious upzoning for urban villages is large apartment buildings. And the difference there is - our current tax code taxes property based on highest and best use. And so the tax on the highest and best use for something that's zoned for an apartment building is different than zoned for a single-family house, even if single-family house includes a small fourplex. And that's where a lot of people have been displaced because the CD contained one of those urban villages. And so everyone who was within that urban village - their property value skyrocketed and they had to figure out a way to pay the taxes. And so - why I'm hopeful that Jessica Bateman's bill won't exacerbate that is that Seattle already has allowed ADUs and DDUs on single-family lots. And so I don't think that should make the tax rate jump as much as upzoning did for these urban villages. And so I don't think we should necessarily be having urban villages in the 37th - additional ones - unless that comes with a way to allow existing homeowners to afford the taxes. And so understanding the difference between urban villages and additional density on single-family lots, I think, is important. And that's how I would start to think about that equity, because to your point - those urban villages aren't equally distributed around the city. [00:16:27] Crystal Fincher: And also, relying on just urban villages to increase density does not seem like it would get enough housing stock on the market to eventually make a difference. So it seems like allowing single-family, currently single-family zoned areas citywide, would be more of an equitable solution - not just areas that are disproportionately in the 37th district - might help to, if people with higher property values can have a higher and best use, and not just people clustered in the 37th or other already very dense areas, then that helps to spread out the development and where more dense development can happen. But appreciate hearing your thoughts on that. I'm also curious - we had a legislative session this past session where there were rollbacks of a number of public safety policies that had been previously passed. Do you agree with those rollbacks? What was your evaluation of the session and those rollbacks? [00:17:33] Chipalo Street: The thing I do agree with is some of the processes that went into it - I was very happy to see Representative Johnson do ride-alongs with police to understand how the new legislation impacted their ability to provide public safety. I personally have a hard time believing that I would have voted to roll them back. [00:17:52] Crystal Fincher: Well, I guess that is the question. Would you have voted to roll them back? [00:17:56] Chipalo Street: I don't think so. I would - that said, I did not do those ride-alongs, I did not, I have not sat there and listened to debriefs on exactly how the minutiae of these policies are implemented or did it impact the police's ability to provide public safety. But what I will say is - the reason I say I have a hard time believing I would roll them back is because I think those types of policies would have saved me from the situation I went through. So when I was at Brown, myself and my best friend were walking around campus, which was a public campus, so anyone could be there. We were actually walking from campus onto a public street. And Brown police asked us for our IDs. And it was like, Hey, I'm on a public street. I didn't do anything. Why do I need to show you my ID? I kept on walking. My friend actually stopped, showed him his ID, and told the police who I was. So they knew who I was, I hadn't done anything wrong. So it should have ended there. It didn't. They called out an APB for me - Providence police picked it up. And they beat me so badly that I ended up in the hospital before they took me to jail. And so I believe that the regulations that were implemented and rolled back would have prevented the police from even having that interaction. And so that is something that's near and dear to my heart. And one of the reasons why I say I think it does provide trust with the police to make sure that there are - when we are having interactions with them, that it is for a valid reason and it's not based on a hunch, it's not based on a best guess by a police officer. But that said, I also do realize that the legislation that we passed has unintended consequences. And so working with the police department to understand what those were - I am open to the option that I could have voted to roll them back, but without some very, very strong reasons to do so, I don't think I would have. [00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So looking at the issue of homelessness, which is related to housing affordability - but also because it has been so criminalized, also related to public safety. In your capacity as a legislator, what would you do to reduce the amount of people living without homes? [00:20:15] Chipalo Street: This is one of those issues where understanding different populations of our unhoused people, and then making sure that we are targeting money at solutions that are needed by each of those populations is really important. Whereas just sometimes we throw money at issue and say, Hey, we upped homeless funding by 10%, but we didn't see a drop in 10% - what's happening? It's probably because we didn't really understand where that money was going or fund the right programs. And when we look at our different populations - the supports that someone needs who has addiction issues is different than the support that, say, a family who just got evicted needs, right? Cash assistance to the family will probably go a lot farther than cash assistance to someone who has an addiction issue. Or someone having mental health issues needs different support than say, an LGBTQ teen that got kicked out of the house, right? They all need different support. They all need shelter, but the shelters that they need are probably different - I don't think teens need the same shelter as someone going through mental health crises either. Or families shouldn't be staying with folks with addiction issues and may choose not to have shelter if they are all housed together. So really understanding the different populations of our homeless brothers and sisters, and then making sure that the money that we're providing actually is going towards services that address the root cause of their issues, I think, is important. And then making sure that these are sort of buckets that pour into each other. If we start with a Housing First solution, then that can start to stabilize people. Once they either get clean or can address some of their mental health issues, then they can move into a different type of shelter with other folks. And making sure that we have a sort of pipeline that can bring them back into being productive members of our society, I think, is really important. [00:22:07] Crystal Fincher: So as we look at that, there's obviously lots of different kinds of programs, as you just talked about, that could be helpful in stabilizing people and taking a Housing First model. Right now, there seems to be a lot of competition between money and resources being allocated towards criminalization that could be used, and would otherwise be used for things like providing housing first and allowing people to be stabilized. So in terms of where your votes would be to appropriate money, would you appropriate or vote for anything that advanced criminalization before providing housing? [00:22:46] Chipalo Street: No, to your point - in some ways, we are going to provide housing in one way or the other. Either we provide it in a humane way, or we provide it through the criminal justice system, which doesn't address any of these issues and is super expensive. And so I think that making sure that - as we look at housing and criminal justice reform in a more comprehensive way - towards what are the things that get us the outcomes that we want. Even if they haven't been necessarily labeled as housing or criminal justice in the past, I think, would be really - Republicans do great jobs at labeling things, and I think Democrats do a horrible job at it. But there's so many ways that we could think of expanding criminal justice or "criminal justice" or "homeless housing" or funding for homeless and homelessness and housing that would get us to these better outcomes. And wouldn't then end up paying on the backside in the form of increasing people in jails - the number of people in jails - and the very, very large cost that goes along with that. So I think solving those root problems is the first thing that we should be doing, and then we'll see the savings in other systems. And just understanding how we're appropriating that money is really important. [00:23:59] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so you would not vote for any appropriation of money that would go towards criminalization or penalization of homelessness. [00:24:06] Chipalo Street: I don't think so - what are some examples of some of these? We can easily talk about bills, but no, that does not make sense. I would rather prevent that so that it's not even a question about - are these people criminals or just trying to live and get by? [00:24:24] Crystal Fincher: So you also mentioned environmental justice. Obviously we are facing significant challenges in both the mitigation of climate change, the impacts that are disproportionately felt in the 37th Legislative District. As you evaluate the Climate Commitment Act, do you think it goes far enough? And if not, what additional steps or what other things should we be doing right now to meet our climate goals and mitigate the harm being committed right now? [00:24:52] Chipalo Street: Climate, for me, is something like racial justice and economic justice. I think we should use a climate lens for all the bills that we pass because there is no one or two things that we can do to solve climate - that ship has sailed a long time ago and it's like a all-hands-on-deck mission. And it's critical that we understand how to get ourselves out of this. There are certain things I love to see - like in the HEAL Act, there is additional money for collecting data so that we understand what harm has been done so that we can target again the money in better ways to undo that harm and move towards a greener climate future. I was glad to see that we passed our carbon tax - making sure that gets implemented and stood up, I think, will be one step towards moving the business community towards a greener future. We need to invest in mass transit like we had mentioned before so that we have places where we can increase density and people can access that, but also because it's towards a greener climate future. I personally am a proponent of trying to get out of cars as much as possible. I've tried to bike to work twice a week and that sort of exposed the patchwork of dangerous roads but really nice bike trails. And making sure that any transit network is well connected, I think, is really important. Even roads - people wouldn't use roads if we had dead-end roads to nowhere, so why are we surprised that people don't use bike trails or other types of mass transit when they don't connect? We have a monorail that goes from downtown to a stadium a few blocks away. What are we doing? Why are we surprised no one uses it? We have streetcars that finally are starting to connect to stuff but for quite some time the different lines didn't connect to anything else - so they were set up for failure in the first place. So making sure that all of our transit infrastructure is designed in a way that people will use it is really important. And again that sort of overlays on the 37th again - when we're talking about getting people out of cars and increasing bike safety and pedestrian safety. We have two of the most dangerous roads in the city in MLK Way and Rainier Ave. And so making sure that those areas are safer is paramount. We have 10 or 11 schools around there so that's protecting our children. I think it's another place where we could gain common ground with business community because there's studies that show that businesses that are in walkable and bikeable areas get more foot traffic which leads to more sales. And especially for businesses that are small businesses - like restaurants and things like that that are especially common in immigrant, refugee, and BIPOC communities - creating a great business environment for folks to create these legacies is really, really important. And something that you see in the 37th and which is why people are moving here because we have great culture. We have a diversity of food, a diversity of people, a diversity of shops and small businesses. So I think that's another area where we can marry climate, business, safety for our kids - all in one go. [00:28:06] Crystal Fincher: Well and this is another area where there are tensions in different areas of funding. Absolutely - I agree with the urgent need for more transit, better transit that better serves more people, that is more accessible for more people. But it is competing for funding currently with highway expansion. And obviously we need to maintain the roadways that we have, but there are still projects being planned and even - there was just coverage of one in South Park the other day that may jeopardize healing the division and the cleaving of that community basically with a highway. And so, highway expansion projects which lots of people talk about - well, we need to address traffic. Unfortunately, it has been shown that expanding highways does not reduce traffic. In fact, it does increase it. So would you vote for any package that does expand highways, I guess, first off? [00:29:11] Chipalo Street: No, with the exception of instances where it helps freight mobility - we need - freight mobility helps union jobs, and so making sure that if there's something that helps the Port, I think that's really important. I think keeping our highways intact as people get displaced outside of the urban cores - that just adds to folks' commute, unkept highways adds to car maintenance and things like that. So no I don't believe in highway expansion. We should be funding transit and to your point, there's competing funds within transit like as we do light rail expansion. Again affects the 37th - we're talking about light rail expansion through the CID. How are we going to do that? Are we going to do a deep bore tunnel or are we going to do that at grade? Doing deep bore is, I think, 30% more expensive - however, it doesn't disrupt the CID, a community that has been disrupted multiple times with the streetcar going through it, with I-5 going through it - just continually disrupted. But it costs more and so the question always is - at what expense are we going to do this? And so something like that, I think we should go deep bore - we should make sure that this community that continually bears the brunt of expansion and transit-related issues can not be disrupted yet again even though it will cost a little bit more. So that's one thing - I think another issue, or many issues, that vie for funding - that comes back down to our most regressive tax code in the country, despite how progressive and liberal Washington State, we claim we are - we have the most regressive tax code. We force our tax burden onto people through sales tax. We force our tax burden onto homeowners through property tax. We force our tax burden onto small businesses through the B&O tax and then let larger corporations get away with not paying much through tax loopholes. And so that's another area that I would love to improve is - closing our tax loopholes so that corporations pay their fair share, but also implementing - ideally an income tax - that is not either super popular or necessarily doable through constitutional issues, but I do think income tax is the best way to balance our tax code because a income tax is predictable, it can be withheld, it has been done before. But given all of the barriers to it, we'll probably have to try something like a billionaire tax so that every individual and business does pay their fair share to fund the services that are important for our state. [00:31:52] Crystal Fincher: So now in terms of transit - just one more question there - Sound Transit and the plans that they have, plans around the state for increasing transit - a number of them are suffering from delays and setbacks which obviously is a challenge towards adoption. If people are not getting what they're paying for or already being taxed for, it creates more opposition to transit, frankly. Would you support making legislative investments to accelerate light rail transit implementation, bus rapid transit connectivity? [00:32:29] Chipalo Street: Interesting - I assume you would do that as part of one of the big transportation packages? Yes, it seems reasonable. I am not 100% clear about how all these things are funded - that's one of the things I'm really interested, when I and if I get into the Legislature, of understanding where money is coming from and where it's going to. One of my lifelong models is follow the money and you'll get answers. And so really understanding all those funding mechanisms is important. It does seem like something that would be valuable. However, I could imagine the pushback that we may get outside of the Puget Sound region for folks wondering why their perceived taxes are going to light rail within the Puget Sound region, even though when you look on net, my impression is that tax dollars actually flow out of the Puget Sound region to the rest of the state than vice versa - but sometimes perception is reality and that may end up being a harder sell for a large number of legislators outside of Seattle, King County, Pierce County. [00:33:35] Crystal Fincher: I guess that opens up a philosophical question in how you see your role and what your approach is. Do you generally see yourself as - Hey, you're operating based off of data, we know that these things would be helpful - you talked about more transit is beneficial, we need to invest more, we need to have more. And so if there's opposition elsewhere, do you view your role as compromising with what other people think, or maybe addressing - just anticipating - what their challenges may be and stripping down your proposal to something that may be palatable to your colleagues in other parts of the state? Or do you see your role as being more of a spearhead, I guess - would be there and saying, This is right, this is what we need to do. I need to figure out how to build the coalition, how to bring my colleagues along - and maybe not everybody is coming, but can I build a coalition to pass it? Are you starting from - we need transformative change and I need to push for that, or we need change and we need to get what we can given challenges that other colleagues may have from it? Lots of people see pros and cons with either approach - what is your approach? [00:34:56] Chipalo Street: I don't know if this is a cop-out - hopefully it's like a And - quite frankly - I think there are certain issues where I could be that spearhead, where I hopefully can help influence and it may end up taking a longer time to get to where we want to go without compromise. Whereas there are other issues that I think are - I want to say better-suited for data - one of the things I do pride myself on is bringing a data-oriented solution to things. I think we need to elect more scientists because we are trained to use data in decisions. But there, I think, incremental compromise is a lot easier. And I'll give you examples - so we talked about the police reforms. There, I see myself on the tip of the spear there - I've gone through this, I know people who've gone through that, it affects my community specifically. I want - we need a productive relationship with the police force, but that doesn't mean that I can't push for exactly what we need to do - racial justice - we had parole rolled back in 1984. Why can't we bring back the option of parole? Why aren't we doing a better job of training people as they come out of the correctional system so that they have a chance to be members of our society - productive members of our society? Why are we discriminating against them and not allowing them to get housing easily? I think those are things that we can be the tip of the spear and push for and fight for hard, whereas other things we can do more incremental change and work based on data. And I think if you have both of those - when we're compromising and working based on data, we are also building relationships with the folks that may completely disagree with us on the issues that we are tip of a spear. And that gives us a better opportunity - if we have a relationship with them - to start to change their hearts and minds on those issues. So I really think it's - it can - I hopefully think it can be a And - judiciously choosing what issues we fight for and want to get to what is just and right right now versus slow incremental change, I think, is important based on who's being impacted and what the harm is being done. [00:37:16] Crystal Fincher: And I guess that leads into another question just based off of what you talked about earlier - as you were considering running - Hey, my ego may not be able to take it. This is hard and rough. And campaigns are rough and it's a very brave thing to stand up and run, but sometimes I think it's - you're so stuck in this that it's easy to miss that governing is tougher. [00:37:45] Chipalo Street: For sure. [00:37:46] Crystal Fincher: And the pressures get magnified and you talk about hits to the ego - you got special interest groups looking over your shoulder and are in your ear and saying good and bad things about you publicly. As you're going through legislation, you have pressure from within the caucus to vote the way that the caucus wants you to vote. You have pressure from the community, you have pressure from your donors and businesses. And so as you think about even the consideration of - I don't know if my ego could take losing - and you win, so you don't have to deal with that in the campaign - how do you deal with the pressures of governing? And how do you navigate the different pressures from people who were part of your winning coalition and the community and those in the Legislature versus what your community needs? [00:38:46] Chipalo Street: Yeah, yeah - I think it's a good point where the ego consideration is a point in time of did you win the election. And then how you deal with the wear and tear on your heart is very different as you govern because there are so many things - the power to change our society lies in the Legislature and the policies that shape our state. And not getting to where we want to go in Day One and seeing the effect of that on people in the community, I think, is going to be very hard. And the folks in the community want change immediately - rightfully so - and talking about how we are getting there and maybe we won't get there immediately on every issue is going to be hard. And so I think for me, it's number one - understanding where I come from, understanding that I am part of these communities that I am trying to help serve. And then also understanding the wins that we get and seeing the progress that we make so that it is not just a futile effort of - hey, we are advocating for what's right, but not actually making any change - I think is really important and quite frankly one of the things that scares me is how much compromise is good? The legislative process is built around - to be slow - and you have to compromise, but at some point you can compromise out of any progress at all and you can start to compromise out of your morals and things like that. And so really understanding where you come from, what you're trying to change, what progress you have made - so that you understand that you are making progress towards your goal - and who's being impacted, I think, is what will get me through it because I - when I look at professional experiences - people in general tend to focus on the negative and what we can do better. But when you take a step back and say, Okay, let me look at everything that has gone right and has gone well - that adds wind to your sails - and so making sure that we have that comprehensive view of what has gone well, as well as where do we need to go - I think will make that journey give you stamina to continue that journey and continue fighting. And if you get to the point where you don't care anymore and it's just - okay, we have one more session, then I think that's the time when you need to get out - you need to have that fire and it should be wearing in some degree, because if it's not wearing then you probably don't care enough, quite frankly. [00:41:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it makes sense. So now as you talk to voters and people are trying to make a decision between you and your opponent Emijah Smith, what do you tell them in terms of the advantage that you offer as a candidate, what sets you apart, and how their life will be different if you are elected to be their State Representative? [00:41:46] Chipalo Street: Yeah, the thing I say is - we are lucky, we're in the 37th, we're a very Democratic district so we're only going to elect a Democrat. So I just start with being thankful for that baseline because it's more than can be said in many districts. However, once you get to that point then it really becomes who's going to be the most effective legislator and I think there's some specific examples - I have experience that the other candidate doesn't with tech - and we talked about earlier how it wasn't quite clear how - it was clear that technology was impacting us, but it wasn't really clear exactly how it impacted our daily lives. With Roe, I think it's really important that we have people in the Legislature making sure that folks who are either providing or accessing abortion care are not persecuted because of that, or prosecuted because of that. I am the only candidate who's been a member of a union - I stood with that union during a work stoppage, so that provides evidence that I will strongly support all of our other working brothers and sisters as they're trying to improve compensation, benefits, working conditions. I have lived experience with our criminal justice system unfortunately, and so that really - it is near and dear to my heart - Emijah is a Black woman - she has sons, so she also understands it as well. That is no takeaway from her lived experience as well, but that is something that is core to how I've come up in my worldview. And then I say these next things in half-jest, but part of the job of a legislator is establishing trusted relationships with your other legislators so you can move them towards your point of view. And that's especially important in the Democratic caucus as our majority is likely going to be narrowed - everyone in the Democratic caucus doesn't vote the way we want them to and so our ability to move their points of view really impacts how what type of legislation we can move through Olympia. And that's exactly what my job at Microsoft is - I advise our executives on emerging technology. I don't control their headcount - I don't control how many people they have to work on stuff - and I can't tell them where to put their people, so the only way I can get them to try and do the things that I would like them to do is by establishing trusting relationships with them and then moving them towards my point of view. That's exactly what you have to do in Olympia and it - that's also what I did as a professional soccer referee in some ways - there's one thing that 22 players on that field can agree on is - is that you suck and so my effectivity as a referee increases drastically if I can quickly establish relationships with these 22 sometimes prima donnas at the pro level and get them to understand that - hey, I am trying to ref this game fairly and objectively and that is what you want. So we are in this together and being able to admit my own mistakes helps build those relationships with them because if I can't be objective about my own performance, how am I going to be objective about their performance? But my relationship with those 22 players on the field really does have an impact as to how I can officiate that game and get it to - get them to play in a manner where it is safe, where it is enjoyable for the crowd, and really just and also abides by the laws of the game. So these - this relationship building is something that I do daily and I think will be very important in Olympia as well. [00:45:21] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today, Chipalo - much appreciated. [00:45:24] Chipalo Street: Thank you for having me. [00:45:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and you can follow me @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

#41 Đinh Cẩm Nhung | Phía sau bóng lưng người thủ lĩnh

CNNer Đi Ngủ Lúc Mấy Giờ

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2022 45:51

Giữ vị trí Chủ tịch Team CNN Leader 21-22, SO Admin Ten Plus 2021, Head SO Admin Ten Plus 2022 và Trưởng ban Tổ chức BÃO 2022, chị Đinh Cẩm Nhung có thể gọi là một trong những “át chủ bài” ở những hoạt động mà chị tham gia. Trái ngược với hình tượng người lãnh đạo mà nhiều người thường cho là đáng ngưỡng mộ nhưng khó gần, xuyên suốt buổi trò chuyện, chị Đinh Cẩm Nhung đem tới những câu chuyện giản dị cùng bài học truyền cảm hứng mà chị rút ra được từ vô vàn trải nghiệm ở nhiều hoạt động khác nhau. Có thể nói, ngọn lửa nhiệt huyết trong chị được thắp lên và nuôi dưỡng nhờ tinh thần trách nhiệm, dám nghĩ dám làm và đặc biệt hơn cả là nhờ những người bạn kề vai sát cánh trong những lúc thăng trầm nhất. Kết nối với chúng mình tại fanpage: https://www.facebook.com/cnnerdingulucmaygio/ Editor: Kỳ. Content Writer: zy nguỹn. White Petals by Keys of Moon | https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoon Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Music promoted by https://www.chosic.com/

music moon keys gi content writer b o nhung

O: Our Favorite A/B/O Fic

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2022 36:22

Hey Fangirls! In the finale of their A/B/O series, M and Bea detail some of their favorite omegaverse fic! Fandoms include The Avengers, BatFam, Teen Wolf, and more! fic!Club: “The Lotus Eaters” by aldora89 https://archiveofourown.org/works/277853/chapters/440466 The Fic! M: “Fever When You Kiss Me” by PetraTodd https://archiveofourown.org/works/864265 “My Golden Sun” by giddytf2 https://archiveofourown.org/works/8831866/chapters/20248873 “I know that you love me, even when I lose my head” by LunaCanisLupis_22 https://archiveofourown.org/works/9859880/chapters/22125074 “The Scent of Home” by cleo4u2 and xantissa https://archiveofourown.org/works/13091280 Bea: “don't go away again, I wanna be more than a story to tell your friends” by suzukiblu https://archiveofourown.org/works/5008486?view_adult=true “Fire, Fury, and Flame” by IAmAVeronica http://archiveofourown.org/works/3949369/chapters/8853565 “monday i can fall apart but by friday i'm in love” by tryslora https://archiveofourown.org/works/4524351#main “White lies” by ylc https://archiveofourown.org/works/22703263/chapters/54261022 “Homeward Bound, Safe and Sound” by WorkingChemistry https://archiveofourown.org/works/21017930#main Support M and Bea on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/fangirlsanonymous?fan_landing=true Visit the podcast's website at https://fangirlsanonymous.com/ Have Questions? Comments? Jokes? Email M and Bea at mandbpresents@gmail.com. Hosted by M and Bea Music by Gabe Jensen Produced by Miranda Sherrell Edited by Miranda Sherrell Consulted by Erica Bravo FAIR USE: Copyright Disclaimer: under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

sound home fire safe avengers fury jokes flame scent teen wolf fandoms fair use homeward bound fic b o have questions

B: Best and Worst of the A/B/O Trope

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 11, 2022 71:26

Hey Fangirls! In the next part of their A/B/O series, M and Bea talk about the Best and Worst the trope has to offer. Squick warnings for Gender talk, Sexuality talk, and Power Dynamics talk! fic!Club: “The Lotus Eaters” by aldora89 https://archiveofourown.org/works/277853/chapters/440466 References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BePhKs3KsT4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15405710PC0102_3 https://www.uipress.uiowa.edu/books/9781609387280/fandom-now-in-color Alphas, Betas, Omegas: A Primer bynorabombay https://archiveofourown.org/works/403644 Omegaverse Genetics - One Theory by Diana Williams (dkwilliams) https://archiveofourown.org/works/766040/chapters/1435445 Support M and Bea on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/fangirlsanonymous?fan_landing=true Visit the podcast's website at https://fangirlsanonymous.com/ Have Questions? Comments? Jokes? Email M and Bea at mandbpresents@gmail.com. Hosted by M and Bea Music by Gabe Jensen Produced by Miranda Sherrell Edited by Miranda Sherrell Consulted by Erica Bravo FAIR USE: Copyright Disclaimer: under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

gender sexuality jokes references best and worst trope fair use power dynamics alphas betas b o have questions diana williams

A: A History of A/B/O

history research jokes fair use busse lindsay ellis b o have questions needaccess

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 4, 2022 45:41

Hey Fangirls! In the first of their three-part series on A/B/O, also known as the Omegaverse, M and Bea detail the history surrounding this complex yet strangely logical trope! fic!Club: “The Lotus Eaters by aldora89 https://archiveofourown.org/works/277853/chapters/440466 Research: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/omegaverse-abo-fiction/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv193rr0q https://kristinabusse.com/pdf/Busse,%20Kristina%20-%20Pon%20Farr%20Mpreg,%20Bonds,%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20the%20Omegaverse%20(in%20Fic%202013).pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23268743.2017.1394215?scroll=top&needAccess=true https://archiveofourown.org/works/8240798?view_full_work=true https://archiveofourown.org/works/403644/chapters/665489 https://archiveofourown.org/works/1022303/chapters/2033841 https://fanlore.org/wiki/Alpha/Beta/Omega “I ain't no lady, but you'd be the tramp” by tehdirtiestsock https://cfamiliaris.livejournal.com/12861.html https://sciencenorway.no/ulv/wolf-packs-dont-actually-have-alpha-males-and-alpha-females-the-idea-is-based-on-a-misunderstanding/1850514 https://archive.org/details/SchenkelCaptiveWolfStudy.compressed/page/n1/mode/2up Lindsay Ellis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhWWcWtAUoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs Support M and Bea on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/fangirlsanonymous?fan_landing=true Visit the podcast's website at https://fangirlsanonymous.com/ Have Questions? Comments? Jokes? Email M and Bea at mandbpresents@gmail.com. Hosted by M and Bea Music by Gabe Jensen Produced by Miranda Sherrell Edited by Miranda Sherrell Consulted by Erica Bravo FAIR USE: Copyright Disclaimer: under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Insider Trading JPEGs | Project: Ancient Courses by Robert Hodgin

All About Affordable NFTs

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2022 28:56

Theme: Insider Trading JPEGs Nathan Chastain, formerly of OpenSea, charged with “insider trading” in the form of digital fraud What does this mean for crypto exchange employees, influencers, NFT project creators, private discord members, etc Blockchain & social traces gives public & “definitive” proof not available in other industries Affordable project: Ancient Courses of Fictional Rivers by Robert Hodgin NFT NewsRantum NFT Market Data, Cryptoslam.io NFT Headlines: Former Employee Of NFT Marketplace Charged In First Ever Digital Asset Insider Trading Scheme | USAO-SDNY | Department of Justice PoolTogether Launches NFT Sale to Fund Ongoing Litigation - The Defiant Golf equipment brand Callaway forges relationship with NFT club LinksDAO New NFT Scam: Skills Of Arcade Malicious NFT Is NOT Legit Transcript [00:00:00] Today on all about affordable NFTs, we are talking about some insider trading JPEGs. We're getting pretty serious here with this, uh, open sea accusation. We'll get to that in a little bit, Andrew, how's it going? What are you seeing? Uh, well, see in this, this news about insider trading here, but, you know, just to be clear, this is, this is available to everyone, everything that we talk about here on this podcast. [00:00:24] So this is publicly available information. As of now, anything that we are saying, these words you hear right now, we have disclosed. Also sometimes we do. I will. So we're making a joke about like, you know, when information is publicly brought or not brought. Yeah. We'll get into a bit, so yeah, what we're talking about here is Nathan chesting formerly of open, see Nate dot E uh, he has been charged with a form of insider trading. [00:00:53] It's basically some digital fraud, uh, by the FTC or the, by via the FTC. And so he has by actually facing. From, uh, the district attorney, right. Of New York district in New York, they don't mess around. Yeah. So yeah, they, they have church and with two different accounts here of insider trading, because he was, uh, buying up, uh, some collections before featuring them on the front page of open seat, then selling them afterwards. [00:01:24] Th this is all through not his main Nate dot Edith account which, you know, certainly doesn't. Him here. You know, what's, what's I don't know. What's kind of funny about this is that it's, we're really talking about, I think about 10 Eve that he profited and, you know, compared to many of the other scams that we see in this space, this is a relatively small amount and I'm sure, uh, you know, certainly not worth whatever. [00:01:48] It certainly wasn't worth risking his job for this. So, you know, obviously a huge mistake here and now, uh, facing much bigger, much bigger potential, uh yeah, losing the word here. Uh, yeah, I've seen criminal, uh, sort of criminal consequences and you have to 40 years because of the per count issue on each of the. [00:02:10] The notes that they've found in this case. So, I mean, 40 years for front running JPEGs is, is real, but let's take a step back though. You know, what may be happening is a larger precedent. Obviously like the Southern district of New York. Do we want to get a lot of work? But right. Great. Now we're maybe we'll get into this more when we want to get into this. [00:02:29] This is worth talking about a whole lot more, but that is the news. That's the big news. That's a, you know, kind of all over NFT world right now. And hard to ignore that. So we will get into that a bit more. Well, a couple other things going on here, uh, we've got pooled together. A, so this is a, let's see a, sort of a. [00:02:47] they like to call it a loss. That's the problem. I guess I shouldn't say that it's a lottery. That is the problem is being called a lottery. And really it's a savings account. You put some in there, you don't lose your eith or whatever you, you put in there, your state get, essentially you say I'm not going to remove it. [00:03:03] Then they earn interest with the. That is in there. Somebody gets all of it by, you know, they pick a winner. Anyway, there is, uh, a lawsuit out against the, the, uh, protocol here. So the founder is, uh, trying to raise money to, to vend himself and, uh, against these charges. I believe the person that has said has brought the charges, traded about $10 worth or some that are deposited about $10 where something very minimal. [00:03:29] And so it's pretty clear that they were looking to. Yeah, looking to make a lawsuit out of this. So whether it ends up being frivolous or not, as the founder has called it you know, he needs to defend himself. So he is trying to raise funds via this, uh, pull together and FTE sale. It looks like, I think it's up to about 1,000,900 thousand or so right now. [00:03:52] So that is out there. We've got a link. I have not I haven't actually purchased one, although I feel maybe, you know, maybe I should support, uh, someone trying to do something. Excited or at least what I think is on the right side of crypto right here. So interesting use case here, you know, we've seen this in a few other places and you know, I like that, that, uh, there is an option to, to raise funds where you and NFT. [00:04:13] Yeah. It's power of entity with a purpose and we've seen it, uh, uh, times before, but rallying against the sort of injustice. Right. And so that all that will drive it. I mean, it's clearly not for a revenue break here. It's more for a statement piece. And you know, if it goes down as a, is a historical wind potentially. [00:04:30] That, you know, that could be an interesting point of point of pride if you're, if you're picking it up, but yeah, you got some dollars go, you know, let's say that pool together goes on, uh, to, to be successful here. I think there's a decent shot that there could be a, something for the supporters down the line. [00:04:47] Yeah. It looks like they've got a 769 east goal because of course, 69. And, uh, there, there are about 530 these on they're on their way there. And they've got the mid now@mintdotpulltogether.com. So we'll toss that in. I mean, he can find that. [00:05:03] All right, moving on to the next one here. We've got okay. Yeah, we've got the links down. This is a Dow, that's one of promises to buy a golf course eventually, but they have actually forged a relationship of some sort with Callaway. They are supporting them and I'm not exactly sure of the details, but I saw that they, uh, you know, had kind of hinted at some big news coming out. [00:05:23] And I would say that is relatively big news. Calloway's is a big known golf brand and they are, uh, And dinner a partnership of some sort with a Dow. So hopefully this keeps going and they can, you know, this can be one of these success stories of a Dow. You know, we've seen a lot that have not been able to achieve, uh, their stated goals quite quickly. [00:05:44] Uh, so, you know, it's nice to see that this is still going and developing into something. You're going to see you. I think, uh Dows and NFT. Extend into membership and SAS relationships quite a bit, right. Anywhere web two has previously been like, Hey, you know, buy a credit card thing and you're in a database. [00:06:02] Like there's just an inherent power to moving that. It's also a collective ownership. And I think we're going to see that more in sports, and you're gonna see that, uh, for sports teams. And it's interesting to see that for, you know, classically a golf course, which traditionally is supported by member fees and. [00:06:17] Question is after the initial one, what happens on year two, right? That's the ongoing, or maybe you get the option to mince your year two and who knows, but that's yeah, we'll see. I mean, you know, I think that's a, it's an interesting analogy to say that it's essentially a member owned, uh, club and a member of members own all of the pieces of a collection and, you know, kind of up to the members to figure out how to, how to fund that and move, keep moving forward each year. [00:06:45] I would just love this, like, sort of like that, like dowel voting on whether or not to make like the steepness on like whole 12 higher or lower. And I do agree it's too fast. It's to put it to a vote. [00:06:57] All right. And lastly, this is a scan that I've seen pop up recently. Uh, I definitely noticed this in my own wallet. Some pieces showing up in my wallet with offers on them of an offers of like 0.7, eight or something. And the, the scan is here that they won't the offers won't actually be valid. They tried to eventually get you to go to another to their site which will immediately pop up where it strikes, uh, a, uh, met a mass sign and trying to get you to sign a transaction immediately. [00:07:27] You know, and that's obviously dangerous, never want to never want to sign anything that you aren't very clear of what it is doing. But that is a new one. So just be on the lookout for that. If you do see something show up in your wallet, that's not that unusual. It's more unusual to actually see a relatively, a decent size offer on those. [00:07:45] Do not try to accept those, you know, we can hide that in your open seat wallet. Uh, just be careful always once you click also, interestingly, buried in this story is that open, see recently made its code a fully public available to the public positive, negative implications, as they say, but hoping that others will help able to provide code improvements. [00:08:06] So we'll see. [00:08:08] All right. Well, that is it for headlines. We'll, we'll move on to our affordable project, which I have one for us this week. Are you going on fire? Actually, you're OSA. NACI I'm gonna pronounce that. Right? B O so Nachi just been creeping on up, creeping on up. I hope folks in discord grabbed on that. It's not a bad pick before, so yeah, that has done, that has done love and happy. [00:08:31] You know, I don't want to pat myself on the back too much because you know what happens in this space. Oh, [00:08:36] all right. So with that being said, I do, I have an art blocks, uh, collection here called ancient courses of fictional rivers. The artist is Robert Hodgkin, a artist out of, I believe he's in Brooklyn has been doing generative art for some time. I'm really impressed with some of the physical prints that he's done. [00:08:54] Although I don't have one, they're almost sold out. He has a monster. Definitely recommend checking those out. What this collection is, is a thousand pieces of generative art, you know, eat. So we've talked about this a bit in the past. It's meanings that the code is run. There's a thousand different variations that come out. [00:09:09] The idea here is it's. These are rivers. Over time, they're not real rivers, but you can see different how they move over time. And then the civilizations that sort of pop up around them. When I first was looking at this full disclosure, I do have a few of these. They were under 0.2 Eve 0.2 was the was the lowest mid price. [00:09:29] They did a, uh, they do a Dutch auction with curated pieces. So it pointed to was the lowest price that they got to, they did get down to there. After starting, I believe at three Eve sort of hit at a. Know, not a great time where there wasn't much wasn't much going on at all in the NFTE space was pretty quiet and I feel like they had snuck through a bit. [00:09:51] So I was able to pick some up under 0.2. There's a couple still under, uh, under 0.2, five. I think the floors are on 0.2 right now. I really liked the look of these and, uh, you know, I should say that, uh, my wife, my wife also helped me, uh, come to this collection. She hasn't seems to have an eye for, for some of these. [00:10:10] And definitely helped, uh, helped me pick some of these out. I think that the collection looks nice. I don't know how fast people may. To this collection, but it does, it seems like a relatively low price. Especially if you can look around, it's not moving real fast. And I was able to even get one offer accepted at 0.15. [00:10:31] So there are a handful under that at 0.2, five and under, and I think it's. Worth checking out for keeping an eye on, if you, uh, if you're looking for an art blocks piece, there's curated collections, they've scaled way back and how far and how often they're offering them in a number of pieces in these. [00:10:50] And I definitely noticed that our blocks in general has been minting out many more projects recently with some of the changes they've made to, uh, the collection sizes. And I think. That's something that I like in, in, in this is that you've got a lot of collectors people that are looking for maybe to put a few of these pieces together and not just hold one. [00:11:09] So I think that the. If you can get in at art at it. Good art books. I mean, on a good art blocks project at a relatively low price, they will hold some value. Well, over time. So I like this one, there are blocks had this big boom, right. And to get into our blocks because there's many people joining us for the first time, our blocks would just popping off last summer. [00:11:31] So an option like this, right. To have gotten into it, it would have been one again. And the floor would have been like for you just because it came from, and this is important, the curated side. Cause there's a lot of. Like there's like the art box other projects, and there's like a curated area. So the hit factory playground curated is, you know, that's, that's the primary stuff. [00:11:51] It's the stuff that I focus on the much, the most. And yet there was a time where this would have been at certainly over one the piece, but I think they would have been up to over three just because it was in our blocks project. Our blocks is definitely cooled down. You'll still see some, you'll still see a lot of floors. [00:12:08] That's. That are people selling off at a pretty steep discount to what they may have paid, but I think it's also come around a bit where people have overlooked. Some of the, the quality collections because of that sort of disappointment of price that a lot of people are experiencing. You know, it's hard to go talk about it when you're, when you're selling a piece for a, uh, for a pig, a loss, even if you're selling it for two and a half feet, you know, that's, now it looks like a good sale, but not so much if you, uh, if you hyped in at 80 or something, Yeah. [00:12:42] And just to coming back to, uh, this particular artist, I will say, just, just to note on the art, I have never seen anything like this. It is just mesmerizing. It's an active piece that actually develops, and there's like, you can press different buttons to reset it. And it is a very beautiful dynamic. The, the artists has got a lot of work behind it and actually looks like about 25% of this goes to a social impact causes, including not limited to the environment and Ukraine. [00:13:11] So a nice narrative there, but, uh, that this guy has got a bulk of work that he has put out there. And this is, this is good looking stuff. You know, I was looking at art blocks too, and I noticed that the, the squid. Which were the first, I believe original drop by snow fro in blocks arena. You know, they peaked it like they were going for like what 28th or something absurd at one point. [00:13:35] And now down to like six Eve, which is very interesting as well that, like, I think there's a very sort of, it's not going anywhere, at least from where we stand in terms of Capitola art and its role in NFTs. But the whole ecosystem there is significant. Yeah, overall. I mean, you know, like I was saying, I think it's way down there. [00:13:56] It is way down from where it was. They are, you know, I should, I also do some work with our blocks, you know, I know. So I should disclose that as well. But they have made some changes to how many, like I said, how many pieces they're offering in collections, how, uh, how often they're offering collections. [00:14:13] So I think they have a max of two collections they'll do per week. And that means. Anything across their curated playground and factory projects. And so the last factory one was a called daisies that sold out relatively quickly, I think about five minutes, but it was, so it was a collection of just 200 pieces. [00:14:32] You know, I think that that is a more appropriate size for a lot of these collections that may otherwise struggle to, to mint out. But then you see. It doesn't take that many collectors to, you know, to show some demand there. And I think that's appropriate 0.5 eith floor now after minting at 0.1. So, you know, in general, I think it's worth checking out our blocks a bit. [00:14:52] If you want to get into degenerative art right now, there's some, the, the new mints are. Are going at a good speed, but not gas wars. So, you know, it's, you gotta be ready, but you know, ready to go, but it's not something where you have to, uh, to really pump up the gas a lot to, uh, to, in order to get your transactions. [00:15:13] Right. So that that's been good. Great. As I'm saying, this for price is a 0.2, looks like a, about 541 owners for those thousand items. As you mentioned, danger, you, you do own. Uh, a number of these and it looks like it kind of came out early, April dropped, uh, no, March 29th and is, you know, kind of been steady, but hasn't, hasn't blown a woman, the doors off. [00:15:38] And so this was one of those that was interesting, fine. So far, you know, I think I may, I may go with on this. I may go with similar to the us and Archie. I think there's a no good are good time. Good value. All right. Yeah. I'm going a little long there. So we will move on to our insider trading JPEGs in trader trading, cartoon animals, whatever you want to call these things, you know, we're, we're flipping JPEGs out, right? [00:16:05] And now it's insider trading and woo. This is big deal. This is a big deal. It was a big time that we made it. Now. Our NFD is legit. Yes actually, because they're not, they know we're joking around, but I think in someone's mind, you're like, oh, you're just playing around as like, you know, I'm joking around in marketplace. [00:16:21] It's an image like who cares? Like that's a commodity and the Southern district of New York is not messing around when it target someone. And as I was sort of like going on that, you know, narrative earlier 40 years, 40 years is on the table for doing this. I mean, this is, as you know, you're dealing with. [00:16:38] You know, the, the world of securities and commodities and in the world of financial transactions, the government doesn't like it when you front run and doesn't like it, when you act on private information, unless of course you're in Congress and then you can do whatever you want and you can sell all your stocks and then put the entire country on you know, on pause, you can do that if you're in Congress, but if you're not in Congress, you can not. [00:17:03] So I know that's a big segment of our audience, so, you know, I'm sorry, you can, you can just tune out for the next, wait a minute, come back. You're in Congress and you, uh, can you do insider trading and JPEGs? Yes. Oh, boy. I mean, I think it's interesting here, you know, I, I liked when, what opens he did when they got rid of him, this was certainly wrong for the company to have somebody doing that. [00:17:29] And I thought that was appropriate. You know, I'm afraid of. This could mean for the NFT industry. We know that there's a lot of cases of people acting on information that is not public. You know, we've seen many cases of pre reveal collections where specific pieces are sold for well above the floor price. [00:17:48] And then turn out to be rare pieces. What happens there, you know, we almost, we've certainly seen influencers and, you know, various levels of influencers from, you know, what we think of as Dick talk influencers to, you know, more, uh, maybe financially connected web web to, you know, type of people that seem to have a lot of information about collections before. [00:18:13] The public does. And I think that we are entering a somewhat dangerous spirit here. If this is, if this is the precedent because there's a lot of people acting on non-public information. I think you could even say that there are private discords where, you know, inside that you have to be a collection holder you're then a owner of the collection. [00:18:35] You're an owner of the company. Something of that collection of, is that what we're saying? Oh, I think that's and also what is a company, right? What is public information? Non-public information. Yeah. I don't want to be in this situation. I mean, it puts, it definitely makes me uncomfortable having certain conversations with, with people than thinking. [00:18:53] And makes me think about this in a new light here. Oh, I hadn't thought about that way. I guess in my mind it was because open C is a much more established company. With, you know, uh, legal standing that it's seen by the government as like, okay, you, you you've promised to do this thing and provide this public good. [00:19:13] And as part of your sort of service, you've, you know, allow people to buy, sell, hold, trade commodities, you've taken fees on those. Like that is your core business to do this. And there's a certain consumer trust involved with that. And that I imagine is what they're protecting, but taken to a logical. [00:19:32] Extreme extreme. You are. I don't know where you draw that line. I also, I heard this on different narrative of saying like, you know, how different is this? Then a Nike employee that hears that the new air force ones are coming out with such and such, and they get a, an early drop and flip the shoes. They get in line early and they're able to, to get that like, okay. [00:19:55] And to get there, I believe there was a, there was an executives, son, I believe who was arrested for, uh, flipping shoes on stock X. Uh, Oh, yeah, because he was, yes, because he was buying them early. So maybe, uh, you know, I don't have the link here, but you know, maybe the that's a good analogy and there you're right. [00:20:16] I think there is a difference because that is the company actually doing the trading. And now I think we're, or I'm sorry, not doing the trading, but acting as the marketplace. The, you know, providing the place to do the trading and suddenly they know that they have influence over where people go on the site. [00:20:35] And he certainly isn't really not helped either by, by using the hidden wallet. And I think that we are entering a new hazier where it's all on the blockchain, you know, between, you know, looking at. Archives of, of Twitter records of social media posts and looking at the blockchain, it's pretty easy to look at how the timing of things goes down. [00:20:57] And there's not that level of, uh, I don't know, sort of intermediation between these where we can no longer directly see someone acting on something, doing something and, and, you know, Or, you know, in where exactly what time they did that, the blockchain certainly does that doesn't help them here. And you know, maybe he made the mistake of connecting it to his old wallet, but, you know, I think I like to see that there's something happening, but I also think that there's much bigger issues in the NFP space, and I'm not sure that this is going to make anybody feel safer that doesn't already, if it isn't already willing to get into NFTs. [00:21:39] I'll take the contrary to that. So what I like to see is the government and regulation taking the NFT marketplace. Seriously, this is serious consideration of what should happen in this case. That is yes, complicated, but I would be more alarmed by simply leaving this to the wild. Being like go have at it, vigilante justice, the community rallied on Twitter and found you. [00:22:06] So judge, jury, and then the execution was open C and they determined that this was the fair punishment for this look. Consumers were defrauded because this person acted in bad faith with insider information because they was buying early unfairly and dumping on the public market. I think, as a consumer and I'm going to be wandering into these platforms. [00:22:29] I liked that these employees realize that they can't just kind of, because they can hide it in a wallet, which is just, let's just park how stupid that is for a moment, because everything is on the blockchain. Remember that, remember the technology that all this is built on is actually gonna make it far safer than these other industries. [00:22:47] Uh, I, I liked that what will come up? This is some clarity actually knowing where the third rail is, is safer than guessing where it might be. And I think that might in the long-term in the short-term. You know, this, I'm not a fan of Nate by any stretch, but I think it's also unfair when somebody serves as a sacrificial goat for a cause. [00:23:08] And I think there's a little bit of column AB here, a and B happening here. Yeah. There's definitely that. And you know, I definitely want, I do want more protections, you know, I guess I would prefer there to be. I, I prefer that they were going after some of the big scammers that we've seen, but I've taken a lot more out of, out of the space. [00:23:28] Uh, you know, we've seen some big ones to the tune of 70 million. Was that for, although that was a I dunno, we've seen some big ones anyway, you know, I guess I do want something happening here. I'm just not sure, you know, this is it's, it's making an example here and that's, that's the point. They know him, they know exactly who it is, you know, there's plenty of, of records. [00:23:50] There's no needing to go through and figure out who an anonymous person is or go try to deal with another country or you know, pretty easy in, in, in that sense. So, you know, the unfortunate. But it will, uh, you know, one thing I wonder does, do you think that open sea is at all at fault here? Do I believe that open C is at fault here? [00:24:11] I would have to have more information about their employee guidelines and legal, uh, legal setup here, you know, for instance, uh, I know, you know, when you go to work for, let's say a hedge fund, you're dealing in equities. Yes. You can only hold a certain generalized bucket. You can no longer deal in individual equities, right? [00:24:31] There are actually like restriction restrictions that can come into play for people that work in this space. And so did they create, here's the question? Did they create a culture of compromise, a culture of, you know, you do you and just show up to work. And in that case of handling, you know, this type of, uh, asset market. [00:24:55] Maybe, I think it's worth looking at me personally. No, I didn't do anything wrong that guy's a trick. [00:25:01] Wait until we uncover what else is going on on the blockchain. Uh, but again, I think a mold grows in the dark I'd like that sunshine is being shown here. Sure. A heck a lot better than it's frivolous silliness happening on attacking that, like, you know, the savings account for crypto and . You know, these are, these are all really, really important steps this some more so, because it's going to legitimize NFTs, uh, as this sort of asset class. [00:25:30] Yeah. You know, who knows what happens at the end here? That's not going to be easy for him to fight, but I think you're right. That it will at least, you know, we'll know where the, uh, where the boundaries of. [00:25:39] Yeah. Even if they're, they're widened scary, but again, in the short term, I think you're absolutely right. If you're asking yourself like, wait a minute, I think it's like be on the safe side, but also like clearly you're, if you're in a discord and you're a piece like that, and you're not getting things that are not, not public be careful if you're getting things that are like in a discord. [00:25:59] I think you're fine. I'm just gonna be honest. Like if you're in, for example, like here's a, here's an exam. Right. Like we have a podcast, obviously the millions of followers that are listening to every episode and removing, removing project. Hey Congress, we just, by the way, you know, I think we can be, uh, we'll start disclosing that in a discourse, if you ever want to see what's coming up, but like, let me play this out. [00:26:21] We know that we're going to talk about a project and that episode is not going to go live for another four or five. And frankly, we can buy into that project because we know that that's coming. Now, if we had obviously joking, maybe if some of you left a review and we'd have more followers to really, really move markets, but like jokes aside, if we bought that and then pump that and then dump that, that is an absolute unquestionable form of insider. [00:26:51] Right. We are privy to information that this is going to get a promotion that only we know and hasn't disclosed. So again, maybe a good note to us. I'll continue to drop that in our discord, which is a public notice open discord for anyone to get there, by the way, none of this is financial advice because we're talking about Jay tags on the internet, which by the way, if you trade down on the insider, you could go to jail for a long time. [00:27:11] Does that clear everything up? There's no real risks here. Right? So you're saying we're all in the clear, easy to buy JPEGs. Yeah. There's no worry about holding them in a wallet. Links are safe or ignore everything. We just said the last 20 seconds here in summary, join our discord. Leave us a report. Leave us a review. [00:27:33] All right, Andrew. Good luck out there.

Leah Griffin, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative