Podcasts about chief seattle club

In this episode of Power of Place, you'll hear the stories of Glen Pinkham, an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation and a respected elder and cultural mentor. Glen explores connections between tradition, healing, and the land, offering wisdom for anyone seeking growth and connection. Through Glen's captivating storytelling, we journey to the Yakima Valley, the ancestral homeland of the Yakama Nation—where rivers teemed with salmon and skies filled with migratory birds. His reflections on his application of traditional healing practices—including sweat lodges—located within urban settings reveal how these rituals continue to sustain both body and spirit, even across cultural lines. Building on his work in South Central Washington, Glen supports Seattle's urban Indigenous communities through organizations like Mother Nation, where he works alongside his wife, Yvette, as well as Chief Seattle Club. Amidst the bustle of city life, Glen's teachings, grounded in Yakama traditions and landscapes, offer glimpses of rare and powerful medicine for the body and spirit. Tune in to this episode to experience surprising healing and insight. “When we say you share your personal trauma and your pain with another person, your sadness with another person, it turns it upside down as it turns into medicine. It helps them to heal.” ~Glen Pinkham

In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has hampered the federal government's ability to enforce environmental protections and set workplace safety rules, and allows cities to prosecute people without homes for sleeping outside. The rulings are a boon for some tribes and individual Native Americans and a problem for many others. We'll find out some of the places the court's apparent new direction helps or hurts the issues that Native Americans deem important. GUESTS Derrick Belgarde (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Chippewa Cree), executive director of the Chief Seattle Club Dr. Victoria Sutton (Lumbee), distinguished professor at Texas Tech University and visiting professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School

In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has hampered the federal government's ability to enforce environmental protections and set workplace safety rules, and allows cities to prosecute people without homes for sleeping outside. The rulings are a boon for some tribes and individual Native Americans and a problem for many others. We'll find out some of the places the court's apparent new direction helps or hurts the issues that Native Americans deem important. GUESTS Derrick Belgarde (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Chippewa Cree), executive director of the Chief Seattle Club Dr. Victoria Sutton (Lumbee), distinguished professor at Texas Tech University and visiting professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School

What becomes possible when solutions to modern urban society's most pressing challenges—housing the unhoused, corporate innovation, designing more beautiful places & objects—originate from the communities who have inhabited this place from time immemorial? Guiding us through this multifaceted exploration is Colleen Echohawk. Currently CEO of the Native lifestyle brand Eighth Generation, Colleen's resume encompasses city politics including a Seattle mayoral run 2021. Earlier, as Executive Director of Chief Seattle Club for seven years, she oversaw the creation of 300 new units of affordable housing. Collen spotlights today's rising generation of indigenous government and business leaders as well Indian Country's most admired cultural creators. She suggests that a more enduring and just society would be place-based. In the case of Seattle, this involves incorporating Native values including those of the region's indigenous Lushootseed-speaking Coast Salish peoples. Inspired by Potlatch culture, for example, Colleen challenges corporate leaders to reimagine established notions of prestige and prosperity. Colleen's mellifluous tales fuse with the harmonies of Black Belt Eagle Scout and the rhythms of Supaman. These young recording artists amplify the critical and ongoing dialogue between tradition and invention, a dynamic embedded in Colleen's heartening life, work and stories. "We talk in Indian Country about how we are trying to help reframe folks to say, hey; ‘we are not just in these museums, we are not just artifacts…we are actually living, thriving communities." ~Colleen Echohawk

On this Tuesday topical show, Crystal welcomes Jaelynn Scott, Executive Director of Lavender Rights Project, for a conversation about their intersectional work to protect Black trans femmes (and thereby all trans people) by focusing on housing justice, economic justice, and violence prevention. Though our lawmakers have passed some protective legislation in what many consider a progressive state, Crystal and Jaelynn discuss how much more needs to be done to ensure the safety of Black trans people here in Washington. To that end, Jaelynn describes a King County Housing First initiative Lavender Rights Project is undertaking in conjunction with Chief Seattle Club to provide permanent supportive housing for trans people who don't feel safe in shelter offered by traditional housing services agencies - the hope is to become a model for how similar support can be provided to other vulnerable communities across the country. Crystal then notes the remarkable success of pilot after pilot of guaranteed income programs, and Jaelynn details the small program Lavender Rights Project has run over the last two years and its positive impact on participants. Finally, the two give a rundown of how to listen, step up, and take action - whether you're a state legislator, a county or city official, or a concerned community member - to push back against anti-trans sentiment, hate, and fascism. 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 Jaelynn Scott and the Lavender Rights Project at @lavrights.    Resources Lavender Rights Project   The Combahee River Collective Statement    “Introducing our New Mission: thoughts from Executive Director, Jaelynn Scott” | Lavender Rights Project   “BREAKING: Lavender Rights Project and Chief Seattle Club opening permanent housing for QT2BIPOC in Fall 2023” | Lavender Rights Project   “Here's why the Lavender Rights Project, county officials, and Seattle's mayor think this Capitol Hill apartment building is the right place to start a new approach to creating supportive housing and putting a real dent in the homelessness crisis” by Justin Carder from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Seattle's new 'Health through Housing' property to serve QT2BIPOC residents” by Erica Zucco from King5    “This organization's plan to provide housing for Black trans people in Seattle offers a much-needed glimmer of hope” by Naomi Ishisaka from The Seattle Times   Seattle Solidarity Budget: Basic Income Guarantee   Solidarity Budget presents: Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) panel discussion   Washington State Basic Income Feasibility Study | WA Department of Social and Health Services   Welcoming Cities Resolution | Seattle City Council   “Seattle City Council reaffirms support for immigrants, refugees” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   “Seattle ‘Welcoming City' resolution includes plan for push back on federal orders” by Agatha Pacheco from The Seattle Globalist   Impact of Gender Affirming Care Bans On LGBTQ+ Adults | Human Rights Campaign   “Majority of LGBTQ adults feel safety threatened by gender-affirming care bans: poll” by Brooke Migdon from The Hill   “‘Kids Online Safety Act' will ‘protect' children from trans content, senator Marsha Blackburn admits” by Emily Chudy from Pink News    We are family, too — A love letter to the Black community from your trans family | Lavender Rights Project   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. Well, today I am excited to be joined by Jaelynn Scott, the Executive Director of Lavender Rights Project. Welcome to the show. [00:01:02] Jaelynn Scott: Good to be with you. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm excited to have this conversation - your reputation precedes you, Lavender Rights' reputation has been talked about. We just had a guest bring you up on the show the other day talking about what wonderful work you do - that was Dr. Ben Danielson. What is Lavender Rights Project and what brought you to this work? [00:01:22] Jaelynn Scott: Oh my goodness, I love Dr. Danielson - I'm so glad he brought us up. So Lavender Rights Project is a Black trans-led organization. We're based in Seattle, we serve all of Washington, and we also do national policy work as well. And we're primarily focused on protecting Black trans people. Honestly, we're in the business of protecting all trans people from violence, period - but we use a lens of Black trans feminism to do that work. And what I mean by that - oftentimes I need to clarify - is we really believe in intersectionality, and as a praxis, and not in the way that people casually use. Like, you know, my mother's from Italy and my father's from whatever, and it's intersectional - nah. In the original term that was meant by the Combahee River Collective - when they brought it up and as others who have coined intersectionality - thinking about what are those pieces, those intersectional pieces that need to be put in place to protect the most vulnerable in our community. That, in 1977 - with the collective, right - was Black women. And I think we have more clarity on gender diversity, so we say Black trans women, Black trans femmes even to be specific. And it really is a praxis, right? It's a strategy to look at - we're not only concerned about Black trans femmes and Black trans women but we know, as the Combahee River Collective said, that if we can really protect Black trans women, Black women - if we can do that, it means all of the systems of destruction and oppression will dismantle because we have taken care of that core group that are affected by each of those intersections. So that's the work that we do, but doing trans work from that lens in particular - in three quick areas, I'll let you know quickly. So housing justice, economic justice, and really getting in the meat of violence prevention, also - those three. [00:03:19] Crystal Fincher: Well, and a lot of work is in that portfolio - a lot needs to be done. You talk about protecting the entire trans community from violence, particularly with the lens of Black trans femmes, which is critical. We're in Washington state, which is in a better position than several other states - true, and we've done some positive work on positive legislation. But there are still challenges here despite the fact that this is a blue state, a progressive area. What do you say to people who feel like - Hey, we're in Washington, it's all good. We don't need to worry about this here. We're all progressive. [00:03:56] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, I mean, the fact is, is that it is not safe anywhere in this country and frankly in the world for trans people - not completely - and especially for Black trans people. For me personally, I'm Black first, and so we start there, right? That there is still police violence against Black communities in Washington state, that we have dismal outcomes in terms of health and housing - even here in progressive states, in Washington state. All of the progressive legislation that exists isn't quite reaching our community because of systemic oppression and because of systems that really need to be looked at and anti-Blackness. And then we add transgender to that lens. I mean, it is just the fact that - anecdotally, when I go to a grocery store, that it is hard to feel safe even there because of - my hair might not be in the right place, my makeup might not be right, and I might catch the wrong light. And it is a constant stare or a calling out of who I am and what people are projecting onto me as a trans woman. And that's the case with all of us who are visibly trans, and those of us who may be a little bit more stealth and can navigate safely. The fact is that many of us in Washington state live in fear. And so is there a modicum amount of protections in terms of legislation? Yeah, it's a bit better in terms of our access, but those freedoms aren't necessarily reaching us in the way that they need to, those protections aren't reaching us in the way that they need to protect - particularly Black trans people. And socially, it's still a mess. We are not that different - I'm from Mississippi - culturally, it's not that different than it is in Mississippi in terms of my ability to navigate socially, social spaces in Washington state. And in many ways, it's safer in Black community in the South because at least there are more of us there, and I'm able to navigate Blackness a little bit easier when there's more Black people here. So you're faced with this sort of double thing - you got us who are a smaller amount of people navigating a mostly white community, and also the general transphobia and transmisogynoir that exists across the country. And if there is a slight degree of - very, very slight degree - of it being socially more acceptable, it's not enough to secure our protection and safety. And it is still dismal. [00:06:23] Crystal Fincher: Now, you talked about the areas that you're practicing in, where you're focusing on - housing being one of them. Why is housing so important? [00:06:33] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so we had conversations with community, with our community members - and across the nation and also in Washington state - to really get to what are we being asked of as an organization to focus on, to really think about in the protection of Black trans people. And we determined both from research and also from those conversations, three particular areas that are absolutely necessary to guarantee our protection. And the first of those is housing. We believe in Housing First as a disruption and violence against Black trans people. We need to be able to know that our housing - and really food security - but housing is secure and we don't have to depend on others for our security. And we don't have to negotiate our livelihood, right - and our wellbeing so that we can have a place to stay at night. And so the research shows that when people are housed that the outcomes are a lot better in terms of their own security and safety. And it is absolutely critical that we focus in. It's a strange thing - we started as a legal services organization, I think seven years ago now, and we never were in housing and housing justice. But as you know, in Washington state, especially Seattle, and across the country - there's a housing crisis. And no one was actually standing up to do this work. Outcomes for trans people in general - for public housing services - is absolutely terrible. We were finding that our clients and our people, that our family - were not feeling safe in shelters, were not feeling safe by the traditional housing services agencies. And it was unacceptable, so somebody actually needed to step in. So our project is small, it's tiny - 30, maybe 32 housing units for individuals here in the Seattle area. It is permanent supportive housing - ongoing in perpetuity - they leave when they want to leave and they have ongoing supports for their health. It's open to all folks, but we'll primarily be focused on the people that we serve with our specialty. But it really is a model - and that's how I'm looking at it - it's a good model to work across the City of Seattle, King County, Washington state, nonprofits. We're partnering with a Urban Native organization, Chief Seattle Club - who actually owns, right, the land whose land this really is - and they have a lot more competency in the area. So they're providing a lot of support for us as we learn housing. And so there's this beautiful model happening - if it works, and I pray that it does, that we can then replicate across the country with other partners and other people who are interested in getting secure and well-funded housing for trans folk to protect them from violence. And I really think this model is not exclusive to Black trans community, but I think it really could be used for trans community - trans exclusive housing that is well supported by the government and well supported by community is what's needed in this moment to reduce the crisis of violence in our community. [00:09:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - to reduce the crisis of violence, to help people stabilize and find housing security, which is necessary to address so many other challenges that people find in life. Now you talked about this being a model, which I think is important - and permanent supportive housing is, as you said, what research is showing to be most effective in keeping people safe and stable. How did this partnership come about? [00:10:00] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so initially there was a client of ours who - and a friend, a community member who we were advocating for - who had experienced some really lack of cultural competency with King County, I'll just name it. And they hired her for an event and she was targeted by right-wing media and doxxed because of how she showed up - she did a burlesque performance and they ran with it. And I think King County was really just regretful about that experience - they were hoping to empower trans folk and really show Black trans visibility. And there needed to be some healing. And they asked her - What do you need? We'll do whatever is needed to repair this. And she said - We need housing for my community. And to their credit, King County jumped on it. And so we found the right model with King County - they contacted us because we were the only Black trans-led organization in the state that was doing this work and especially in King County. They contacted us and we began discussions - how could we get into this work and find the right model that worked for Black trans folk? We identified the right program, we found the right partners - we knew we wanted to partner with either a Black or Native org, right? - to help us get this rolling and get going. And it just moved on and progressed from there. [00:11:21] Crystal Fincher: So where is this at in the process currently? Will this be opening soon? [00:11:25] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, and by the way, I do want to name - her name was Beyoncé Black St. James - she's a fantastic community leader out of Spokane who does amazing advocacy work, but also is just a powerful and beautiful and fantastic performer. But we are in the process - we were awarded the facility, it was announced. And we are now waiting on some minor repairs that need to happen in this new building. And so we're sort of caught up in really - King County's working on getting things through their processes and government processes so that we can actually get this minor repair done and open our house. We're delayed in the opening about a year. So we really need our community to continue to encourage the county to move quickly to get this facility open, because we're just wasting money at this point with open rooms - and we have residents lined up and ready to move into the facility. [00:12:20] Crystal Fincher: Now, when you say permanent supportive housing, what does that mean for the people who will eventually be moving in? What does that look like and how will they be served? [00:12:28] Jaelynn Scott: So Ebo Barton, who's our Director of Housing Services has worked really hard to build out a network of support for our residents. So on the first half, King County will provide ongoing social services support as they do for any of their agencies. There also will be security - and we don't look at that security on-site as protecting anyone else but our residents. So there will be 24 hour security on-site to protect them from the outside and make sure that they are safe, as well as ongoing support groups for - I believe there's support for gender affirming care, and healthcare, and counseling services to heal from just the trauma of being Black and the trauma of being trans in this community - as well as getting them career support and moving on career support. There's a number of, I believe, 9 or 10 agencies who are committed to supporting our particular facility in addition to King County's ongoing services. [00:13:28] Crystal Fincher: So is most of the focus on this facility, are there any plans for others, or is it working on getting this model straight and then evaluating after? [00:13:37] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so we aren't a housing services org, right? So I think we see ourselves as a policy shop and really our direct services really informs what we're doing to push forward in policies. I mean, we equally do criminal legal services and we also do policy advocacy around criminal law and this intersection with trans people. And we do economic justice - we're really pushing for a guaranteed income as a sort of third pillar of support for all trans people in Washington State, quite similar to the guaranteed income in San Francisco. So we aren't a housing services organization and I don't think we're immediately planning on expanding those services. It is our hope that - King County has promised that those properties will move over and shift into the ownership of organizations. I think we just wanna stay there - continue to work in supporting that property and maybe even have those residents, if they want to, participate in the movement building and policy work that happens with our organization. So we're not seeing them as this sort of dual client versus people providing services - that they are a part of our community and they're part of the movement building effort. So I think we wanna stay there and it's a good size for us at the moment, but we do and we have been talking nationally with other Black trans community members and organizations who are hoping to do projects similarly. So we hope other people will take on the banner - and even in Seattle, we need a lot more than 32 units to take care of trans community in general. I know, and I don't wanna get ahead of the county, but there was at least a request for proposals for transitional housing services for veterans - for LGBTQ veterans focusing on trans communities - that King County is also doing, that we hope another agency will take up the banner and continue to provide for those expanded services. I know Chief Seattle Club is hoping to serve more Two-Spirit people - we will also be serving some of those folks in our facility. And so there's a number of places that we can start moving in. And really this is the right response right now to what is happening across the country. If we can take anything from these coordinated political attacks - and let me tell you that they are coming after us, not because they actually care that much about the issues - they are coming after us because they wanna get elected, because they need a boogeyman and they think that this is gonna score them political points. But what they don't know is it's drawing more attention to the issue of the crisis that is happening in trans community. And it's really bringing more support from the majority of Americans who actually have love in their heart and care for their community, and believe in the diversity of the American society, and really support LGBTQ community. And so that's - right now, it is our opportunity to in response to them, not necessarily be put on the defensive, but let's finally secure and build trans protections, trans security, trans safety in response to their disgusting actions. [00:16:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, I love that. And focus on support and building, as opposed to centering the people who are just pushing fascism and hate. [00:16:42] Jaelynn Scott: Fascism, period. Period. [00:16:44] Crystal Fincher: So you said you are a policy shop and you have a lot of experience in policy. One, I'm excited to hear about the talking about a guaranteed income - every single pilot, and there have been many now, for guaranteed income has just been successful and shown that it's helped. Turns out when you give people money and let them spend it on what they need the most, that's the most effective intervention that we see. Is this something that you're advocating for locally, and in our city or state? Is this something that looks like might be possible here in Seattle? [00:17:20] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so there is two areas - well, a few areas. So we're doing our own very, very small - a sort of a pilot just for our community to get a sense of how this is actually serving us. We started thinking about guaranteed income because in the summer of 2020, we were doing mutual aid and we were finding that people - $50, $100, $500, every once in a while - they were becoming more dependent on that. And we didn't like the positionality of us looking like sort of the saviors of individuals instead of empowering them to have economic security. And what we found now is that there were a few, right - that were return. And so we had enough money to do about five folks - it's over the last two years - a $1,000 a month, every single month, for those people. And they, we're watching just the results - both from our surveys and our conversations with them - their economic security, their housing security, how they're thriving in their own careers. Month after month after month, we're just seeing so much improvements and they are needing less to do the GoFundMes and less seeking mutual aid - that is declining - and support in the community. And so that's sort of our - that's the piece where I say we do the support so to inform how we approach it. So we do - there's basic income, right - which is a kind of a guarantee for all. And then there's sort of guaranteed income, which I think in our understanding is really focused on particular populations that are most in need. There's a basic income approach in Washington state that, I think, there was even a bill pushed through that didn't actually make it through - I don't think it made it out of committee and it failed, and I think that will continue to come up. And we do support that, but we really do believe - that you have to start looking at who are the people who are most in need and you have to consider gender and race, economic status, pregnancy status, as well as a number of items in order to get this right. And I believe the state version was kind of a lottery system that we weren't feeling secure about. So we've been in conversation with the Transgender Cultural District in San Francisco, and they launched a - worked with the City of San Francisco as well as other agencies and nonprofits - to get a guaranteed income for trans people in the City of San Francisco. And that is, you know, there's been some lawsuits and et cetera, but that is getting launched there if it hasn't started already. But that program follows on the heels of other guaranteed income for people who are pregnant, guaranteed income for other particular populations in San Francisco that have proven effective - and at least $1,000 a month in an ongoing way. And that's what we wanna push in the City of Seattle. We're currently, I believe, and the people who are doing a Solidarity Budget are also looking at how they can do guaranteed income for particular populations. And so we're in conversation with them as well as pushing on our own for a guaranteed income for trans people. And hopefully using some of the data from the support that we provided - our organization - to prove that this is a proven method to protect your Washington and Seattle populations. [00:20:21] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. What other policy is really important right now, or what is at the top of the list for you that you're advocating for? [00:20:29] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so I think right now it's guaranteed income. We use policy in a number of different ways - like the capital P, which is like the legislation - but the lowercase policy, which includes how King County is operating in relationship to providing housing to trans people. Like we see all that as a sort of movement building policy where different aspects depending on who's involved. But right now, we're really concerned about what's happening nationally. As you may know, Washington state really has a suite - what I've been calling a suite - of trans protections that have passed over the years, including an expansion of Medicare to include gender affirming care. As well as recent legislative session, there was the SHIELD law, which protects people who are seeking refuge here from extradition to other states and penalty and persecution from other states for what they do in Washington state. And finally, there is a youth gender affirming care access for people who end up in shelters who are runaways and making sure that they have access to this data and aren't turned back to dangerous living situations for seeking affirmations in their gender. And all of those are good bills - they're all at different levels of acceptance and there's lawsuits and all kinds of things happening, being pushed from outside parties who are trying to push legislation here. But they don't necessarily really address the needs of trans communities of color because they are mostly written in legislative corners, sessions with white folk who are in the legislative game. They really haven't, didn't sit down - because they're on the defensive, right? It's a quick thing. You gotta get this stuff going 'cause you're seeing like all of the sort of outlawing gender affirming care in Alabama and Georgia and et cetera, and criminalizing seeking care outside of the state - both for abortion and gender affirming care. And so to their credit - that they needed to, and they felt like they needed to respond. And I do think there needed to be a response. But there wasn't enough time to actually doing the organizing, the movement building, the conversations with communities of color to say - actually, you never had access to gender affirming care in the way that white communities have. You've never had that access, especially not in the US South. So what is it that we can do now to correct the original sin, right? So that you never find yourself there and none of our communities will find ourselves there. But what we're doing now is putting a band-aid on an issue and making sure that those people of privilege who have already had access to care, don't lose that access. So one of the ways they could have done it, right? is to say - Okay, we want to protect people seeking gender affirming care here from Texas, for example. And we wanna have this legislation up so that they can't be extradited to other states and et cetera. Okay - build a budget line item in the state budget that provides support for them, to fly them in to seek care, to make sure they have access to medical care, to make sure they have recovery services and et cetera. In addition to that, if you had really talked to communities, you would have known that none of the people who are most at risk in Texas can afford to get here to seek that care and to actually benefit from that bill. And so there was additional conversations needed. If not that, at least put out some funding and support for communities of color here to gather and come up with legislative priorities on our own that they can take the lead from instead of us following on the tail end of whatever they decided in their corners. [00:23:57] Crystal Fincher: So for people who may be legislators or policy makers listening right now, where can they start with that? How do they start with that? [00:24:06] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, I think right now capacity building funding is absolutely necessary. So for those organizations who are trusted - there's POCAAN and PCAF and our organization, Lavender Rights Project. There is Gender Justice League. There's a number of queer and trans organizations - Creative Justice - who serve Black trans and queer people, who are brilliant and who have policymakers and movement builders and do amazing work, but they aren't as well funded as the big box nonprofits. And so we need the ability to actually hold policy - to have the staffing for it, to organize for it, to fund our people to do that work - so that when the legislative session comes up, we have the policy recommendations necessary, that we actually have boots on the ground. We're learning from other community members about what those priorities are, but we are behind the game here. We're behind the ball here. We are years and years and years behind the ball. So that capacity building around the ability to do both organizing and policy making - that's needed, critically needed - including lobbying, the ability for us to fund our own lobbyists. We need it and we need it like 30 years ago in this state. [00:25:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and makes a lot of sense. Now we're thinking about legislatively, do you think - for local leaders, city council members, mayors - locally, that they need to embark upon the same path or are there additional suggestions that you would have for them? [00:25:41] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, I haven't - we've been thinking a lot about the State Legislature. And locally we've been thinking more around sort of some of the direct support initiatives like guaranteed income and et cetera. But I do think it's worth local politicians, councils - to figure out how can they build out a sanctuary county, city for trans people - what policies are in their power to make, what protections are in their power to make to ensure security and safety for Washington residents and others who seek care here. And let me tell you, it will work because I - the majority of the Black trans people that work in my organization come from the US South, they come from the East Coast. They come from other places where they may have felt less safe and they sought refuge here because of the promise of progressiveness of Washington state. Now that promise has mostly been empty, but they can work really hard to make sure that promise is fulfilled - because we are already starting to see that there will be a flood of refugees from other places around this country as this ball continues to drop on attacks against us and the rise of fascism in this country. So there are protections that are in the power of King County - to make sure that folks have income, to make sure they have access to employment, to make sure they have access to housing, to ensure that their laws protect them safely within their city jurisdictions - that people need to be looking at on their own and starting to work on. [00:27:14] Crystal Fincher: Now for people who aren't policy makers - they're just looking around and feeling very troubled by what they're seeing by the rise of hate and fascism, anti-trans violence. What advice would you give for how they can meaningfully help? [00:27:32] Jaelynn Scott: People, we need the voices of everyone at this moment. And the first thing is to continue to love on your LGBTQ family that's around you. And really lean into care for them in this moment - because whether or not we're saying it, a lot of us are feeling deeply traumatized, targeted and attacked at this moment. And there was a poll that was recently released - I can't remember, but I found it through the HRC, National HRC - that more and more of us are feeling less safe across the country because of what's happening. And so what can you do to extend your love and care to people. Also, as people start seeking refuge here and refuge from other states, be thinking about what can you give up? You know, we might be at the place that we were during the crisis of immigration, especially in the Trump administration, where people were starting to open up their homes to - as refugee assistance. And I think it's time to start planning that. What can we do to prepare our space for people who might need care and safety here? And I think the third thing I will say is look at and lean into Black queer and trans communities of color, Native and Indigenous Two-Spirit communities - and see the organizing that they're doing right now. Follow their lead. When they say - Hey, we need you to speak out against the Kids Online Safety Act - that's currently moving through Congress right now. And that promises to silence trans communities nationally in social media, that will almost destroy the social media and the publicity of nonprofits who do this work. And really will remove the ability of trans youth to find affirming media, to find affirming care, services, information, education, sexual health on social media. It will be destructive, and yet it has bipartisan support. Speak out, right - whenever we say this bill is being pushed in this state that's not quite working - and take the lead from communities of color, trans and queer communities of color in their legislative efforts. It's pretty easy. Follow them on social media, right? Give when they say give, take action when they say take action. Many people are often calling and saying - I want to volunteer. I want to be on the ground. I want to whatever. But when we post - Hey, we need you to call your Congressperson on this - no one calls. It's so much easier than you think. Follow, support, and listen. [00:29:56] Crystal Fincher: It does. And it makes a difference when you call and when you reach out, especially when it's to your Congressperson. They pay attention, they listen, and it is very important to do that. I appreciate that. As we move to close this interview, is there just anything that you would urge people to reflect on, or act on, or do as we move forward? [00:30:18] Jaelynn Scott: Yeah, so Black trans community, Black trans people, Black trans women, trans folk have always been here. And I think - speaking specifically to Black community at this moment - we have always been a part of culture. There have been moments when we have been silenced, where colonization has forced our history around gender diversity on the continent to be erased. And we need to have a conversation. We need to have a conversation about how much trans communities have supported who we are as a people - our role in the civil rights movement, our role in the Black Lives Matter movement - how we have always been there for Black community. And we need Black community to stand up for us in this moment too - that we are much more beautiful because of our diversity and that violence against any Black person is violence against the entire Black community. And so, yeah, we need to have conversations. But I also want us to take care to not take the lead from white right-wing neo-fascists who are concerned about the destruction of trans folk, the oppression of women, and who really cannot stand your Black skin - to let them lead the conversation, to let them take your voice, and you to be taking talking points from them. Let's have a conversation as community as we are - deeply from the place of the value for human rights, civil rights, and our value for our love ethic that we all share as Black folk. Let's sit down around that and let's sit down around gender and have a convo. And so I think that right now is what's at the top of my heart in speaking and speaking to the community that is closest to my heart. [00:32:02] Crystal Fincher: Very well said, absolutely necessary to be said. I sincerely appreciate you sharing with us on the program today - all the work that you're doing as part of the Lavender Rights Project. And thank you so much for your time today. [00:32:17] Jaelynn Scott: Thank you, Crystal. And thank you so much for this platform. This is - it's a critical moment - and this may seem small on a podcast and a brief conversation, but every single one of these matter at this moment. [00:32:28] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. 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.

An ambitious project in Denver aims to build affordable units for the city's Native population. It includes plans for a Native health clinic and is intended to address the disparities of homelessness for Native people. It's one of a handful of housing projects built with collaborative health and program space around the country designed to prioritize the needs of Native people. GUESTS Carla Respects Nothing (Oglala Sioux from Pine Ridge), Native American housing advocate for the Native American Housing Circle Paul Lumley (citizen of the Yakama Nation), CEO of the Native American Youth and Family Center Lindsay Goes Behind (Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas), chief program officer for the Chief Seattle Club

An ambitious project in Denver aims to build affordable units for the city's Native population. It includes plans for a Native health clinic and is intended to address the disparities of homelessness for Native people. It's one of a handful of housing projects built with collaborative health and program space around the country designed to prioritize the needs of Native people. GUESTS Carla Respects Nothing (Oglala Sioux from Pine Ridge), Native American housing advocate for the Native American Housing Circle Paul Lumley (citizen of the Yakama Nation), CEO of the Native American Youth and Family Center Lindsay Goes Behind (Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas), chief program officer for the Chief Seattle Club

Indigenous chefs Nephi Craig (White Mountain Apache), Justin Pioche (Diné), Jaren Bates (Navajo), and Sherry Pocknett (Wampanoag) are semi-finalists for the James Beard Foundation award for best regional chef. ɁálɁal Café opened up at the urban housing complex recently opened by the Chief Seattle Club and it's turning out a fresh line of healthy Indigenous menu items. And, as the much of the country grapples with an egg supply problem, some Native egg farmers are sitting pretty. Friday on Native America Calling, Andi Murphy serves up a new helping of our regular feature The Menu with ɁálɁal Café manager Anthony Johnson (Anishinaabe and a citizen of Red Lake Nation), chef Justin Pioche, and Katherine Minthorn (Umatilla), Intertribal Agriculture Council technical assistance specialist (Idaho region) and an owner of Rez Chicks Co-Op.

Indigenous chefs Nephi Craig (White Mountain Apache), Justin Pioche (Diné), Jaren Bates (Navajo), and Sherry Pocknett (Wampanoag) are semi-finalists for the James Beard Foundation award for best regional chef. ɁálɁal Café opened up at the urban housing complex recently opened by the Chief Seattle Club and it's turning out a fresh line of healthy Indigenous menu items. And, as the much of the country grapples with an egg supply problem, some Native egg farmers are sitting pretty. Friday on Native America Calling, Andi Murphy serves up a new helping of our regular feature The Menu with ɁálɁal Café manager Anthony Johnson (Anishinaabe and a citizen of Red Lake Nation), chef Justin Pioche, and Katherine Minthorn (Umatilla), Intertribal Agriculture Council technical assistance specialist (Idaho region) and an owner of Rez Chicks Co-Op.

Homelessness and lack of affordable housing are the biggest issues facing Seattle. Homelessness is a symptom of cracks in our housing, health, and economic policies, and changing the narrative to focus on systems instead of on individuals continues to be a challenge. Join prominent local government and nonprofit leaders for a dynamic conversation on the current state of homelessness, root causes, and what other cities across the country can learn from Seattle. Panelists: Marc Dones of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, Felicia Salcedo of We Are In, and Derrick Belgarde of Chief Seattle Club. Moderated by Scott Greenstone, reporter at KNKX FM.

On this week's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal Fincher is joined by transformative justice advocate, community organizer, writer, and sociologist Evelyn Chow. We start off the show with a reminder that Crystal will be hosting a candidate forum for the Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7 races, featuring Position 3 candidates Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi, and Position 7 candidates Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. The forum will be streaming live on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube on Wednesday, October 12th at 7:00pm. See our blog for more details: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/blog/municipal-judge-forum-october-12-2022  Also, starting this week, applications for the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF)'s 2023 program are now live! You can find more information at IDF's website at https://democraticfuture.org/.  In national news, President Biden has announced his administration is pardoning people who have received federal simple possession charges for marajuana. In the announcement, Biden asked state governors to do the same for state charges, and requested the secretary of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Attorney General to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. This is a big step that will help many people, and will hopefully be emulated by the states, but it has its limits - pardoning doesn't equate to ending prison sentences and doesn't include expungement, which has logistical and financial hurdles for people to climb.  In county news, while we've heard stories from other parts of the country facing issues with clean water access, King County is facing its own water crisis. For the past week, the King County Jail in Downtown Seattle has been without clean water. People in the jail have been forced to use water bottles, and the schedule at which they can refill them is unclear. This is another terrible example of how our jails do not provide rehabilitation, and instead subject people to inhumane and dehumanizing treatment. This story also follows many other instances of horribly under-resourced and under-staffed King County jails leading to outrageous conditions for people staying in the jails. We have to do better. This is inexcusable. This week saw some very informative reporting following up on Harrell's proposed budget putting $1M into the controversial ShotSpotter program. Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City and Melissa Santos from Axios both put out stories, linked below, covering the program's history - which shows it's not only ineffective in its purpose of catching gunfire as it happens, it's also incredibly wasteful of police resources. ShotSpotter has no positive impact on gun crime or public safety, and none of its alternative surveillance programs are any more effective. It's budget season! Evelyn gives us an in-depth explanation of the City of Seattle's participatory budgeting process, and encourages folks to get involved and make their voices heard! If you want to speak your mind about the city's budget, you can send written emails to the City Council at this email: council@seattle.gov. You can also attend Budget Committee meetings in-person and remote on October 11th and October 25th at 9:30am. In addition, there will be public hearings on the budget, also remote and in-person, on October 11th at 5:00pm, November 8th at 9:30am, and November 15th at 5:00pm. See here for more info: https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/select-budget-committee   In local homelessness news, we look at the on-going story of King County's planned expanded enhanced shelter and behavioral health services hub in the SoDo neighborhood, which has seen a lot of pushback from local residents. This is a complicated story about providing care to those who need it, while at the same time making sure that the county works with local communities about what happens in their neighborhoods. The CID has faced heavy burden during the pandemic, and has dealt with a number of government projects that have been pushed through with little community engagement. If a community is telling us there wasn't enough engagement, there wasn't enough engagement, and we need to remember not to dismiss these grassroots community voices just because there are bad faith actors trying to take advantage of them. 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, Evelyn T Chow, at @evelyntchow. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources Hacks & Wonks is hosting a Seattle Municipal Judge Candidate forum on October 12th at 7:00pm! Please see the link here for more details: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/blog/municipal-judge-forum-october-12-2022    The Institute for a Democratic Future is now accepting applications for its 2023 program! The Early Application Deadline is November 2nd, with an application fee of $35, and the Final Application Deadline is November 13, with a fee of $75. See their site for more details: https://democraticfuture.org/    “Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law” by Michael D. Shear & Zolan Kanno-Youngs from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/politics/biden-marijuana-pardon.html?auth=login-email&login=email    “In a Sign of Worsening Conditions, Understaffed King County Jail Has Lacked Water for a Week” by Erica C. Barentt from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/10/06/in-a-sign-of-worsening-conditions-understaffed-king-county-jail-has-lacked-water-for-a-week/    “Proposed Surveillance Tech Can Lead to Biased Policing” by Amy Sundberg from News From the Emerald City: https://www.getrevue.co/profile/amysundberg/issues/proposed-surveillance-tech-can-lead-to-biased-policing-1383779    “Seattle mayor budgets $1M for controversial gunfire detection tech” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/10/07/mayor-million-shotspotter-gunfire-detection    “$30M Seattle participatory budgeting effort gears up with staff, workgroups, and a steering committee” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/10/30m-seattle-participatory-budgeting-effort-gears-up-with-staff-workgroups-and-a-steering-committee/    Learn more about how you can get involved in the Participatory Budget process here: https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/select-budget-committee      Seattle Solidarity Budget: https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/    “Chinatown International District pushes back at expanded homeless shelter. Officials ask where else?” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/chinatown-international-district-pushes-back-at-expanded-homeless-shelter-officials-ask-where-else/    “OPINION | Hooverville Then and Now: Who Is Worthy of Space?” by Caedmon Magboo Cahill from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/10/03/opinion-hooverville-then-and-now-who-is-worthy-of-space/    “King County planning expanded enhanced shelter and behavioral health services hub in SoDo with new lease“ from King County's Press Office: https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/news/release/2022/March/23-SoDo-Enhanced-Shelter-Transmittal.aspx    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, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time today, our co-host, Evelyn Chow. Hello! [00:00:51] Evelyn Chow: Hi, thanks for having me. [00:00:53] Crystal Fincher: Hey, I am excited. Just so people understand who you are - you're a transformative justice advocate, community organizer, writer, and sociologist. You were born and raised in Hawai'i, moved to Seattle 7 years ago where you received your degree in Sociology from Seattle University. Currently work as the District Director to Councilmember Tammy Morales, representing Seattle City Council District 2. Previously, they worked for non-profits Real Change and Ingersoll Gender Center, and did communications work for several local and state political campaigns. You are a force to be reckoned with. [00:01:34] Evelyn Chow: I appreciate that praise. I don't feel like such, but - [00:01:41] Crystal Fincher: I am so thrilled that you are here on the show today 'cause I have appreciated and admired your work for a bit here. So I'm excited. [00:01:51] Evelyn Chow: Thank you, Crystal, for having me. [00:01:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Before we get into all of the stuff, there are two reminders, or upcoming things that are coming up. One is the Municipal Judge Forum that we are putting on next week - it's a live candidate forum that will be streamed via Twitter and Facebook - and it will be a Municipal Court judicial forum. So the two contested seats are Position 3 and Position 7 - Adam Eisenberg vs Pooja Vaddadi and Nyjat Rose-Akins vs Damon Shadid. So we will be hashing it out, talking about what they believe in, want to do on Wednesday, October 12th - that's this coming Wednesday - at 7:00 PM, which will be live streamed online. So pay attention to that. Also want to remind you about something we've talked about before on the program. The Institute for a Democratic Future, or IDF, is opening its application period. This is a six-month program, with about 10 weekends over those six months across the state of Washington and in Washington DC, covering politics and policy from all vantage points throughout the state - how policy passed is actually implemented and impacts the people on the ground. Great network, great education - it's responsible for my career in politics. Just a great preparation, whether you want to work in the political sphere as a candidate or staff, policy - wide variety of options there, even in the nonprofit or advocacy space. Just great preparation - helps you get a great understanding and connections to people in a great network. So if you're interested in that and - you don't have to want to work in politics, but maybe you just want to advocate for policy or explore what options may be - I highly recommend the Institute for a Democratic Future. We'll include the information in our show notes. Feel free to @ me, email me if you have any questions, but just wanted to make sure that is on everybody's radar and the application deadline is in November, so you have a little bit of time. But now is the time to get started on that if you're interested. Now we'll get to the news of the week. So there's a lot that has happened in a lot of different areas. We had a couple chaos days with news this week of every kind, but looking at politics and policy in the state - want to start talking about some big news that broke yesterday with Joe Biden pardoning federal simple possession of marijuana. What did you see as the most important takeaways from this settlement? [00:04:33] Evelyn Chow: What we saw yesterday - huge news, in terms of Joe Biden setting his agenda by making the statement that, on a federal level, simple possession convictions of marijuana will be pardoned. And I think across the board we've seen a lot of different parties, people, interests react. On my end, while I'm really hopeful that states will follow suit across the US and do the same thing, which will impact more people, I also want to. acknowledge also that pardons don't mean, necessarily, released from prison. Nor are they expungements of criminal records. And the administration does say that about 6,000 people will be pardoned. And which is really again, huge - it means you're forgiven - but it's still on paper. I would love to see the expungement of it from records, though we also know, just from doing work in community, that expungements are costly. Lawyers have to file the expungement, on top of cost of filing, and they know that this is a cost that a lot of working class people might not be able to afford. And the method becomes like a fiscal generator for municipalities. Sorry, now we're going down the rabbit hole of the negative or maybe the under-the-surface, but I think on the surface this is really huge. I do hope to see more states follow suit in that - this is not nothing. For a lot of, I think, abolitionists and criminal legal system reform advocates, I've seen a lot of this just kind of brush through. And I understand where that sentiment comes from and at the same time, this is not nothing. This just - it's a something that will hopefully evolve. [00:06:31] Crystal Fincher: It is, absolutely - I think that's exactly right. It's something that is positive, that hopefully continues to evolve here in Washington State - we've been more fortunate than a lot of other states in the country. There are states where you can go to jail for possessing a joint, where there is no legalization at all. We're used to the ability to go to the store here and pick out our selection of weed - that is not the case in a lot of the country. And there have been recent - pretty pointed - efforts on behalf of the Republican Party in several states to roll back marijuana legalization. So it is not even like legalization, in one form or another, is even safe in places where it has been implemented. So I think this is important - one, as you said, in setting the agenda and really urging states to move down the path of decriminalization, which I think is important, and just puts a little bit of external pressure on different states. I was surprised to hear about this just because of the news, previously, that Biden didn't have the friendliest marijuana policy for his own administration and looking at issues with that. But I do think that this moves the conversation forward across the entire country. We're ahead of the conversation a little bit in Washington State, but a lot of people are not there and this is meaningful for a lot of people in states where the population - the people there - want this change, but they have leaders who are very, very resistant. Also, looking at the rescheduling of this - to keep it from being classified similarly as heroin or fentanyl - it clearly is not. All the public health data shows that, and it's a barrier to research and a bunch of other things. So this is a step in the right direction, I think. Still have a lot more to go, but it's a fight that Biden is willing to take on even before we get to these elections. It's a winning issue and it's the right thing to do. So if you can - absolutely, if you can win on an issue and it's the right thing to do, should be moving forward with it. And I'm glad to see that this happened. So in other news this week, we saw that the King County Jail is lacking water. They've lacked water for a week. This is a story that PubliCola broke on Thursday, I believe. And we've seen news and lots of people have made their opinions known about the water crisis in Jackson - sometimes it's just, Oh my goodness, that's horrible there, it could never happen here. It's happening here. It's happening in a place where people have literally no other choice, no other option about what to do. They're being given bottled water instead of being able to access the water, because there are currently health issues. And there are questions about whether people are even getting enough water - it looks like they're having to choose between hydration and hygiene. What do you see with this? [00:09:52] Evelyn Chow: I have a status as a volunteer at the women's prison down in Purdy, in Tacoma. And was a volunteer for a few years until COVID, in which - none of us have been able to get back in for programming, except for a few of the churches - which is a discussion for another time. But, I think often the way that we see punishment in this country is, in a way, a just sweeping things under the rug - putting people in prisons and jails is this. And when you put people there, there's that perception of - all of the stigmatization of what you put on a population that has often done things that maybe you have also, but maybe I've had the privilege of not being caught for. And what happens to those people is they get forgotten, or they get put into conditions that we would never ourselves want to be in, regardless of any of the harm that we have caused as individuals. I think in this issue - sorry to get philosophical with it, I just needed to set that context of - [00:10:59] Crystal Fincher: No apologies necessary. [00:11:01] Evelyn Chow: This is not, obviously, the first time in the US or even across the world where prisons, people who are getting placed into prison, are experiencing extremely degrading and violent circumstances, right? From the article, we hear that there are women in the jail who are getting their period and they're unable to get a change of underwear for the week. And this is also something that is across the board even pre-COVID, pre-pandemic times, of people needing to spend the very limited resources they have on hygiene products - things that should be guaranteed rights for people. It's inhumane, it's also just a clear liability for the county. [00:11:47] Crystal Fincher: It's infuriating. It's infuriating because - one, this could have, this started and went on for a week before it even caught notice. And thankfully for PubliCola's reporting, it did - otherwise it would've gone on longer - that inmates often have no voice in our community. We make it so hard for people who are incarcerated to communicate, to advocate for anything. They frequently face punishment for just bringing up issues of clear illegality, or challenges just in terms of health, violations of policy - and too many people in the community who just feel like we can discard rights of people who are incarcerated or that somehow they're deserving of it. And if someone is incarcerated, the sentence is the incarceration. That does not in any way absolve all of us because they are being held, on behalf of our society with our tax dollars - this is a community responsibility to make sure they are treated as humans. One, because it's the right thing to do. They should not be subjected to harsh, inhumane, insufficient - facilities, supplies, regulations, any of that. We should be treating them and making sure they have all of the provisions they need. And it's wrong morally not to do so, it's also highly ineffective and increases the chances that they're going to come out when they get released - because everybody's, just about everybody's getting released - and are not going to be able to successfully integrate into our society and contribute to the problems that so many people then complain about on the other side. We have to invest in people, treat people, make sure they have resources - access to education, access to therapeutic programming, arts, lots of different things. We need to make sure that they come out more whole than they go in, if they are going in. That is what's best for our community, that's what's best for the safety of everyone, that's what's best for legal liability resources. And so this is just infuriating. And on top of this, the jails are understaffed. And so there's a big question about - are people dehydrated right now? They don't have a way to tell us most of the time. They are limited to receiving one bottle of water at a time - I'm assuming these are small, 20-ounce bottles of water that we normally see - because they're afraid of affiliated, associated safety concerns. They can exchange an empty bottle for a full bottle. How frequently is that opportunity to exchange? Why are we rationing water to people? It just doesn't make sense, we have to do better - this is - we have to do better. And so this is on Dow Constantine, this is on all the employees there, this is on every elected official - the King County Council. We have to do better - this is inexcusable. [00:15:22] Evelyn Chow: And I'd also, if I could Crystal, just point out - this recent, this ongoing water shutoff is only the most recent example of the different types of problems that they've been experiencing at the jail over the past few years, if not since the jail has been there. We've been hearing from folks there that they are getting limited access to medical care, to their attorneys, to even spend time calling people like family members and loved ones. All of this has been exacerbated by COVID, but is a statement of the existing conditions at a lot of these jails and prisons. So I agree - there has to be a better way of - people need to do better, our electeds need to do better. [00:16:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and these are public resources that are being spent or misspent in these ways. We need to demand better. They must do better. And to your point, this is the latest in a litany - and as a reminder, both public defenders and the corrections officers in our King County jails came together earlier this year to ask King County to release more prisoners 'cause they're woefully understaffed. This is a safety issue for the corrections officers, it's a safety and health issue for the people who are incarcerated there. It is working for nobody and ignoring this is only allowing those conditions to get worse. Someone is going to end up injured, ill, or worse. And this is entirely preventable. In other news, more discussion this week about Mayor Harrell's budget proposal, including part of the proposal that he has to address gun violence with the ShotSpotter surveillance program. What is this program and what is your perspective on this? [00:17:12] Evelyn Chow: Shotspotter is a private program and it's - over the past years - been marketed to dozens of cities across the US. However, they've proven to have little investment on their return. So the description of what they are proposing that this technology does is - it's a microphone system and it triangulates the location of where they would hear supposed, or alleged, gunshots. And that would allow first responders, specifically the police, to show up to that scene quickly and supposedly de-escalate the situation or apprehend whoever had fired a gun. I think the system, as we've seen in cities across the US like in Charlotte and in others that have actually used this technology - we've seen that the system generates a lot of notifications when the sensors are triggered. But there's very little evidence that that data leads to any arrests, convictions, or even - most importantly - victim assistance. Cities across the US have already been canceling their contracts with ShotSpotter for the past few years, citing the poor results. And I think even in New York City, the system had triggered enough false positives that the NYPD Deputy Commissioner a few years ago was like - this is an unsuccessful system and it just logs noise. It was logging things like an exploding volleyball - like a popped volleyball - or a car backfiring. And so I think, before we choose to invest a million dollars in this upcoming budget cycle in a technology that is proven time and again and again that it doesn't work - perhaps that million dollars could be better spent in other places that will actually promote community and public safety. And I just also want to make the point that there is already increased surveillance technology equipment in SPD, especially around South Seattle communities, but citywide. And the data that it collects is not transparent in any way. With existing technologies and this new proposed, or not necessarily new, but proposed technology - we need to, at least - the public deserves to know how that data will be used and who will have access to it. I know a few years ago, when the ShotSpotter was being proposed, they talked about how it, as a private entity company, owns that data. And so there's a lot of repercussions that I can see coming up with - if the city decides to move forward with implementing ShotSpotter. And I also hear a lot of people who have very fair questions, candidly, about whether this is going to be effective at all. And, my answer is no. [00:20:17] Crystal Fincher: Your answer is no. And so many different entities' answers are no. An AP investigation earlier this year found serious flaws with prosecutors using ShotSpotter for evidence - noting, as you said - it can miss live gunfire next to its microphone, but misclassify the sounds of fireworks or cars backfiring as gunshots. A study published last year in the peer-reviewed Journal of Urban Health found that ShotSpotter appeared to have no significant impact on firearm-related homicides or arrest outcomes in 68 large metropolitan counties from 1999 to 2016. It has no impact on gun crime, it has no impact on public safety. A separate study on Philadelphia's use of SENTRI, a ShotSpotter alternative - and it's important to note that there are different alternatives - they all experience these problems, so if they substitute another one with ShotSpotter, these surveillance programs that are essentially trying to hack public safety and hack a solution to gun violence are just not effective - that found that the technology increased police workload. At a time where they keep complaining that they're overworked, that they don't have enough police to address public safety concerns - it increased police workload by sending officers to incidents where no evidence of a shooting was found. So once again, we're in a situation where Bruce Harrell has the opportunity to define what his plan for public safety is going to be and we're hearing things, that not only have no evidence that they're going to work, they have evidence to the contrary. While lots of people are suggesting things that are backed by data, backed by evidence - when he came in office, he said, Look, I'm going to be evidence-based, data-driven. People are like, So here's that evidence that you said you wanted, and here's this data that you had said you wanted - let's do this. And it's, No, let's go to this thing that has been demonstrated not to work. And we do need public safety solutions. We do need to make our streets safer. We do need to reduce the amount of people who are being victimized urgently. And we can't afford to waste this time and money on solutions that have proven not to make people anymore safe. We just can't afford this. And I am asking, I'm begging public officials to - yes, follow the data. There is so much available that shows what is helpful and useful to do. And I will note that some programs - Bruce has defunded, that have been effective in doing this this year, so it's just frustrating to see. And I wonder - this is me wondering, obviously - a lot of people have moved here over the last 10 years and may not remember Bruce Harrell being on the City Council. He was for quite some time. And I think that we are hearing a number of proposals that were talked about 10 years ago when he was on the council. And he was on the council for several years - for a decade, basically. [00:23:39] Evelyn Chow: I think three terms - yeah. [00:23:41] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and so it's like we're bringing back the hits from 2010, 2012 - and sometimes, there was even some promise for some of those things at that time. Wow - they've been implemented in so many cities across the US, we've had the opportunity to gather data and figure out what has evidence of effectiveness and what doesn't. And that just doesn't seem to enter into what they're proposing. It's really confusing and we're waiting - we're waiting on proposals that will make people more safe - and more than just hiring more police, which can't even happen until next year. What is going to happen now to make people more safe? It's frustrating, as I am sure you deal with in a very immediate and present way on a daily basis. [00:24:35] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, absolutely. Everything you said - public safety, community safety is an urgent issue and they keep trying these tried techniques, right? Tough on crime didn't work in the nineties, it's not going to work now. And investing in all of these things that are scientifically, with data and evidence, proven not to work is just not the way we need to move forward. And I think similar to King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay's op-ed in the Times, I think a few weeks ago now, talking about how public safety is not about scoring political points. I think the executive put out this proposal with a very specific - I guess, his specific base in mind. And that does not encompass the lived realities of a lot of people across, especially South Seattle, but across the City as well. [00:25:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to keep our eye on that. Also, it's budget season in the City, in the County - which you are in the middle of and steeped in. And so, there was an article in Capitol Hill Seattle this week covering the $30 million Seattle participatory budgeting effort that is now gearing up. What is happening with this, and what is happening just in the budget process overall? [00:25:53] Evelyn Chow: The mayor gets eight months to put together his proposed budget and then it comes to Council - it came on September 27th, a few weeks ago now - and we get about eight weeks in the council to splice and dice that budget. And you brought up participatory budgeting - I am glad to see that - I think the context, to just set a little bit of groundwork for participatory budgeting - this was money that was allocated in September of 2020, following the protests that sparked nationwide after the police murders of George Floyd, of Brianna Taylor, of too many others. And it really came as a demand from community to the council to direct money into community-led safety initiatives. And this is an opportunity for the community that's most impacted, that's usually furthest away from being able to make decisions about how their money is spent, to be engaged in that process. And the Seattle City Council allocated $30 million into this participatory budgeting process, and this is going to be the largest undertaking in, I believe, North America with a similar initiative. And so just a little bit more of groundwork before I get to where we're at - King County Council did the same allocation on a smaller scale of $11 million. And they've already executed their contracts and that money has gone out into community. I believe it was about $11 million to 45 different community-based organizations. And where we are now - it's been a couple of years since the money has been allocated, and I know that some people are starting to ask - what's the status update? And I know in the Neighborhoods, Education, and Civil Rights Committee on the Seattle City Council - we recently held presentations to get that status update from the King County Council and the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, where that contract is now housed. And so - I believe they're in the design process and that they are working to make sure that community engagement is really steeped in this step and every step along the way to direct this funding. I think at this point, it sounds like the group that got contracted from the City is called the Participatory Budgeting Project. They're a national organization and they are currently working to hire local staff to help on their steering and working group committees, which will in turn shape and launch this effort. So I'm excited to see - I think at a time when we're talking about the budget season in Seattle, on the county level - and a lot of folks are feeling particularly enraged at several of the proposed line items in the mayor's budget around these new technologies, around the caps for service workers on their raises. This is an opportunity - participatory budgeting - to put funds towards, quite frankly, where the executive is not going to invest right now - in these types of solutions that we know community has already been working on, for years, to address violence on an interpersonal and on a state level. So I'm excited to see this continue to be underway. [00:29:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm excited too and I'm broadly in favor of the community being actively engaged, actively involved in allocations that impact them and that they should have a voice. All neighborhoods in Seattle should have a voice. Traditionally, some have had much more of a voice than others. And there are some that have had many more resources, that have had close relationships, the time and ability, and frankly privilege, to get familiar with budget processes, engagement processes - which can be very exclusionary and hard to figure out how to even become a part of it. And they're not necessarily friendly to someone just walking up trying to figure out what's happening. Making sure that we reach out to every single community in the City and that they have a voice in shaping the investments is really important. I'm also excited to see this, excited for this money to get distributed and for this process to actually get started. And then for the budget process overall - so we've talked about this participatory budgeting, but this is in the context of the larger budget process overall, which is a big process - lots of resources there. I guess we'll talk about specific hearings and stuff in a moment, but what would your personal advice be, if people are looking to become more involved in budget decisions in the City, and how money is invested and where it's involved? [00:31:26] Evelyn Chow: That's a great question because it's - I don't see it enough, especially in communities where there's intentional, whether implicit or explicit, ways to de-incentivize people from being civically engaged. Where I've seen the people build the most power - and we saw this in 2020, as well as when people with their specific values and interests come together - and really work on contacting their elected representatives, setting up meetings throughout the year, making sure they're being held accountable to the votes they're taking in committees, in Full Councils and being like - here are the updates that I see on the ground, as people who are doing work as - at community-based organizations and non-profits, etc. And here's the needs that we see emerging in our communities, and here's what you can do about it in the budget season. [00:32:16] Crystal Fincher: So I'm glad that participatory budgeting is hopefully going to be getting underway. At least they're hiring - hopefully the money actually gets distributed soon. Engaging in budget processes is always complicated overall. I'm sitting here - I've worked in politics for a while, I've worked with tons of people who've worked with budgets - and budgets are so opaque and so complicated, and so - these are documents over, that are thousands of pages long, oftentimes. You have to have a deep and intimate familiarity with everything to even understand what they are. You can see the numbers on the paper, but is that more than I spent before? Is that less? What does that mean? Where did this money come from? Is this continuing? It's a complicated and convoluted thing. And we have this budget process, which is at a certain period of time during the year. One, I always just want to reiterate and reinforce with people, 'cause we don't talk about this enough, I don't think - is that a lot of the groundwork, whether it's budget, whether it's legislation, or anything - there's a period of time where there are hearings and everything to discuss it and that's valuable. But a lot of the groundwork, a lot of what actually shapes that - happens long before that process. And so the importance of engaging within community, within organizations that are familiar with the budget and advocating there, being familiar with your County Council person, City Council person, mayor and keeping that line of communication open - and anyone can call your elected representatives. They are your elected representatives. If you are a resident - you don't have to be documented, you don't have to be anything else. If you live in whatever jurisdiction, they represent you and they should be responsive to you. But you can ask questions, you can do all that kind of stuff and start there. That's always helpful to do and sometimes that helps to get an understanding of things so that when these processes do officially ramp up, that you know where everything stands and can be prepared to advocate for what you want - hopefully already getting that and how it's shaped in there. But if you don't, you're prepared to advocate. For people who are getting engaged in this process now - now that this process has spun up - what are ways that people can get involved, whether it's hearings or anything else? [00:34:43] Evelyn Chow: Couldn't have said it more eloquently - thank you, Crystal. I can give a vague overview, or I can give a timeline of the budget process. Anyone in the public gets to provide feedback on the budget. You can call your representatives, you can send emails into their offices. I will say that mail form responses don't receive as many individual responses as just a personal - Hey, I'm concerned about this - you know what's going on. The Seattle City Council does have public hearings. There will be three in the next few weeks. The next one is coming up next week on October 11th, which is a Tuesday, at 5:00 PM. And then in November there will be two public hearings on November 7th and November 15th. The Select Budget Committee will be meeting throughout these weeks. And on the first meetings of the Select Budget Committee, I believe there will also be public comment allowed. Now this is a shift from, I think previous years where, people could give public comment at each committee hearing, and so I've definitely heard some pushbacks on there. I think a lot of the reasoning is just that - we are still in COVID but - yes, there will be those public hearings. And folks are able to give feedback in public comment during the Budget Committee hearings. And the first one had already happened on September 28th. There will be another one coming up on October 11th, similarly, but in the morning. And those Select Budget Committee meetings are happening all week. And next week is when the Council is going into, going to deep dive into basically every issue area with the Central Staff. And so it starts next Tuesday - I believe Tuesday is just going to be a general overview of the General Fund and Capital Investments. And then each day throughout the week - Wednesday, Thursday and Friday - they'll be covering several different issue areas, whether it's SPD, homelessness, Office of Planning and Community Development. And so - folks are really encouraged to stay on top of the Budget Committee meetings as well - there is a link on the City of Seattle's website to stay on top of when these committee meetings are happening throughout the weeks. So just to summarize, there will be Budget Committee meetings that folks can give either remote or in-person public comment to - for the Select Budget Committee, which is just made up of members of the Seattle City Council. And there will be public hearings on the budget specifically. The first one is set for next Tuesday, and then there will also be on - November 8th and November 15th. And at any time throughout the budget process, folks are encouraged to reach out to their elected officials, to stay on top of their representatives - either social media, newsletters, mail - all of the different forms to get information. And partnering up and joining up with these organizations that you specified, Crystal, that have been doing this type of advocacy work and have dedicated staff people to dissect those year-round. Just a number of ways - [00:37:56] Crystal Fincher: There are - number of ways - not the simplest process to follow, but there are ways to get engaged. One of those groups with the Seattle Solidarity Budget - we'll include all of this information and all of the dates that Evelyn just talked about in our show notes - Solidarity Budget is another effort involved in this budget process, a more community-focused budget that they're advocating for. The website will also link to - has information, ways to advocate, you can look through that - also, ways to help - social media stuff - with alt text provided for the social media graphics that they provided, which I appreciate. But just a lot of different things. So I encourage people to get involved because we all talk about the impacts and effects of there's not enough funding here, and we need to do this, and why aren't we doing this? And this is how these decisions are made, this is where those funding decisions are solidified, and this is the time to engage if you have an opinion about what is happening within your city. That's a lot there. It's a lot to go through, but definitely worth it. I also want to cover news - it's been making news throughout the past several weeks. Just talking about the SoDo shelter expansion and some pushback from within the CID. Starting off - what is happening, Evelyn? And then we can talk about some thoughts about what's happening. [00:39:32] Evelyn Chow: Yes, I'm happy to give a quick overview of that. King County is planning to expand their - this enhanced shelter, that is currently housed in SoDo. It's right along the bottom edge of the CID, under where the Uwajimaya is on the south end. And the proposal is to expand the shelter - it currently has 269 beds, they want to add an additional 150 beds - mind you, these are congregate shelter. And they want to expand into having a behavioral health services center, as well as support for RV residents and Pallet shelters, which are essentially tiny homes. So that expansion of 150 that has been talked about by the executive - King County Executive - is going to bring the total number of people at that site to approximately 419 people. So that's just a high-level of what's happening. [00:40:36] Crystal Fincher: And it's also known as the Megaplex, correct? [00:40:39] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, I guess a lot of folks have been trying to call it the Megaplex. Yes. [00:40:44] Crystal Fincher: But just for people's familiarity, if they happen to hear that term - this is what that's in reference to. [00:40:49] Evelyn Chow: Yes. Yeah. I didn't really like that term because I feel like it dehumanizes the people who live there. [00:40:54] Crystal Fincher: It does. [00:40:55] Evelyn Chow: So I just call it the SoDO shelter. [00:40:56] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:40:57] Evelyn Chow: But you are correct that that is what it's being called by a lot of more clickbait media. The Seattle City Council allotted funding from their federal ARPA - the emergency, the American Rescue Plan Act - funding towards this. And last year, I believe that Councilmember Tammy Morales did propose an amendment to divert that funding from where it currently is to the Salvation Army Shelter, to instead Chief Seattle Club for them to build a unit or several units of non-congregate shelter. But that amendment did not pass. And towards the late summer of this year, I think around September, is when we heard of the plans for expansion. That is when the county had announced, more fully to the public at the CID Public Safety Forum, and there are claims of doing community engagement before these plans started moving forward. The county claims to have done community engagement prior to the implementation of these plans. And I think a lot of community folks have pushed back being like - No, we actually didn't hear about this at all. They have their list of people that they've reached out to and we've heard some critiques be - Yes, we did hear about a plan to expand a shelter, but I think if we had known the size of this project, we would've had more engagement. And so I think, just on the government side, there hasn't been a lot of authentic community engagement with folks in the CID. And there are other players in this situation, namely some right-wing think tanks of the Discovery Institute that have been trying to co-opt what is happening in the CID for their political agendas. And so it's created this extremely tense environment to be able to talk about the dynamics of - yes, everyone deserves housing, everyone deserves shelter - I think there's no doubt there. There are indeed some people who don't believe that, who are part of the pushback. And the CID is a really small neighborhood, it's also the third CID that the City of Seattle has seen, right? They've already relocated two times. And throughout the pandemic, a lot of folks in the CID have burdened a lot of the the impacts of the pandemic. And businesses have been slow to open back up if they have it all. There's boarded up windows everywhere and people generally have really valid concerns around public safety in the neighborhood. There are a lot of other government projects that are taking place in the neighborhood that have been plowed through without also similar meaningful community engagement. Most recently, the Sound Transit expansion of the West Seattle Ballard Link extension, where their proposed Fifth Ave or Fourth Ave options still do propose closing businesses - and all of this to say, and I'm sure there's more to say - there's a lot of moving factors around what's happening in the CID right now. I think some of the bottom lines are that the community there does not feel like engaged in these decisions that are being made. Going back to our conversation earlier around participatory budgeting, it's really important to have dedicated forces of people who will meaningfully take what people have to say and propose solutions, have meaningful dialogue. And people also need to be housed and it's an urgent crisis. So this is where we're at. I will say, just in the blog put out by the King County on this project, they stated that the lease renewal for that site in SoDo, which currently encompasses the Salvation Army Center as well as the surrounding block - it is supposed to be a one-time lease for five years. If they did not use the funds they secured to renew this lease, they would've had to close this already-existing 270-bed shelter which seems like a terrible ultimatum to give in a lease - it's like they had to renew the lease and take that additional property. And so now they're trying to find uses for that property - and so that's where I've seen the county's messaging come through. [00:46:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that overview - it's good kind of level setting for the conversation. I guess thinking about this - one, I've seen a lot of reactions to this. I've seen a lot of commentary. And a lot of it has just been dismissive in one way or another. And looking at the situation and - Oh, these are people, this shouldn't be anywhere and this isn't the solution. Or these are NIMBYs just not wanting this there. And I think we have to be real. And sometimes, oftentimes, these conversations aren't simple. One, as you said, engagement is so important. You just talked about the West Seattle Bridge extension - even with the deep bore tunnel and that issue was hard on that community - that community homes so many services and service centers overall there - just so many different things involved there. And we keep asking a small percentage of the communities in Seattle and in King County to bear the majority of the brunt of infrastructure challenges, infrastructure disruptions - public safety concerns aren't being held, or being heard, or being dismissed. And yes, there are challenges everywhere in the City, including there, with people who need housing. Yes, there are challenges there and so many places in the City with people feeling unsafe in their neighborhood. But there seems to be a divergence between how those concerns are heard and what is done in response. And what I continue to hear from people in the CID, people in the Rainier Valley, people in other places are - Hey, people in Magnolia are saying this and we are saying this. And they keep getting listened to over there and somehow projects always get diverted away from there and then land here. Projects always get picketed somewhere else and then land here. And we have been doing our fair share and other people have not. And so once again, you're asking us to bear the brunt of this without even having a conversation with us first. And kind of news flash - if the community is saying you haven't done adequate engagement, you haven't done adequate engagement. That is the community that wants you to engage with them. You gotta go deeper than the organizations that you have - like that's a flag and a signal to the organization - you have to go wider and deeper than you have before, clearly. At the same time, there are also people with bad faith criticisms. There have been some King County GOP efforts - they showed up with picket signs and basically astroturfed some stuff and are joining onto this effort to try and get publicity to try and characterize it in their own way. And so certainly, that's a bad faith effort and they're not coming with the same concerns. They're not rooted or invested in that community and they're exploiting that community. But that does not give us the right, or I guess the moral authority, to then ignore the concerns that are genuinely rooted in that community. And so there should have been better engagement, there needs to be more engagement clearly. There need to be more alternatives cited. There need to be invest - we have to look into how we determine where potential sites for this are. We talk after the fact - well, these requirements or specifications for a desirable location say it can't be near this, and it has to be that, and it can't be near this. Well, yeah - they're written that way to exclude certain communities. How do we make this impact more equitable? How do we make sure that we don't unduly burden individual communities and ask people to continue to bear the brunt of what other neighborhoods say that they don't want. And how do we make it work all over the place? So I do think this is not a simple solution. We do have a crisis of people on the street and they do need to get housed. We need to take action on that quickly. We can't do that without listening to community, and we can't shortcut this process by just saying, Okay, we'll just put it over here again. We can do it over here and maybe they won't yell as loud as some people in other neighborhoods, or maybe because they may not have enough financial resources, that they won't be, they won't have enough time to engage and they won't be as much of a "headache" to us as other people will consistently - it's just not good enough. And we have to engage with that reality. We have to talk within communities. And that doesn't mean that those communities are automatically NIMBYs for that, right? They have valid concerns that we have to listen to and work through. [00:51:34] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, and something else on this issue that I just, I really wish I was seeing more of - from both the county and other local partners on this - is engagement with the actual people who are living unhoused by that shelter. I think in terms of the the people who are involved in these decisions, that's one entity. The people who are housed in the neighborhood, or provide services, or have businesses in the neighborhood - that's another one. Also, I want to hear also directly from the people who are living outside - what their thoughts of - a lot of, and I won't say this is either in good or bad faith, but we've been seeing protests outside of the existing Salvation Army shelter for the past few weeks now, since the news broke. And the shelter is right next to a large, I guess, unsanctioned encampment of folks who have to listen to these protests day in, day out about just the circumstances that they're under in life. And I can't imagine what the relationship would continue to look like or evolve between those who are living there because they seemingly have no other options currently - and that site is also close to other services that they are receiving - and the residents and business owners of the neighborhood, many of whom have developed extremely tense relationships and antagonistic relationships with each other over the past years, especially since COVID when just socioeconomic conditions across the nation have worsened. And I just think, in moving forward with these conversations, the engagement has to be inclusive of the whole CID community. I think a lot of the folks who are very vocal now are the ones who are also historically vocal in a lot of decisions. And that's not to say it's a good or bad thing, it's just there's a lot more to folks in the CID than the three dozen people who show up to protest because they have that time every week. [00:53:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - well said. So I hope that engagement does happen with this - continued and for all the future stuff. And we have to look at why we keep having to have these conversations in the exact same communities and they're telling us that, repeatedly - Hey, there hasn't been enough engagement and now you are just implementing something, ramming it through, and we're paying the price. We're happy to do our fair share but why are we doing the majority of it when the rest of the City exists? And that's with this issue, that's with so many issues. It's with issues surrounding public safety, around environmental and climate change, impacts around education, around so many things. And the reasons why are related and share the same root cause. So I hope there are better conversations about this while also - no need to entertain the bad faith conversations, but engage with community. [00:54:57] Evelyn Chow: Unfortunately, the bad faith conversations are really good at co-opting narratives right now. So I think it's on - [00:55:02] Crystal Fincher: Yes, they are. [00:55:03] Evelyn Chow: - people with, it's on people to, if they don't already have existing relationships, build those and continue to show up, especially our elected leaders. To make sure that everyone is being served in the best possible way. [00:55:17] Crystal Fincher: And with that, I want to thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 7th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Evelyn Chow. You can find them on Twitter @EvelynTChow, E-V-E-L-Y-N-T-C-H-O-W. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just search "Hacks and Wonks." Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek 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 episode notes. Thank you for tuning in - and we'll talk to you next time.

We're 17 episodes in and we have our first former candidate for Mayor of Seattle. As you'll hear from this conversation, Colleen Echohawk has a much deeper and diverse background than her candidacy. The CEO of Eighth Generation, Echohawk has long been an influential voice in the community and previously led the Chief Seattle Club, a Native-led housing and human services agency. Jon and Colleen talk about her perspective on housing and homelessness, the work of Eighth Generation, what she learned from running for mayor and more. Join us for Seattle City Makers with Jon Scholes and guest Colleen Echohawk.

Last week, a new clinic opened its doors in Pioneer Square. The Seattle Indian Health Board's newest center is located on the bottom floor of the new ?ál?al building, which means home in Lushootseed – at the Chief Seattle Club. And with it's creation, people will now be able to receive wraparound services at the club that are all managed and run by Indigenous people.

Note: This is a re-release of my very first episode with some post production edits and in honor of my dad's 80th birthday. On today's podcast I have the honor of having James Lovell, director of development for the Chief Seattle Club in Seattle, WA as a guest. Not only has James been an advocate for the homeless, specifically in the Native American community, he has become a good friend. James also is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band reservation of the Chippewa nation near Belcourt, ND which is where my dad's native side is from. Today we discuss the Chippewa, or Ojibwe, the heritage, culture, artwork and travels of this great band of American Indians. 

Over the past two decades, Colleen Echohawk has served the most marginalized people living in the Greater Seattle community. As the head of Chief Seattle Club, a non-profit dedicated to the rapid re-housing of urban Natives, Colleen led the effort to create nearly $100 million in new affordable housing in Seattle. Under Colleen's leadership, Chief Seattle Club has received recognition from the Puget Sound Sage Visionary for Justice Award (2018), the Neighborhood Builder Award (2017), and the Municipal League of King County's Organization of the Year (2016). Colleen is an enrolled member of the Kithehaki Band of the Pawnee Nation and a member of the Upper Athabascan people of Mentasta Lake. Colleen and her family have been proud to call Seattle home for over two decades. In her spare time, she loves to read, sing karaoke, take her dog Rizzo for a walk, listen to National Public Radio, and cook delicious food for her friends and family. She has been recognized by numerous organizations, including the 21 Leaders to watch in 2021 by Seattle Magazine, the King County Martin Luther King Jr. Medal of Distinguished Service (2020), Seattle's most influential people by Seattle Magazine (November 2019), and many more.  I got to hear Colleen speak a couple months ago and I immediately knew I wanted to ask her to be a guest on the show.  I was so delighted and honored when she said yes.  We could have spoken for hours.  She is a powerhouse of a woman and leader and her mayoral platform is extraordinary.  I know you will be so inspired by Colleen's stories and leadership. Listen in to hear Colleen share: The cost of leadership when you're a mom Her role as the first Indigenous women running for mayor in a major city The identities she carries as a mayoral candidate, Indigenous woman, eldest sister of 7 siblings, and Shameless Mom How she is using her mayoral platform to protect Seattle's most vulnerable citizens How being an Indigenous women informs her leadership and deep desire to be a public servant The evolution of Native identity in leadership The intersection of motherhood and leadership and how her kids help her keep boundaries Her background serving Native people experiencing homelessness and how it's the foundation for her mayoral campaign How she wants to see change and evolution in policing in Seattle Her focus on providing the city of Seattle an equitable recovery from COVID Her advice to other women who might be considering running for office Links mentioned: Join my free workshop, 5 Ways to Shine Like a Mother Echohawk For Seattle Colleen on Instagram Colleen on Facebook Colleen on Twitter

Primary ballots are in mailboxes now! Today friend of the show, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks Mike McGinn joins Crystal on the show to discuss the front runners in the mayor's race, how candidates need to be making the case to the public in these remaining weeks before the primary, and the psychology and emotion that drives Seattle's voting decisions. And Mike delivers a fundamental election rule: Message quality multiplied by message delivery equals impact. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @frinchfrii and find today's co-host, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: “No incumbent in Seattle mayoral race, but candidates still running against City Hall” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/no-incumbent-in-seattle-mayoral-race-but-candidates-still-running-against-city-hall/  “Poll shows many voters still undecided, Bruce Harrell leading race for Seattle mayor” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/poll-shows-many-voters-still-undecided-bruce-harrell-leading-race-for-seattle-mayor/  “For the first time in years, there are 2 serious candidates for the King County executive” by David Guttman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/race-for-king-county-executive-pits-experienced-well-funded-candidates-against-each-other/  “Seattle's mayoral candidates have plans for homelessness, but they're staring at an uncertain future” by Scott Greenstone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/seattles-mayoral-candidates-have-plans-for-homelessness-but-theyre-staring-at-an-uncertain-future/  “The C Is for Crank: Correcting the Record on Compassion Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett: https://publicola.com/2021/07/13/the-c-is-for-crank-correcting-the-record-on-compassion-seattle/  Publicola Elections Coverage: https://publicola.com/category/elections/ South Seattle Emerald Elections Coverage: https://southseattleemerald.com/tag/2021-elections/ We the People Power Voter Guide: https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/voter-guide-2021   Primary Elections Endorsements: The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2021/07/14/59065522/the-strangers-endorsements-for-the-august-3-2021-primary-election  The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/who-supports-who-in-seattle-elections-endorsements-roll-in-for-mayoral-council-races/  The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/28/the-urbanists-2021-primary-endorsements/  350 Seattle Action: https://350seattleaction.org/2021-elections    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] 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, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks - and a fire Twitter follow also, the excellent Mike McGinn. Mike McGinn: [00:00:59] Yeah, you can find me on Twitter @mayormcginn. I just can't let go of that handle - it's just too good. But I'm really many years past it now, so thanks for having me on the show, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:11] No, absolutely. But you know what, you're always there to provide context and an informed opinion - and it's usually insightful, and useful, and often spicy. We get spicy McGinn a lot of times, and I like it. Mike McGinn: [00:01:25] I'm not running for anything anymore so I'm just pure truthteller mode. No, 95% pure truthteller mode. I pull some punches. I do pull some punches still, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:35] Well, what I want to talk about is - ballots should be in your hands today, tomorrow. If you're listening to this, ballots are arriving in Washington State for primary elections. So it's a big deal. We've seen a wave of endorsements be released from major political organizations, media organizations - both The Times and The Stranger. So it is now time to vote - a lot that we've been talking about, all the candidates that we have been talking about - now the rubber is hitting the road and communication plans are in full effect. Mailers are hitting mailboxes, commercials are on TV, digital ads are all over the place, so how are you seeing this race standing right now, Mike? Mike McGinn: [00:02:23] Mayor's race - I think at this point we're really down to three viable candidates - is where I would start. You can look at - fundraising numbers is one way to look at it, major endorsements is another. And Bruce Harrell has the Seattle Times and in early polling, he was what, at 17% or 18% or something like that, which is when you think about it, kind of low for an incumbent, somebody that the City knows. He's not incumbent in the office, but for being known. Lorena González has The Stranger endorsement and lots of labor endorsements, got a big IEC from labor coming out. The theme of her campaign is her personal resume primarily is what she's running on. But she has the drag of being from the City Council. I don't know whether it's 29 or 39 City councilmembers that have run for mayor, and only Norm Rice actually pulled it off. And he had the tailwind of the Rainbow Coalition from Jesse Jackson running for president. And when he announced that coalition, that was the following year from the Jesse Jackson race, and he just vaulted in. And also a very skilled elected official. I mean, "Mayor Nice"? Who gets that nickname, "Mayor Nice"? Crystal Fincher: [00:03:44] You didn't get that nickname? Mike McGinn: [00:03:51] [Laughter]. And the other thing is - when you look at it is the right track, wrong track numbers in the City have been off the charts on all of the polls that have come out to date. And so if you're associated with what's been going on, that's going to give you a headwind. I think that the third candidate in the race and full disclosure, I've endorsed Colleen Echohawk in the race. She's talking about the issue that people say is the most important one - homelessness - that comes out on top of almost every poll. That's the focus of her campaign. She organically raised a lot of money through vouchers - got there first, didn't have to hire people to collect them as opposed to the other candidates, and is the outsider. The other candidates in the race are credible and have been treated as credible, but I think at this stage when you look at the fundraising numbers and the endorsements, I think it's going to be very hard for Andrew Grant Houston or Jessyn Farrell or Casey Sixkiller to come out of this primary with where they stand right now - the combination of institutional endorsers, dollars, message and political base that they're bringing into it. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:10] So based on the polling that's come out, a number of people are looking at this as, okay, on the - conservative and progressive are different when used in Seattle than when used in outside of Seattle- Mike McGinn: [00:05:24] Let's use right lane, left lane. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:26] Right lane candidate being - looks like it's going to be Bruce Harrell, by polling and indications there, it appears to be that he is leading the right lane. And the left lane as you just talked about, it looks to be Lorena González, with potential Colleen Echohawk on her heels. How are both making the case that they can run against a right lane candidate and when? Mike McGinn: [00:05:59] Well, and that's interesting. Part of the reason I think Bruce - well, the right lane always consolidates more than the left lane. It's like that Will Roger's joke about, "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." So the left is never powerfully organized and the right tends to consolidate. The other right lane candidates didn't really take off. And the left lane candidates all have a little more juice in them. And actually, given that Jessyn decided to endorse the Compassion Seattle Initiative, I'm not sure what lane she's in at this point, but both. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:32] Well, and I think that's been a problem for her. Mike McGinn: [00:06:34] Yeah, I think that's been a problem for her because this is a year that unlike prior years in which you had the Chamber of Commerce uniting with the King County Labor Council to decide on a candidate - that's what they did with Durkan, that's what they did with Murray. We're now back to - that's what they did with Mallahan, as I think about it. Right, and I got some union support but the Labor Council and a lot more of the unions went with Mallahan because labor was for the tunnel. Labor was for the tunnel and I actually heard from service worker unions that ended up endorsing him and they said, "We're taking a risk, all of our brothers and sisters are mad at us for supporting you because they really want the tunnel." Crystal Fincher: [00:07:15] That tunnel. Mike McGinn: [00:07:17] Yeah, that tunnel. So even though I was clearly the candidate for transit and working people against what I believed was a corporate bureaucrat who was running in the right lane, they still went with him. You still see that happening in politics today. The construction unions still have a lot of influence. So do the firefighters - they're quite conservative. And the Labor Council. In this case, we don't have that - where the Labor Council and the Chamber are ordaining a leader. So we're seeing a business backing Bruce - they're consolidating behind Bruce. You're seeing labor consolidating behind Lorena, but you're not seeing all of the progressive left consolidating behind Lorena. You see it breaking up into more pieces there. So the argument as to, against Bruce, is insider versus outsider. And I think that's going to be a huge challenge for Lorena in the general - right track, wrong track numbers. It's about the mayor but it's also about the Council. I ran in 2013 and I wanted the electorate to say, "Well, if you see conflict between the mayor and Council, look at what people are advocating and pick the person on the right side. By the way, that's me." That was my argument. But if you're close to City Hall, you might be able to do that - but people who are further away, they paint everybody with the same broad brush and it can be hard to distinguish yourself. And I just think that when you look at the polling to date and how low Lorena's numbers have been for somebody who's run city-wide multiple times, it really suggests she still has to go out and get a lot of votes. You probably got to get to 25% or so to get out of the electorate. So she's got to get from wherever she's starting - a long way. Everybody does, and Bruce has a shorter path to get there, but everybody's got to go a long way and the question becomes, does Lorena have a ceiling because of the negativity towards the City Council? Crystal Fincher: [00:09:34] That's a really interesting question. I guess the variable that I'm also looking at in this is looking at candidates independently. It's always a different scenario than looking at them head-to-head with another candidate. Bruce, also being an insider, does that neutralize that whole insider argument? Really, and to be real, Colleen is a former head of the Downtown Seattle Association-ider. So it's not like she's a radical outsider. Mike McGinn: [00:10:03] I don't think she was the head of the Downtown Seattle Association. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:05] Was previously. Mike McGinn: [00:10:07] I think she was just on the Board, but maybe I'm wrong. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:09] On the Board, on the Board. Mike McGinn: [00:10:10] She was on the Board, right. But just for the record, that's a spot that's given to the Chief Seattle Club. They are automatically on it because they are downtown and the DSA wanted a homeless provider on their Board. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:22] Which is the case for a lot of different organizations. They have different spots there but also not known as a left-leaning organization at the same time. So looking at their policies and being associated with that from a policy standpoint does not quite paint the picture of an outsider in the way that a lot of people think of outsiders in terms of politics. A lot of people would view that as a more establishment qualification on the resume, but neither here nor there. I think the bigger point I was making is that - does the fact that Bruce was formerly a Seattle City Council member, briefly mayor also - does that negate an insider argument if both people are former Councilmembers within Seattle-elected government, or does that more even the playing field and get to more of an issue-based stuff, or does the insider versus outsider argument still carry? Mike McGinn: [00:11:22] I think that Bruce carries that baggage too. He's helped by the fact that he's been off the Council a couple of years, but he does carry that baggage too. There's no question about that. I think if the question is how would Lorena - if Bruce has consolidated the right lane and people are fighting for the left lane, the question becomes how would Lorena do against Bruce in a head-to-head and how would Colleen Echohawk do in a head-to-head? And I'll bet you, that in those types of heads, Colleen would do a lot better than Lorena. I would bet you that. But of course, we're only going to get to run one of these. That's the way it works. But if there were polling done, I bet you what those head-to-heads would show as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:10] Always an interesting conversation on if there was polling done. And one of the things that we both have browsers refreshing right now is that the Northwest Progressive Institute, NPI, is actually going to be releasing public polling in the Seattle City Council, the mayoral races, several Seattle races. So that's going to be interesting to see actual public polling come out. They anticipated it being near the end of this week. Let's see if that actually comes out today. It wouldn't surprise me if it wound up being early next week, but we certainly are keeping our eyes on it. Mike McGinn: [00:12:47] I also think you have to take a look at the messaging of the candidates. Bruce's messaging is, "I'm a decisive leader. I know how to get things done." That's also Lorena's messaging - "I'm a decisive leader, I know how to bring people together to get things done. And look at my resume, I'm a progressive." Colleen's message is, "I've dedicated my life to helping homeless people in Seattle, and I'm an expert on homelessness which is the most important issue in the city." And I think that the headwind that both Lorena and Bruce face in the general is that they're saying that they know how to get things done, but the public says, "Yeah, but you had your shot." And that's the biggest headwind that both of them will face in the general election. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:35] Yeah. I'm also curious to see how much attention is paid to their donors and what their donors say. Because one, I think - continuing issue that we have in Seattle elections is ignoring that, and then being surprised that candidates vote pretty consistently in line with where many of their donors are at. That does not mean that their votes are necessarily bought. It just may mean that, "Hey, people see someone who has values that they feel are similar, that they feel is representing them." Not necessarily that they're buying it but that they see kinship there. And it really is telling where corporate interests see their candidate, and where labor and progressive interests see their candidate. And looking at the overlap between where major donors to Ed Murray, major donors to Jenny Durkan - and then look to see where those are at in the current races - a lot of them with Bruce Harrell. So is what we're signing up for really different if the traditional backers, if the coalition of donors looked similar to a profile of prior coalitions of donors? I wish we paid more attention to that in Seattle politics. Mike McGinn: [00:14:58] I agree. And clearly the kind of the business side donor class is consolidating behind Bruce and they're going to have an independent expenditure for him. Labor is consolidating behind Lorena and they're going to have a big independent expenditure campaign for her. And it's hard to cross your base. It's hard to tell your base they're wrong. That's like an axiom of politics and you're absolutely right. It's not that it's pre-negotiated or bought, but it becomes hard. And we saw that in play with Lorena when the police contract came up and the King County Labor Council urged a Yes vote on the contract, Lorena voted Yes on the contract because that's what labor wanted at the time, and the Community Police Commission wanted a No vote on that. We saw it very recently with the vehicle license fee. A stakeholder group came forward and said 75% of the $20 vehicle license fund, like $7 million a year - real money, but not big money in infrastructure. And the climate advocates and the alternative transportation advocates asked for, so the Council respect that. And labor said, "No, put it into bridges." The laborers, the carpenters and the King County Labor Council went down and said, "Nope, take the money from walking, biking and transit, put it into a bond for bridge repair." And that's basically what Lorena did on that one as well. So you get the situation where the base, the people that pay for your elections - it gets hard to cross them on tough issues, on high profile issues. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:47] I would just ask that as people are voting, consider that. Consider where their base is and what their history is of voting in line or not in line with those considerations. And certainly I know a number of people who agree with Lorena on a number of issues and that issue for a lot of people is the most challenging one. It's like, "Oh, but that police contract vote." is a sticking point for a number of - particularly further left-leaning progressives and where they're having a challenge in there. But there's issues with that with every single candidate almost - although I did - someone referred to Andrew Grant Houston as - what did they call him - the Elizabeth Warren of the race because he has a plan for everything, like well thought out and well organized. But I would say, aside from him, most - just anecdotally, a lot of people are like, "I love this candidate except for major issue where there was a problematic vote or a problematic issue." Jessyn, it's Compassion Seattle. With Lorena, it's that police vote. People got stuck with Colleen on the initial indication of support for Compassion Seattle, which she later said she's not going to be voting for and she does not support. But that gave people a lot of pause. So there's a number of those with candidates. Mike McGinn: [00:18:16] And I think over on the progressive side, that's absolutely right, and there's a little bit of - kind of arguing over who's in fact the most progressive. Although I think we can say that all of them have very strong progressive credentials. You don't represent homeless downtown, or come from Lorena's background and she's done great things in other areas. But clearly, your point about labor is good. By the way, Bruce Harrell voted for that contract too. And Colleen asked for them to vote No. It's an interesting thing getting elected as I did in '09 without a lot of institutional endorsements. It meant that I actually had a lot more freedom of movement. Everybody was trying to figure out where I would land. At the same time, I also didn't have a whole cadre of people behind me who were looking to back me up and stand up for me when I got in. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:14] That is the thing. Mike McGinn: [00:19:15] It's an interesting mix. But it really did - people were really wondering when I got in, in 2010, well, where is he going to land? Because in the primary- Crystal Fincher: [00:19:25] I was one of those wondering in 2010 where you were going to land. Mike McGinn: [00:19:25] On the other hand, it gave me - it meant that I didn't - this is going to sound a little trite, but honestly, my biggest concern was responding to the voters because I had gone around the institutional endorsers for the most part to get to win. The Stranger endorsement was big, and I picked up some service worker unions and other individual endorsements but nothing like anybody else in the race did. So that makes a difference in governance as well as you pointed out. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:01] Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear, the City of Seattle races are not the only races happening. We have a number of races. One, King County Executive race where certainly the two front runners are Dow Constantine, the incumbent who's been there and certainly in a strong position, versus Senator Joe Nguyen. What's you're read on where that stands right now? Mike McGinn: [00:20:23] It's hard to say. I think that Dow, after 12 years in office, is going to be facing the same time for a change sentiment. But I think Joe has to make the case for change. I think if you look at - and Joe Nguyen has got a great progressive record in the legislature and you can hear his values when he speaks. Dow has to explain the Youth Jail, he has to explain the Mariners Skyboxes, he has to explain the bailout of the Convention Center. He's got to defend his record and explain why he is the agent of making things happen now after 12 years based on where things stand. So I think that's going to be a big challenge for him. I think that is somewhat of a lower profile race. It doesn't necessarily deserve to be a lower profile race. It just is - the mayor's race is going to use up a lot more of the media coverage than the County Exec race will. So Joe has to make the case. He's got to aggressively pursue the change argument and what his values were. But it can happen. Look at Girmay vs Larry Gossett - it can happen. People can make a decision that it's time for a change even if they're not particularly angry at the incumbent, but they just think that the incumbent isn't delivering to their expectations of what they want to see at that time. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:59] Yeah. This is going to be an interesting race to see, especially at the primary point. I think looking at the point where Joe Nguyen got into this Executive's race - before he got in, Dow, obviously incumbent not challenged by major Democratic candidate before that, was running away with all of the endorsements. After Joe declared, they've really split most of the endorsements. It has not been strong one way or the other. They've really been splitting a lot or just blocking each other's endorsements. There isn't enough for a consensus in a lot of places. So I think the insider, more activist, more involved, and people who pay attention to those stuff all the time - which is a small percentage of people - are indicating that they view this certainly as a race. It's a whole different thing than communicating with voters who don't pay attention across an entire county. That's a heavy lift, a really heavy lift. And so for me, the question is can Joe Nguyen communicate that same kind of thing that makes the insider race competitive county-wide before the primary? Certainly, they have a lot more time for the general, assuming he makes it through which he should. But man, that's a lot of communication to people who don't pay attention. Mike McGinn: [00:23:29] Who will be low information voters, right - which is why that kind of background, that insider or outsider thing takes on a larger influence in races like this. It comes in and they already have a frame for deciding the race. And what you were just talking about is something I call the "perception primary". Some people might call it the "money primary". But it's not just money - it's a perception and it's spread by the insiders. And the thing about the perception primary is that people can be entirely wrong, in the perception primary. And that's, I think, one of the things you're highlighting here. Again, I'll go back to my own experience. In 2009, Greg Nickels had almost all the major endorsements and a lot of money. And the idea that he was vulnerable was actually the reason that I could get in the race. Nobody else would get in the race. He couldn't be beat. So the perception primary was keeping people out of the race. They said, "Well, we can't win the perception primary. We can't even get out of the perception primary." So I think that's always a challenge for a candidate is - can you survive the perception primary and I barely did. I barely did, let's be really clear about that. But I did survive it, but then once you got into the actual primary, I took first place. So I think there's a thing that happens where we all get sucked into the perception of the race. So clearly, Joe has political insiders or the politicos, whatever you want to call them. People are like, "Yeah, Joe has got a shot." But now, he's got to take his case to the voters. That's a very perceptive observation. And the same thing is true - I'll circle back to the mayor's race. There was a whole lot, I was doing a whole lot of - same thing happened in my '09 race. Remember when Jan Drago, a longtime City Councilmember got in the race, it was almost literally a headline of "Now it's a real race". Well, her highest polling numbers were the day she got in. And the two highest vote getters in the primary were two people who had never been in office before, me and Mallahan. So that was a case where the perception primary was just way off. And mayor's race, there's been a perception primary but this is a remarkably wide open race, more wide open than I think we've ever seen in my time watching. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:57] It's pretty wide open. One thing that we talked about in terms of, hey, who appears to be leading here based on polling - the leading vote getter in polling is Undecided, really at this point- Mike McGinn: [00:26:10] By a lot. We are engaging in some of that perception primary stuff too by saying message, dollars, institutional support should lead to votes based on what we know. But we could be wrong - because the nature - yeah. The biggest leader right now is Undecided. So, once the paid media lands and once the media decides how they're going to frame up the race in the last few weeks - will really decide which candidates can propel a little bit and get to that finish line. Maybe they're starting in a different place to get to the finish line. I think two weeks before the ballots drop, I was polling 7% in the mayor's race, ended up at 28%. And Greg Nickels was polling at 22% and he ended up at 25%. So, he spent a lot of money, it just didn't move his numbers because he was in a context where he just couldn't. And I was. And in 2017, I said, "I'm going to do this again," and the exact opposite happened. I started with a higher number and I went down because these people heard about the other candidates and they wanted someone new. So, it really drove home to me just how important the context of the race is, not what the early polls show. It all happens when the money drops and when the voters start paying attention - what movement do you start seeing then? That really happens. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:48] Yeah. Now is when the race for real regular people begins. A lot of people realize that the race is happening once they get their ballot in the mail. It's like, "Oh, this is a thing." And usually along with their ballots, they're getting four mailers a day from here on out most of the time. So, it's going to be real interesting to see how effectively people can get their message across. And that's not an easy thing to do. It takes - you have to penetrate people's consciousness at multiple points, multiple times - in order to make a real impression. And so that takes - certainly a significant budget and just good message execution. Mike McGinn: [00:28:40] Well, good message too. That was part of the point I was making about '09. But I really learned it in 2007 when I worked on the - Roads and Transit campaign. So, to refresh people's memory, the legislature decided to - that a regional Roads and Transit ballot would go in front of the public in 2007. And it included money for light rail but it also included money for highway expansion. And the Sierra Club - we decided to fight it because we believed it was bad for global warming. And I think we got the Cascade Bicycle Club with us and no other institutional endorsers. A few elected officials joined us late. But it was all the elected officials, business, labor, most of the environmental groups supported the Roads and Transit ballot measure. They said it's the only chance to get light rail. They had $5 million to spend and the polling had them at like 56%. They ended up, I think, at 44% on election night. And we spent about $50,000. We had no money, but we had a really good message. And they spent $5 million, they didn't have a good message. So, here you go. I now feel like I'm in Marco Lowe's Politics class. It's a mathematical equation, it's really simple. It's Message x Message Delivery = Impact. And if your message is - it's the only math you have to know in this. If you got an awesome message and zero delivery, no impact. And if you got a billion dollars of delivery and your message is a zero, zero times a billion dollars is still zero impact. It's both. You got to have a good message. You got to deliver it. And now, we're going to find out who's got the message in these races that actually moves voters. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:40] Yeah. And a lot to learn from it and that will certainly inform how the message is developed in a general election. Certainly, your race - a number of races - have been instructive just for me personally in terms of how effective a message can be. But in a singular rallying issue, certainly you and transit- Mike McGinn: [00:31:02] Kshama and 15 in her race- Crystal Fincher: [00:31:06] Yeah. And Kshama was the other one - 15 Now. Mike McGinn: [00:31:10] 15 Now, yeah. And I think that- Crystal Fincher: [00:31:12] That was huge. That was very instructional for me. Mike McGinn: [00:31:15] I think that Bernie Sanders got into that first race against Hillary Clinton, thinking he was just going to be a message candidate. I mean somebody to carry this message and use the race as a way to distribute a message. And he discovered his message about the power of Wall Street and the power of billionaires was really powerful. And all of a sudden, he was in a real race. The reporters say he didn't think that was going to happen and maybe if he'd realized that sooner, he might have won that one. Because you want to race differently when you're trying to deliver a message and when you're trying to win. But it's another example of how someone can have tremendous amount of institutional support, but somebody can come in with a better message and lap 'em, or at least give them a good run. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:04] Well, Obama versus Hillary was message versus establishment. Mike McGinn: [00:32:08] Great example of that. And so it's not necessarily about experience, or resume. It's about what the voters are looking for right then in a candidate. And you can run a race that - it's the context that's going to decide it, ultimately, more than the candidates. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:33] Voting is an emotional decision. Voting is not a logical decision. And to your point, it really is about how you can connect, how your message and the vision that you're painting connects with voters. And if you can tap into what they're feeling, both their frustrations and their aspirations, that is the key. Like - "We don't have to be here. We can be in a better place. I can bridge that gap and get us there." Make that connection to the voters - that sticks. And helping to have, I think, in your case and Kshama's case and certainly looking nationally in Obama's case, but on a local level with a number of people, to be able to paint a very clear image of where you can go. You were very clear on your vision. Kshama was very clear on her vision, to the point like other people have no problem repeating and defining where you stand. And I actually think that's kind of the crux of where people have challenges with candidates. It's like, "Okay, explain the candidate to me." And if they have a hard problem doing that, that's a problem for the candidate. They need to be able to say, "Oh, Kshama is 15 Now candidate. Mike is the transit candidate." Mike McGinn: [00:33:56] The fact that I rode a bike actually delivered a lot of message. I was an environmentalist who cared about transit and walking and biking and alternatives. Those things really mattered. And if your supporters can't explain why you're running, you have a problem because so many votes are actually gained by your supporters carrying the message on your behalf. So, it's got to be really simple - people complain about sound bites and I understand, because they feel like it oversimplifies the issues, but the reality of somebody running for office or running an advocacy campaign is they have to be able to boil their message down and express it in a way that actually has impact and conveys meaning to people. It's a lot harder than it looks to do that. It's a lot harder and I think people don't fully appreciate the role that a few words can play in delivering a message that moves voters, or moves people to action in an advocacy campaign. I think of "Defund the Police", everybody is picking on Defund the Police - that it hurts Democrats, and it may well hurt Democrats. But that wasn't a message invented by Democrats to a bunch of people in swing districts. That was a message invented by activists to call attention to the role of policing America. And by that measure, it seemed like a whole lot of people were repeating their message. And again- Crystal Fincher: [00:35:38] A whole lot of people repeating the message functionally. In several areas, including here in Seattle, more movement both in rhetoric and in policy than we have seen in the past 20 to 30 years in most instances. And a clear delineation between action that is inconsequential and what is just rhetoric - like a reform conversation - versus Defund is a clear bright line of if we aren't addressing the resources involved with this, if we're just tinkering around the edges of maybe some trading and stuff, that that actually is not getting us where we need to go. Mike McGinn: [00:36:17] And I think that is just completely on point, Crystal. It came from a constituency that's been yelling for decades, if not longer, at not being heard. And somebody is now hearing the message and having to confront it and respond to it - the criticism that, "Well, it's not a perfect message and it might hurt somebody else over there," that's kind of a secondary concern to the activist who's been ignored already. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:45] 100%. 100%. Mike McGinn: [00:36:47] Now having said that, I've noticed that that's not a prominent phrase in this year's City Council or mayoral elections. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:57] No - no it's not. Mike McGinn: [00:36:58] But it served its purpose in the moment and now people have to move and find a different way to try to move the debate. And actually, I think that is- Crystal Fincher: [00:37:05] But it actually set the stage for the debate that we're having now - and determine the lanes and set the parameters. So now, there are discussions about what percentage of funding, how're we going to divert. And so it's not an explicitly Defund conversation - but starts with where are the resources, what are we doing with the actual funds, what are the budget numbers and items. And so kind of like talking about the bridge, or the tunnel - the tunnel, the tunnel, the tunnel was an issue that stood for a whole set of policies. Mike McGinn: [00:37:43] It stood for climate. It stood for using tax dollars wisely. It stood for equity - that transit was a better investment than highways. All of that was in play there. Boy, it kind of takes me to another topic I hesitate to bring it up, but there's a little bit of a test. This year is a test. Two years ago was a test too of where is the electorate right now on a lot of these things. The Compassion Seattle Initiative is an example of that. Now, it's written in such a way that people can see things in it that aren't there or not see things in it that are there. The vote is happening. It's become a little bit of a litmus test for left to right, but not completely. I saw former City Attorney Mark Sidran speaking up - I saw an article he was speaking up at a Belltown forum - saying you can't support Compassion Seattle, it's too lenient on the homeless. So, I think this why I'm laughing because there's such a swirl around this issue. But I think that's kind of one of the issues out here - is homelessness is clearly the most important issue in the city right now. That's what's showing up on the polls, and that's what people care about. But then you have to dig a layer deeper, what does that mean? What kind of city are we? Do we go to, "Yeah, so we need to build more housing," or do we get to, "We need to kick them off the streets and parks"? And that's the other thing that's kind of really very much in play this year. And the fact that Compassion Seattle is on the ballot and who's backing it - now that we see who's backing it, now that its contours become a little more clear - you can see that in a way it's designed to try to boost voter turnout of those who might vote for the right lane candidate. Crystal Fincher: [00:39:50] Absolutely. Mike McGinn: [00:39:50] That's what it feels like to me. This is a political ploy more than a reasoned solution. And we declared an emergency on these six years ago, for crying out loud, but we haven't really treated it like an emergency in that six years. It was just - and there's only so many task forces or government structures and emergency resolutions you can pass before the public goes, "Well, what the hell are you going to do?" And that's really a big issue. Is it a progressive response to homelessness or not a progressive response to homelessness? That's going to be a task for the Seattle electorate in the City this year. I know which side I come out on, and I hope the City comes out on the right side of that too. Crystal Fincher: [00:40:34] Yeah. I mean it is in reality. And Erica Barnett, in PubliCola, actually did a great piece this week on - what do its advocates say versus what does the text actually say? They're very different things. It is clearly not a progressive policy. It is clearly being, trying to be - it's dressed up in progressive clothing - from the name on down and what they're saying. So, it will be very interesting to see, but that's one of those where the simple messaging on that - the easiest way to message, the simplest way to message is very deceptive and it makes it seem like, "Hey, this is finally going to do something and take care of something and people who don't just want to see people swept. But hey, there's money for this and they're going to help." You can message all of that in a way that a lot of media organizations are carrying without question, and the text doesn't jive with what their messaging is. Mike McGinn: [00:41:38] I have a sense that the confusion about what it really means will hurt it in the same way that it hurts many initiatives. That initiatives always often suffer from the public response if it's not well thought out, it's not well-thought through, that the legislative process enables things to be a more nuanced approach. And I think that that is going to be a drag for the proponents of this getting it through, which is good, from my perspective. But even so, its level of popularity overall even without those negatives of we're not quite - maybe it's not built right, maybe it's got some bad provisions in it, maybe it's not well-thought through. I still think the level of support is going to be so high, even if it fails, that it kind of shows how fed up people are with no action from government on this issue. Crystal Fincher: [00:42:37] I agree with that. The issue is that people are so tired of this problem not being taken care of. It's been declared a crisis in overlapping jurisdictions - that it's been the top priority - and people have seen the issue get worse, not better. So, it is something. It's doing something, and some people I think are just willing to say, "Well, it's time to do something, and we've seen politicians dither for years. And so we have to do something." That is the challenge, I think the biggest challenge. Mike McGinn: [00:43:10] I don't know whether it passes or fails. Even though I was kind of leaning on it, I think it might fail, but I also think it might pass. Back then, maybe here's a close. Maybe we've reached the end. I think that that we have to do something kind of feeds back to the County Exec race we talked about, feeds back to the mayor's race - how that will affect people that were more in the position to do something and those that weren't. And even how it affects the race between Nikkita, Sara Nelson, and Brianna Thomas. Granted, none of them are incumbents but one worked for a City Councilmember and one is clearly the right lane and one is clearly the left lane. Crystal Fincher: [00:43:52] Technically, two have worked for City Councilmembers, but Brianna currently- Mike McGinn: [00:43:56] Oh that's true - Sara did for many years. I shouldn't say that, but Brianna more recently. Actually true - Sara worked for City Councilmembers for quite a long time and was working for Councilmember Conlin when I was mayor and we interacted with her quite a bit. So, yeah, I think that this overarching sense is something that's going to be feeding into all of the races and what's the power of that - given the specific people in the race and their personalities and their platforms and their supporters and their messaging - remains to be determined in each one. But I think it's a powerful driver in all of the races. Crystal Fincher: [00:44:32] Yeah, I agree with that. I think people are fed up and impatient at the moment. For what is the question - they are unhappy with where things are at. Most people do feel like things are on the wrong track for one reason or another. And so what to do with that is the question. Mike McGinn: [00:44:53] Never seen wrong track numbers this high, never seen them this high in my years of following it. It's really astounding numbers on the wrong track. Well, let's Crystal, you and me, we're trying to get the City on the right track in our own ways. And maybe not everybody agrees with our ways, but I'm for all the people out there fighting to make it get it back on the right track. So, maybe we'll lead back with everybody. Crystal Fincher: [00:45:21] Yeah, I'm with you. Getting things on the right track, taking action. I do think people have to - I do think people owe an explanation, who have been in power - an accounting of what they have done with that power. And I think that we are seeing in a lot of different places - certainly, with - Republicans are not hesitant to use whatever power they have and wield it in whatever way they can. I think a lot of frustration with Democrats is that a lot of people say, "Hey, you have the power to enact so much change and not much is happening," and feeling frustration with that. Certainly, that's not universal. Republican inaction is notorious. But people have to account for the power that they have. And I think people are like, "Dude, I'm electing you to use your power to do something." And I think people who can make the case that they will do something with the power that they have will fare well if they can communicate that effectively. Mike McGinn: [00:46:23] And I'm not running for office, so I'll say this. I think the voters too, have to hold themselves accountable as well. There's a little bit of, it's not easy to cut through all the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and all the rest. But ultimately, get out and vote this time - like we get the elected leaders sometimes that they get past us or they get in. And it's up to the voters to really hold them accountable. So, take your time. You don't have to take my word for who the right candidate is, or Crystal's, or any endorsers. Take your time to dig in and definitely take your time to vote. It's a low turnout election year. Sorry for just being - but it's a low turnout year. And what we know is people are calibrating their arguments and their policy positions based on who they think is going to vote this year. So, you get out there and you vote and upset the applecart a little bit. Maybe you can get some people in there who are more progressive. Crystal Fincher: [00:47:26] Yeah. And I think I said it in another show - vote your conscience. For me, I am a strong believer that in primary elections, a lot of people are like, "Well, am I throwing away my vote if I vote for someone who I feel is not in the lead?" And that's a whole host of people because right now, there's lots of talk about who's in the lead - although to be clear, Undecided voters are the plurality of voters right now. But vote for the candidate who you feel most closely matches your values because whether or not that candidate makes it through, that is a statement of values and that's a statement that all other candidates pay attention to. If X candidate that stands for a range of values doesn't make it through, but they're 15% of voters, especially in a general election where more than likely no candidate is going to be approaching 50%, probably not 40%, probably closer to 30%. They're going to have to put together a cohesive platform that can consolidate the other voters. And if they see that, "Oh, man, I am not going to get out of this without addressing climate. I'm not going to get out of this without meaningfully making sure people feel safe, without meaningfully addressing the issue of unhoused people on our streets." Make sure that they take notice of where you actually stand in terms of your values. And you don't have to compromise in a primary election. The choice in the general will be between two people and that's where you have to kind of look at, "Okay, what's the better choice, neither of them probably are going to be ideal on everything but the best choice." But vote your values now, please. Mike McGinn: [00:49:11] Let me put it this way - 90% of the elections, I'm with you. And boy, would I love some ranked-choice voting in a race like this. I would love to see ranked-choice voting in - so order the ones you want. So, you won'thave to worry about the strategic vote. But I think there are sometimes some races you want to vote for the person who you think stands the best chance of winning the general too. And I think this might be one of those as we talked about earlier. I think sometimes you have to look at that one too. And that certainly I think was a factor in getting Biden through the election. I think one of the reasons that the Black voter supported Biden so much, in addition to having a relationship with him and knowing where he stood, was also knowing they didn't want to take a chance on Trump. And they thought Biden had the best shot. Crystal Fincher: [00:50:03] And mistrust of other voters that they would vote progressively and not betray the vote that people might take if they voted their conscience. Yes, yeah. Mike McGinn: [00:50:13] Yeah, and so it's a tricky one. I wish strategic voting weren't a thing. I think there are sometimes when it is. And so that may be where we are this time too, but you can't and you shouldn't vote for somebody if you don't feel good that they're going to advance the causes you believe in at the end of the day. That's the thing that matters. So, do your homework, folks. Crystal Fincher: [00:50:38] Do your homework. We'll certainly include a lot of links - lots of organizations have endorsed - we'll include links from a variety of organizations - Times, Stranger, Urbanist, PubliCola, Transit RIders Union. There are a number of organizations and you can read through their rationale about why they made the decisions that they made. I find that helpful in sometimes trying to wade between which candidates I'm debating on. But please do that. We thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 16th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was activist, former Seattle mayor, Mike McGinn. You can find Mike on Twitter @mayormcginn - that's M-C-G-I-N-N. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now you can follow 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 the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show today at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

This week - with primary ballots starting to arrive in mailboxes next week! - Erica C. Barnett of PubliCola joins Crystal to discuss what's going on in Seattle's mayoral race. They discuss the unpredictability of a crowded primary, how funding caps get raised, and why primaries are really the time to vote your conscience. Additionally, they cover the potential firing of two Seattle Police Department officers who participated in the January 6th insurrection, and the harsh and punitive nature of Washington State's work release program which renders it useless for the purposes of reintegrating the incarcerated back into society. 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, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: Access all mayoral candidate interviews in the PubliCola Questions series here: https://publicola.com/category/elections/  “Floodgates open, as trio of Seattle mayoral candidates get spending limit lifted” by Nick Bowman: https://mynorthwest.com/3014891/seattle-mayoral-candidate-andrew-grant-houston-spending-cap-lifted/  “Investigation Implicates Two Officers in January 6 Riots, Test Limits of Investigators' Subpoena Power” by Paul Kiefer: https://publicola.com/2021/07/08/investigation-implicates-two-officers-in-january-6-riots-tests-limits-of-investigators-subpoena-power/  “Investigation of Work Release Centers Spurs Some Changes, But Advocates Proceed with Caution” by Paul Kiefer: https://publicola.com/2021/07/07/investigation-of-work-release-centers-spurs-some-changes-but-advocates-proceed-with-caution/?utm_campaign=Notes%20from%20the%20Emerald%20City&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] 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, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, which is now out in paperback. Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:56] Great to be here, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:58] Great to be here, excited that you're now out in paperback, the book is popular. And so just want to encourage everyone to get that. It's great. I recommend it. You should get it. And now you have paperback option. But in starting off the news of today, I wanted to just get started talking about the Mayoral race. You've been doing a fantastic series on PubliCola, the PubliCola Question series, interviewing candidates, especially ones for Mayor. So I guess I just wanted to start off talking about what has that process been like and are there any insights that you've gained into the candidates that you didn't have before doing that series? Erica Barnett: [00:01:45] Thanks. Yeah, I think one thing that we really wanted to do with this series was ask some questions that people were not getting asked at all of these campaign forums and in other platforms. And so we asked about things like instead of do support Charter Amendment 29? Which is the Compassion Seattle initiative. Assuming it passes, what are you going to do? What are you going to cut to make up that 12% in the general fund that is mandated under this initiative. Everybody's focusing on downtown, what would you do to help other neighborhoods, non-downtown neighborhoods, with COVID 19 recovery? And so I think we've gotten some really interesting questions or answers rather. So far, we've published four of them so far. There are two more coming today with the six leading candidates. Andrew Grant Houston had a really interesting answer to a question about public safety. He said that his first priority and the quickest thing that he could do to replace some functions with the police would be to expand access to bathrooms and running water. And Andrew is a candidate who has sort of a plan for everything, and it's all very much on paper at this point. And I think it's important to note that Mayors cannot act unilaterally on most issues, but I do think that his sort of white paper platforms point in a direction that is very, very different than what the city is doing right now. Casey Sixkiller, who supports Compassion Seattle was somewhat defensive on that issue. I believe he wants to pass a very large bond measure, a billion dollars, to build 3000 new apartments. Again, Mayors cannot act unilaterally, but he really focused on the fact that Seattle's homelessness problem is not really Seattle's homelessness problem. It's a regional issue, which is the parroting, his former boss, Mayor Jenny Durkan to a certain extent, who points out all the time that 40% of the people who are homeless in Seattle did not become homeless in Seattle. Now, there's certainly a debate over whether that matters. I mean, they're here now, but that kind of speaks to just his approach on homelessness. So that's just a couple of them, I would encourage people to go read them all. We ask them all eight questions and the answers are pretty enlightening. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:23] Yeah. And we will link to all of those interviews in the show notes and love the approach that you took to that with trying to expand the conversation to help inform voters and not just asking the stable questions that people hear, which obviously every organization is doing their best in these forums. And not everyone may have heard all of the prior answers. So it is not always bad to ask people the same questions again. But I do love that there's the opportunity to expand this conversation and get some of these answers and dive a little deeper into this. So you talked about there being some unique answers. How are you seeing the race, I guess, shape up overall at this point now that ballots are coming out in about a week next week and campaigns are starting to advertise and communicate directly with voters? Erica Barnett: [00:05:19] Well, I mean, I've said on the show before, I am the worst at predicting how anything turns out. I mean, the common wisdom, the consensus answer to that is, "Well, it's going to be Bruce Harrell, followed by Lorena González, and they're going to make it through the primary." I mean, just in talking to people in my circles. I have seen a lot of folks supporting Colleen Echohawk. So I wouldn't count her out, and Jessyn Farrell is also a contender. I think she ran for Mayor four years ago and did not make it through the primary. So I'm not good at predicting. I have no idea how it's going to turn out, so I could parrot the conventional wisdom. And that may very well be right. But there does seem to be some momentum, particularly for Echohawk. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:11] I would agree with that. I'm also not a fan of making predictions. I like looking at what the available data is and listening to what's going on within campaigns. I guess I would say within my circles, I've heard a lot of the same, but at the same time, this is still a crowded primary and crowded primaries can get real unpredictable, real quick. I have heard the same conventional wisdom that you have and results of some internal polling probably has backed that up. But in crowded primaries, I mean, Mike McGinn was on the program before and reminded people, "Hey, six weeks out of the primary, where he eventually won the election to become Mayor, he was polling at 7%." A lot has to do with how you wind up communicating with voters, how you make your case, how people make a case against you. So there still is some jostling that can happen in the race. So sometimes I will get people asking me, "Well, if my candidate is not in the lead, is it going to be throwing a vote away on someone if I vote for someone who's not in the lead?" I would continue to say, "No, it's absolutely not." Primaries are the time that's most appropriate to vote your conscience to vote for the candidate who you feel most closely aligns with your values. I still think it is very, very important to do that regardless of whether you feel like they're in the lead or not. Because right now, the lead is all theoretical. The only lead that matters is the one on election day in a crowded primary where there's a lot of people jostling and trying to determine what lane they're going to be in and running it. You know, lots, lots of interesting things can happen. Mike McGinn was certainly one of those interesting things. So there certainly are candidates with momentum who can wind up breaking into the top two. We'll see how this turns out. Erica Barnett: [00:08:19] Let me just push back a tiny bit on that McGinn analysis. I mean, obviously self-serving analysis on his part, which I understand, but what's really interesting about this primary and what actually I think makes it more competitive and less predictable is that there are a lot of candidates who could potentially actually be Mayor and in McGinn's primary. I mean, besides Mayor, then Mayor Greg Nichols, who lost in the primary, there were not a lot of major, major candidates or candidates who were particularly viable. In this race, I mean, you've got a lot of real contenders, people who have served in office, people who you know, Lorena González , council president, Jessyn Farrell, former state legislator, Colleen Echohawk, who ran the Chief Seattle Club, a homelessness organization. It's an impressive, dare I say, field, and I think that's kind of a contrast to 2009 where you had McGinn running against Joe Mallahan, who was a T-Mobile guy who had never held public office and I think didn't really light the world on fire. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:30] I mean, there was Joe Mallahan. There was Jan Drago. Remember Jan Drago? Erica Barnett: [00:09:35] I do. We share a pea patch. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:39] Do you share a pea patch? Erica Barnett: [00:09:40] Well, we're in the same pea patch, yeah. Yes. I see her all the time. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:43] Elizabeth Campbell. I mean, I don't know. I think a really interesting thing is the conversation of who could become mayor. That really is, it's so subjective, right? But I think it's interesting. I do think that at the time, an unpopular incumbent... At that time, the incumbent was running for reelection, which certainly inhibits a lot of other people from running and can impact the field. Certainly did then, I think, and took people who almost by definition viewed themselves as outsiders who were not part of the Nickels crew to say, "Hey, we can actually stand up and challenge this guy," where this dynamic is not happening in this mayoral race, because Jenny Durkan is not running for reelection. So it's an open field and has brought in a lot of people who maybe would not have run against Durkan, but now that the field is open, they're here. So it'll be interesting to see, but I do think that people should still get educated about the candidates, vote for who you feel most closely aligns to your values. Because even if your candidate doesn't finish on top, people are still going to be analyzing and looking at, okay, where does the vote distribution per issue fall? And it's going to be consequential if... For something like charter amendment 29, if there's overwhelming support against that, and, hey, one person who gets through the primary got 30%, but the other 70% of votes went against that. That's going to be a bit telling and how the candidates approach their support or opposition of something like that charter amendment campaign. So vote your conscience. Let's see what we have going on there. The other news that is interesting is that the fundraising race just, I guess, got a new dimension with Andrew Grant Houston being granted a democracy voucher fundraising lift. How did that happen? Erica Barnett: [00:11:56] Well, another candidate in the race, former city council member, Bruce Harrell, has a PAC... I mean, I shouldn't say he has. There is a PAC working on his behalf. And so they've raised a bunch of money, and in combination with Harrell's own fundraising, that is above the cap. And so what happens, the cap is $400,000 of basically how much a candidate can raise. When a candidate's fundraising combined with any outside fundraising is above $400,000, any candidate in that race can then say, I want the cap to be lifted. And once it's lifted, that candidate, and eventually most candidates will probably pile on and also ask for lifts, that candidate can spend any amount of money, just like a PAC. So it sort of defangs a major aspect, I think, of the Honest Elections Initiative that we passed a few years back because effectively it says that PACs... We know that PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money, but PACs unlimited spending can spur candidates' unlimited spending. So we sort of have a situation in every election now where basically the caps are meaningless. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:11] Yeah, it is an interesting situation, because as you said, now for Andrew Grant Houston and for other candidates who come in following requesting the lift, there is no more fundraising limit in the primary. And certainly there've been some candidates who have stacked up their... Kind of been collecting but not cashing in additional democracy vouchers and additional money in anticipation of this being lifted. So it'll be real interesting to see how that then translates into communication because the other element is... I mean it's Friday, July 9th today. Ballots are coming out next week. So it's not like there's a ton of time left to do a lot of communications. So the planning of that had to have happened prior to this, and now it just becomes a matter of execution and seeing how much they're able to afford and expanding their communication plans. Erica Barnett: [00:14:13] Sure. And I think we'll see even more of this in the general election because the caps are the same. It sort of resets and you can spend $400,000 in the mayor's race, and so when you just have two candidates... I mean, spending in the mayor's race in recent years has just gotten out of control, in my opinion, and I think we'll see that again. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:35] Well, I think so. It is not cheap to communicate with an entire city full of people, but there really is no other way to do it than raising and spending this money in our current composition, but it would be interesting to examine what would it mean have a more tiered system or what other controls could be put into place to avoid just this all out fundraising blitz and air war that we get ourselves into that initially, talking to people, which I still think is helpful, to have to talk to people to get democracy vouchers. Talking to residents is never a bad thing when it comes to informing policy, but how do we prevent this from becoming just another unlimited spend-a-thon? I don't know. I hope there is a way. I would like there to be a way, but I don't know if there's going to be a way. And to your point, we get into this situation every time now. So it seems like the residents voted to address this issue and kind of took a step one with the Honest Elections Initiative. Is there a step two to try and control this seemingly unlimited spending situation that we get ourselves in? Erica Barnett: [00:15:57] Yeah, because it would be unfair, on the flip side, for PACs to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money and to limit the candidates. So there is a logic behind it. It's just an unfortunate logic that is based on the fact that PACs can spend any amount of money or independent expenditure campaigns can spend any amount of money. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:16] Yep. So we will be keeping our eyes on the spending in coming weeks. If you, listeners, get any campaign collateral, mail, screenshot online ads, take pictures of mail, tag us in it. It's always interesting to see who is getting what and what the messages are. We've seen very creative, sometimes disingenuous, advertising in prior campaigns, and it's always interesting to see how candidates are making their own case and cases against other candidates. So please, just continue to stay informed. There is still a number of forums that are going to be happening. So tune in, and we'll certainly continue to talk about them here on the show. Another issue I wanted to talk about was some news that just came out yesterday, and that an OPA investigation implicated two officers who participated in the January 6th riots and insurrection in Washington, DC. We'd previously known that there were at least six officers in attendance in DC, and a question that a lot of other people have, we've talked about before I think, that the fact that they were in DC for what was billed as a Stop the Steal event says a lot, really enough about their mind frame, that their ability to complete their job in a fair and honest way is seriously called into question. But there was a question about, did any actually participate in the insurrection? Were they on grounds that they should not have been on? Did they break any other laws? And the answer is yes. There were two officers who were found to have done that. So what actually was uncovered in that investigation? Erica Barnett: [00:18:02] Well, essentially what they discovered, what the Office of Police Accountability discovered was that two officers, as you said, apparently a married couple, were trespassing in a restricted area. They did not breach the Capitol, as in actually going inside the building and the rotunda. But they were trespassing on the Capitol steps. And the Office of Police Accountability was not convinced that they just didn't know, which is what they claimed. To your point, I think the Seattle Police Union has said that it would be discriminatory to discipline any of the other four officers, at the very least because they're just expressing their political opinions and this is just free speech. But I think you also have to look at the question... OPA looks at things like professionalism, and I think it calls into question their professional judgment if they believe sincerely, and to the extent that they're willing to go to this rally, in a huge lie, in a huge political lie that the election was stolen, and that Donald Trump should rightly be president now. That's a judgment call. And that speaks to their ability to make good judgments on the job. And so, in deciding that those officers were effectively exonerated, that is the city and the OPA saying, "We don't care about that aspect of their judgment. We agree, in a sense, that this was just an expression of a political view." And I think that it's obviously a political view. But we don't ban people from being cops for being conservative, but we do discipline them as a city for not being professional. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:57] Yeah, absolutely. And clearly what they have to believe in is that, not only was there fraud, predominantly in Democratic cities, and among constituencies of color, predominantly among them. But to believe that to a degree that that would have flipped the election, and the dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of court cases that have sought to challenge and pursue this in court that have been just flat out, both laughed out of court, and just rejected in every way. This has played out. Again, people can appeal to different courts. Every court, from state courts and federal courts, to district courts and appeals courts, and the Supreme Court have taken up various election issues, and this has been found to just have no basis in reality. And to still persevere is really troubling to me, that someone within the system is in effect saying they don't trust it, they don't believe in it, they're acting in defiance of it, to the point of traveling to DC to make this stand and to make this point. Very, very troubling and concerning. I would be highly concerned in discovering, and wondering if there are patterns of unfair treatment that have come specifically from these officers. It is a big question. But as for the two, the investigation was pretty unequivocal that there does not seem to be a question that these two officers just flat out lied. The investigation said that they lied. That they said they weren't aware that they were in an area where they shouldn't have been. Evidently, video provided by the FBI clearly shows that not only was there plenty of signage indicating that they shouldn't have been there, there were police officers there who not only were directing people away, who were using force in various capacities to try and get people away. And these officers witnessed that, and witnessed their fellow rioters using force against the officers, and did not intervene, did not do anything. Which is really curious, talking about supporting officers, and you have officers standing by watching other officers actually get beaten by this insurrectionist mob. So, they just seem to have been busted from A to Z. And the chief had previously said, if there was someone found to be taking part in those activities, they would be fired. So it's going to be interesting to see if the chief follows through on that. And then what SPOG does to try and address that. Erica Barnett: [00:23:02] One aspect of the story that PubliCola covered that I want to just point out, reporter Paul Keifer did a story on this, is that although Chief Adrian Diaz did order these officers to turn over information, receipts and bank records, photographs and texts from January 6th, and they did comply, except for one who still has not complied. The police union is fighting that, and they believe that this was a violation of their rights. They have filed a grievance. And so, the question of whether the OPA, the accountability office, has the authority to subpoena and to demand these records is still very much on the table. So, we could see a scenario in the future, hopefully not as dramatic as the January 6th insurrection, but a scenario in the future where police officers refuse to hand over this information, or this kind of information, and the public could just be in the dark. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:08] And we're already in the dark about so much already. It's very, very troubling. And I hope, as we continue to have these conversations with a new perspective mayors, and council members in the city of Seattle, and in other cities, that this is talked about. That transparency and accountability, apart from people loving to ask, "Do you support or oppose defund?", there's so much more in this conversation that we need to talk about in detail. And I hope this continues to be centered in those conversations, because really it's just unacceptable. Erica Barnett: [00:24:46] Absolutely. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:48] And with that, and related in our criminal legal system, there was an excellent PubliCola story this week about the work-release program. We'll link to it in our show notes. I highly encourage everyone to read it. But do you want to give us a rundown on what that story was about? Erica Barnett: [00:25:08] Yeah. Paul Keifer, again, our police accountability reporter, did a story about work-release violations, and how they are used, how the violations of the terms of work release, which is a program where people get released from prison, but they live in a facility. They participate in programs, including job programs. And it's essentially, it's a little like parole. And so they have to comply with a bunch of different rules. And lack of compliance can send you back to prison. And so, what Paul's story revealed is that in a lot of cases, very small violations of the conditions of work release, which is supposed to prepare you to get along, and be a productive citizen in the outside world. But these very small violations were being used to send people back to prison for things as small as having... One woman had a drill bit, a small drill bit in her bag that she said was her boyfriend's, and she was sent back to prison for that. So, the story reveals that it's a system that sets people up to fail in many cases because it's more about following the minutiae of rules than actually getting rehabilitated, and getting ready to succeed in society in the outside world. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:36] Yeah. And the story detailed a lot of instances, people being sent back to prison for missing a bus. And for that being used, basically, in retaliation for personal issues that people working for the Department of Corrections had with various people. A couple had made complaints about potential abuses of power and were retaliated against. There was someone who appears to have been retaliated against because their family members were in a protest. Just very, very punitive, choosing to exercise extremely harsh judgment to take away someone's freedom. And if we are really sitting here trying to act like this system is about rehabilitation for everything from non-violent seemingly... Whether it's some possession of a controlled substance or whatever the case may be, they have served their sentence. This is a kind of midway point, like you said, to prepare people to live, in regular life. For a lot of people who wind up in prison, they may not have had the most stable life. They may have made a mistake, got caught up in the system and they may not have the best tools for coping. This is billed, supposed to be at, "Okay, this is to help you reintegrate into society." To help you build positive habits, positive routine, get a job, get on your feet, get some money coming in the door so that when you do get ultimately released and are free of all supervision, that you are prepared to live on your own and in society. And coping with the everyday challenges of life is part of preparing to be back in society and managing through that. Because Lord knows, all of the rest of us make mistakes. All of the rest of us has missed a bus at some point in time, or forgotten to take something with us, or have been late to a meeting. That is regular life stuff. So to expect people to live more perfectly than everyone else on the outside is just not a realistic expectation. Then to tie sending someone back to prison, losing a job, losing progress, losing momentum, when that is the difference between someone potentially being back on their feet and not repeating any offenses, is, like you said, it's setting people up for failure. It's absolutely unacceptable. And this system is a trap. It is a trap. And- Erica Barnett: [00:29:26] Yeah it is teaching people to essentially, to learn compliance. And that is not the skill that is most important in life to succeed. Because if you're sending people back to prison over and over again, or even once, for one of these minor violations... And note, the missing the bus issue or the bus doesn't show up, one reason people have to take the bus is they're not allowed to own cars in work release. It's really forcing people to run a race in a full leg cast. Then you learn through that process that you're supposed to be compliant no matter what. There's so many reasons that that is not a great lesson to learn, to succeed in life. But one is just that discrimination exists in the world and if you're being taught to be compliant with it, that is a racist system. One of the people that Paul talked about was a woman who said that she was retaliated against for filing a sexual harassment complaint. So again, the lesson there is, "Whatever happens, don't complain because you'll be punished." Crystal Fincher: [00:30:49] Absolutely. And it's a system that is primed for abuse when that situation and circumstance occurs. There were recommendations made by this working group or task force that was predominantly made up of Department of Corrections people, had a couple of people on there who were related to people who were formerly incarcerated and in the work release program, no one directly impacted. There was resistance to even rewriting a mission and vision statement that really centered, "Hey, our job is to rehabilitate people and not to teach them compliance to Department of Corrections rules." They did agree to some retraining, to some standards and standardization of some policies, but my goodness, is there just such a long way to go to fix this. It just underscores that beyond just how things are handled and initial contacts with police, and whether or not someone is arrested and how that happens, what they're charged with and how they're sentenced and how that happens, on the other end, how they're treated while they are incarcerated. Then on their path to getting out is there are just so many traps in there. You marvel, looking at all of these different elements in the system, about how anyone makes it out unscathed. And if not unscathed, just the ability to successfully reintegrate because so much is working against them. The overwhelming majority of people who go to jail or prison are coming back out. We have an interest as a society, one, because they're people and we don't throw away people, we shouldn't throw away people, but they're also going to be reintegrating into our community. So let's make sure that people are prepared to become thriving members of our community and not set them up for failure, or have them constantly deal with, "If I sneeze the wrong way, I can wind up back in prison." We have to do better to rehabilitate people and to really focus on restoring them and their ability to be a thriving member of our communities. And with that, that's our time today. But we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 9th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, and our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a "C", and on PubliCola. And you can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, now on paperback. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps out. You can 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 and we'll talk to you next time.

Today on the show Seattle mayoral candidate Colleen Echohawk joins Crystal to talk about her plans to tackle the homelessness crisis within 14 months, how she will reform public safety, and why indigenous perspectives and leadership are so important in our country. 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 guest, Colleen Echohawk, at @ccechohawk. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “The COVID pandemic split the King County homeless system in two. A year later, the differences remain stark” by Sydney Brownstone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/the-pandemic-split-the-homeless-system-in-two-a-year-later-the-differences-remain-stark/ “COVID-19 and the overwhelming demand for basic needs” by Andrea Caupain Sanderson: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/02/covid-19-and-overwhelming-demand-basic-needs “How Compassion Seattle could shape the mayoral race” by Joni Balter: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/05/how-compassion-seattle-could-shape-mayoral-race “Echohawk Emergency Housing Action Plan” from the Echohawk campaign: https://www.echohawkforseattle.com/emergency-housing2 Community Police Commission Recommendations tracker: https://www.seattle.gov/community-police-commission/current-issues/recommendations-tracker “Where Seattle is on police reforms, one year after protests” by David Kroman: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/05/where-seattle-police-reforms-one-year-after-protests “Afternoon Fizz: ‘A Dictator Posturing As a Mayor,' Another Preventable Disease Outbreak, and CPC Challenges Cops' Crowd Control Plans” from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/04/22/afternoon-fizz-a-dictator-posturing-as-a-mayor-another-preventable-disease-outbreak-and-cpc-challenges-cops-crowd-control-plans/#more-17527   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  Today we are so excited to have joining us, candidate for Seattle mayor, Colleen Echohawk. Thank you so much for being here. Colleen Echohawk: [00:00:59] Thank you. I'm so glad to be with you today, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:01] Yeah. Okay, so I'm excited. What actually caused you to want to join this mayor's race at this time? Colleen Echohawk: [00:01:10] Well, thank you for asking the question because if you had told me like a year ago that I would be doing this, I would be surprised. I think that there's two things that really propelled me into this race. Number one is I work with our homeless community, I've supported our homeless community for many years now - believe in them deeply. And I am just so frustrated about what has happened. We've had almost six years of a state of emergency and the crisis has only gotten worse. There were moments through the pandemic - the second thing that just really pushed it - where our homeless community, our larger community, was just in pain and in agony because we were shutting down libraries, we were shutting down community centers, we were shutting down my own Day Center. Then we were telling people, "You have to wash your hands. That is sanitation. That's how you're going to keep COVID away." And then our homeless community was just left out in the rain to just have to poop on the sidewalk because there is no bathrooms. And it just got to a point where I just felt like - if I have some skill in this role, and I do, and if I can bring that to the mayor's office and offer that kind of leadership to actually solve this problem on behalf of the 12,000 plus people who are experiencing homelessness, then I should step up. There's just a real crisis of Black, indigenous, and people of color communities are vastly overrepresented and we haven't had enough leadership that represents our community. So that was the other part of just-- I was raised to step up to situations and that's what I'm doing. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:00] Well, you certainly bring up a lot of correct and valid issues that - man, this pandemic really did lay bare the inequities that already existed and then made them worse - and specifically with our unhoused community. There's an initiative right now, Compassionate Seattle that - frequently, initiatives are responses to a failure of leadership and as you said, we've had this crisis for quite some time. This initiative is now up. We've talked about it before on the show. I guess I'm wondering, one, do you support Compassionate Seattle? And if not, how does your vision differ? Colleen Echohawk: [00:03:39] Yeah. Well, I think that what we're seeing, and you've talked about this already, is that this is what happens when you declare an emergency and the problem only gets worse for the next five years. We have people trying to fill the vacuum that was created by years of inaction at City Hall. I, in some ways, and, well, in many ways, I appreciate that someone is trying to get something done. I appreciate that. That is a good thing. I think something that's really hard for me with Compassion Seattle is that people that I have worked with for years and years, people who are national leaders around homelessness, they helped really craft this. I saw the very first draft, and then I saw the last draft. We all can see the last draft, and it's night and day from what it looked like. But I think there's some very significant problems. The number one thing is that the funding - that is not at all adequate funding just to solve this crisis that we're in, so that's the number one thing. The second thing is it's weird to change the City Charter. I don't think that's a good way to do governance - it's like amending the Constitution. I just don't think that's the right way of doing it. And then, third and probably the most important piece, is that they did not spend enough time working with our Lived Experience Coalition. There were a couple of people who had lived experience of homelessness, who did give their opinions and were part of the final design, but I think that we have a very strong Lived Experience Coalition. I think they should have a say in this.  So, I am struggling with it because of all those factors. I don't think I will personally vote for it. But I am supportive that people want to do something and have pushed this forward - and we'll see what happens. I think that there is a lot of opposition - even on the right - to it, which is fascinating. But what I hear and I see from Compassion Seattle is that people are frustrated and angry that we have not done this work in the way that we should, and they want to get something done. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:00] Okay, so what I heard from you wasn't quite a No - you're struggling with it, and you've certainly identified some of the issues that a lot of people have with it. I guess one of the opportunities that you have is - if you're elected mayor, that you get to fill that leadership vacuum that created this initiative anyway. So why not just vote no and then do what you should be doing in the first place? Colleen Echohawk: [00:06:23] Well, I just said that I'm not going to vote Yes on it. I think that the hard thing for me, like I mentioned earlier, and we actually talked about this before starting - is I have some really good people, friends, who were a part of it and I see why it's so hard. But I think the funding mechanism is the main reason that I'm not going to vote for it. I think we have to have more robust funding mechanisms. In our plan, that we have on our website, and invite people to take a look at it - in fact, we're going to drop some really nuts and bolts things today - goes far beyond what the Compassionate Seattle initiative has. We're calling it 22 steps to get all the people that are outside into housing in 14 months. I think that having 1,000-2,000 emergency housing units is not enough. These are human beings, these are children, these are elders. We have to have initiative right now - treat this truly like the emergency that it is - and get people inside. And that's what I'll do if elected mayor. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:35] What are some of those steps? What are some of the specifics that people can see you take - that demonstrate you're treating it like the crisis that it is - and that actually work to solve the problem and you're laying out in 14 months? That's ambitious. Colleen Echohawk: [00:07:48] Yeah. Well, it's ambitious and it comes from years of experience of working with our homeless community. The number one thing, the moment that I am elected, we will use the transition period to identify hotels, identify unused land, identify - if it's tiny homes or whatever - find those spaces immediately so that the moment we get into office, we can just hit the ground running on getting this work done. We know that we're going to have to have an all-of-the-above approach on the emergency housing. And I do want to say something quickly - one of the answers and the biggest answer to homelessness is permanent housing. That's just the reality. We have to have that in our minds and recognizing that as a goal. But while we're doing that, we also have to have the emergency housing that gets up and running. And so, we will use all-of-the-above approach, find the land so we can move all the RVs onto that land, and offer really good services.  We have a plan for a 100 outreach workers to build those relationships. The outreach workers we help to hire from the Lived Experience Coalition and other folks with lived experience, and build those relationships. We saw, through the pandemic, the program Just Cares. I was honored to participate in that program. We were able to build those relationships in those encampments, move the entire encampment into a hotel. And they went willingly - we weren't sweeping people. They were just going because it was a better option. And so- Crystal Fincher: [00:09:37] Well, that's a good point. Colleen Echohawk: [00:09:37] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:38] Do you ever see a reason to sweep people? Colleen Echohawk: [00:09:41] No. No. I think that with good engagement - with talented and good outreach - you don't have to sweep. You can go out there and build that relationship and get folks into housing and security. These are human beings. Let's not forget that. That's the other thing that I think - the reason I'll be a good mayor is that these are not numbers to me. These are people that I know, and love, and appreciate - and I'm willing to get out there and take the responsibility to find the kind of housing that's going to work for them. This is an opportunity for Seattle - we either can create the right leadership in the mayor's office or not. We have to do something. These folks deserve for someone to fight for them, and I will be that person to fight for them. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:39] When you talk about - certainly, permanent housing is the ultimate solution to homelessness - we also have an affordability crisis. How do you address that? What's the answer? Colleen Echohawk: [00:10:53] Yeah. We are quickly moving towards - only the very, very rich can enjoy this city. Honestly, that really bothers me. This is a Native city, this is a Coast Salish city. We have legislation in 1865 that said Native people cannot be in the city limits. We pushed out our Muckleshoot community, whose land we're on right now - the City of Seattle is. And so, we have to find ways to stop the gentrification and to bring back our community into Seattle. We need to really understand the affordability crisis, and that's going to be rezoning. There's just no way around it. We, in our campaign, are talking about the middle. What does that look like? How can we get there? There are ways that we can do the rezoning work with the neighborhoods, with public space designers, and make sure that we are doing it in a good way. But we cannot continue as we are. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:04] What is that way? We hear about NIMBYism. We hear people vehemently opposed to changing the culture of the neighborhood and wanting things to maintain exactly the way that they are. And people - they're afraid of their property values and all of that - so what is the answer? How do you see you can come to - what is that middle ground? Colleen Echohawk: [00:12:29] Yeah. You're hitting the proverbial nail on the head. I think a big part of what we are missing is vision. That has been something that was frustrating for me from our current mayor and the previous mayor as well - not communicating effectively about what this city should look like, and even not communicating what the plan is around homelessness or whatever issue that we're dealing with. As mayor of the City, I will be communicating - I will let people know what the plans are, and I also hope to really help people understand a vision for equity and racial justice in our city.  We have to realize - I drove through Ballard the other day. There's Black Lives Matter signs in so many houses all through Ballard. If you believe that Black Lives Matter, then you believe Black people deserve great housing in our city. If you believe Black Lives Matter, then you believe that that kid in the South End who has high rates of asthma and going back and forth into the emergency room all the time because of the air quality, you believe that we have to make changes and implement our climate policies. I am going to help our region - help Seattle - understand what it truly means when we grab onto these slogans. That will be my vision. That will be what I will be very clear about from the get-go and through this campaign. And so, we have to just understand, and if we really want to be a progressive city and live out these values, then we're going to have to change. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:26] You talk about that - so many people do have those signs in there. I've talked about before - allyship is a verb - and does raise the question, "Are you acting like those Black lives matter or is that just a convenient sign to have in the yard?" I do think that that value is shown through zoning. I also think that value is shown through how we keep each other safe, and protect our neighbors, and relate to each other. That certainly has to do with the conversation around policing and public safety here. You were appointed by the former mayor to the Community Police Commission. Just looking at the work that you've done there and the insight that you have - what do you think was positive - from what you did from the Community Police Commission? Where do you think we need to go, specifically policy-wise, with policing in Seattle? Colleen Echohawk: [00:15:21] Well, I love that you said the positive part of it. That's important. I want to recognize that. There are some incredibly dedicated people in the Community Police Commission - Reverend Walden. There's just a tremendous amount of people who have ensured that our police accountability that is in place right now through the consent decree - that it happened. We have certainly had rousing meetings. If you've never gone to a Community Police Commission meeting, they're lively - let's say that - because the issue is so close to home. As leader of the Chief Seattle Club, we serve the family of John T. Williams. It is very close - many of the people that I know and love walked alongside John T. Williams all the time, and they are petrified and afraid of Seattle Police Department. We have many people, and I don't know if folks recognize this - in our homeless community - sadly, we have physical and sexual assaults that happen. They will not report. They do not want to talk to Seattle Police Department and they continue to have to deal with so much trauma that we can't actually wrap our arms around because of the fear of Seattle Police Department. And so, the work there has to change. I'm also really proud of the Seattle Community Police Commission - that we stood against the 2018 contract. I personally went with members of the Commission to the mayor's office and we pleaded with her to not move forward with this contract. And now we can see, over the summer, the terrible outcome of that. I have competitors - opponents - in this race who voted for that contract. As we move forward in police accountability, we need to have a leader who is going to be courageous and take a stand. That's going to be with-- the two most important things we're going to see come out in the new mayor's office is hiring the chief of police and, of course, the contract. Both of those places will require community-led focus and work with the Community Police Commission. One of the things that has been hard as a Community Police Commissioner - is that we often are ignored by the mayor's office - time after time after time. In fact, there's now a dashboard on the Community Police Commission website that shows all the times that we've been ignored. I am committed to that commission. I'm committed to actually, having been there, increasing the power and authority of that commission. And not just the commission - I want to be working with the community as well. The commission can only represent so much. But we are committed, and you can see this in our plan on the website, to bi-monthly meetings with community around policing and making sure that we are understanding where we're headed as a city. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:48] Well, and you mentioned the two big things - they're huge - in terms of the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract, in addition to hiring a new police chief. With that contract, I mean, that dictates so much - even beyond the police chief's control. I guess the first question is, would you need the 2017 ordinance to be included in that contract? If it didn't include those elements, would you sign that contract? What are the bright lines for you when it comes to that negotiating and what you need to see from that contract - to make sure that it's going to serve the residents - all of the residents of Seattle? Colleen Echohawk: [00:19:25] I think that the crowd control issue is something that is on top of mind for our residents in Seattle. Demilitarizing the police. Those are the things, to me, that are top priorities when it comes to the contract. We cannot relent. We have to have better outcomes when we - we will have other protests. That is clear. We're going to have more protests. I am behind that. I know it can help, that it can make change. But we have to make sure that crowd control - what happened over the summer - never happens again. And so, those are two places in the contract that are going to be key for me. The other thing, and the state legislature has pushed some of this far, and hopefully we can go even further in future legislative sessions - but we have to hire a chief of police that will truly hold our police department accountable. And what I mean by that is that right now, when a chief... Which by the way, chief... That, to me- Crystal Fincher: [00:20:45] Yeah. You know what? Yep. Colleen Echohawk: [00:20:47] ... it's weird. It's weird. I think Toronto has changed that from a word that has been co-opted from the Native community. It's a very weird thing, but it is what it is. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:02] We could do a whole show. There is so much language that even just internally, in my business, that we've talked about, that is so common in business language and common language, that is just co-opted there. Colleen Echohawk: [00:21:15] It is. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:16] It really is discomforting. Colleen Echohawk: [00:21:20] It is discomforting. It's not something that is helpful in our work towards equity. But anyways, it is what it is. The chief of police will need to be holding folks accountable - that means disciplining and not being afraid of disciplining. That means when we fire someone, and then it goes to the arbitration board, and they come back and they say, "You know what? You have to keep this person in the department." Our plan says that person never goes near public. And I can tell you from personal experience about that - is that I have seen with my own eyes a Seattle police officer follow a native homeless man who is - he jaywalked in Pioneer Square. Everyone jaywalks in Pioneer Square. He's jaywalking and eventually they take him to the ground and I saw it, I put in my protest at Office of Police Accountability. They said, "No, sorry. The officer was fine. He was doing his job." But what was weird to me is that later on I had someone in our organization, another staff member say, "Hey, Colleen, look at this video." It was a YouTube video - that same exact officer and that same exact man - going at it again and taking him down to the ground again. I cannot believe that that was not intentional - that jaywalking, with the same guy, same officer. And so, when we know that an officer has been disciplined for something like that, that officer doesn't get back on the street. I'm going to hire a chief of police that will say, "You know what, I'm going to follow the direction of the mayor. We're not going to have bad cops out there on the street. We just cannot do it." That's something that is doable right now, right? Because the contract is the contract - I believe in arbitration, we've got to support our unions. But we can actually do something to keep bad cops off the street. And that's one of the key components of our plan. I feel it so deeply - I've experienced it myself and we have to do better. We have to change. Crystal Fincher: [00:23:33] So I just wanted to clarify - do you support the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance and including that as a minimum or requirement in a new police contract? Colleen Echohawk: [00:23:46] Yeah. Absolutely, and I appreciate you saying a minimum because there are things about the 2017 accountability that we need to take further. I mentioned in our earlier conversation that I've put in my own complaints to the Office of Police Accountability, and I did not get responses that were adequate. So we need to change some of those things there. I think that the next contract - we should make it even stronger, have more accountability. Also, one thing that I really care tremendously about is that we find ways to ensure that the Community Police Commission has a stronger voice. That's something I would also be advocating for in the contract that's coming up. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:30] Well, we are also still in the middle of a pandemic. Colleen Echohawk: [00:24:32] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:34] We can see the end, hopefully - and Seattle's doing a job that's better than most in terms of vaccination rates. Still, definitely, improvement can be made. But there's still a lot of people struggling. There's still a lot of people out of work. We saw where a lot of the haves didn't really feel much pain throughout the pandemic. But, man, the have-nots have been hurting, are hurting worse, and they're still hurting. People in Seattle, from service workers to artists, are still out of work. A lot of our small businesses are still trying to figure out a way to stay afloat, if they haven't already been forced to close. What do you see as the path forward? I guess, starting with, do you support the JumpStart Tax? Colleen Echohawk: [00:25:24] Absolutely. Yes. We have to have further revenue and we have to do better of ensuring that our communities - I come from the Native community - the Black community, the other people color communities, that we are accessing these resources that are coming out of City Hall. The Office of Economic Development - they had grants. But those grants - I'm dying to do an audit on those. I am almost sure that our small businesses who are BIPOC did not have fair access to those. I asked - I get my nails done, and I went and was talking to my friend who owns the business. She's Vietnamese, English is the second language - she's an incredible, incredible human. I said, "Well, did you get a grant?" And she said, "Nope." I said, "Did you get PPP?" "No." I think that as mayor, because I come from a place of working for some of the most vulnerable people in our community - that's my lens. Those are the people that I'm going to be thinking about and wanting to hear their voices, wanting to see their leadership, and make sure that that person out there in this nail salon and suffering through this crisis. I'm so glad that her business is up and running, but it is still - there's a lot of people who were getting their nails done who aren't back.  So that, to me, is of utmost importance. I am eager to get in there and be supporting communities of color. The other thing I'll add, just around the pandemic, is health equity. One of the things that just really pushed me into doing this, as well - is understanding how COVID impacted communities of color - understanding that as a Native woman, I was much more likely to be hospitalized If I contracted COVID, much more likely to die of COVID. That was something that was just so hard for us when we were working with our homeless community, who are Native - was we had people out there who their first language was their Native language, and there's not many people like that anymore. We had people who know the culture in a way that no one else knows because there's so few of us left. Keeping those elders alive was such a big priority for me during this pandemic. So health equity will be of utmost importance. I've been meeting regularly with Black birth workers and talking to them about what our plans could be in the mayor's office, and we'll continue to flesh out those policies. But I can tell you that health equity will be a lens for me. One of the folks that are endorsing me, that I'm very proud of, is Dr. Ben Danielson. I will be asking for his advice and mentorship through this process of what we should be doing to understand the health impact, and the long-term health impacts of COVID on our community, and especially some of our communities that were hit the hardest by it. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:53] Well, there are a few Seattleites with more credibility when it comes to health equity and just overall community health than Dr. Ben Danielson. So it would be great to know that he would be an advisor to the mayor's office. I guess, looking at that - what do we need to do, moving forward, in terms of - you talked about disparate impacts to BIPOC people in communities. Pollution - lots of times people think of climate change - in addition, pollution, are two big issues facing all of our community, but particularly the BIPOC community. How can you impact that? What plans do you have as mayor to reduce pollution and the effects of that - that are literally taking years off of the life of residents here in the City? It's very different, depending on what your zip code is. What can you tangibly achieve? Colleen Echohawk: [00:29:57] Yeah. There's a lot out there that is super exciting. We're working around food access and food sovereignty systems, working with the Muckleshoot tribe. We have Valerie Segrest who's supporting our campaign and is helping lead some of that policy. Public transportation is a big part of what we need to do in order to change our outcomes around carbon emissions. 60% of our carbon emissions right now are coming from cars. So I am a huge proponent of more transportation making Seattle truly workable. Right now it's too hard to connect to things. In 2018, my family and I were able to go to Japan. That city - man, it just - that country, Tokyo specifically, works. You can just be on public transportation. And so, we have to have vision for that. But beyond all that, there's a lot of policies out there - we're pushing out our own policies, everyone on the campaign trail right now is pushing out policies. But we've had policy after policy after policy - and every year, our carbon emissions get worse. I'm curious what 2020 will look like because of COVID. But there's a disconnect, and what we have to realize is that we need courageous leadership. We need someone who is going to say, "We are going to get there. We are going to become denser." That's the other issue - we have policy, we know what the policies are - but will we have the courage to change, is something that I am thinking about all the time. My whole career has been about making change. My whole career has been about standing up and saying, "Hold on a second. How can that be, and how can we ensure that our communities of color, our Native communities are going to thrive in these situations?" And so, I will bring that same lens to the mayor's office. It is time for us to get serious about climate change. And the other thing I'll add to that is - I'm really excited about working with our tribes who have a government-to-government relationship with the city of Seattle, which is Suquamish and Muckleshoot. I like to say that we'll know that we have turned the corner on climate change when you look at a Puget Sound and it's abundant, full of orcas - because then we know that our salmon are in clean water and they are thriving. And then we know that our kid out in the South End is breathing clean air - and it is a part of a whole system. That's where I want us to get to. That's my vision. We have to be able to make those changes, and have the vision for it, and make it happen. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:58] You mentioned that the proportion of pollution that is directly attributable to cars and vehicles - at least one of your opponents is highly in support of free transit for all. Do you also support that? Colleen Echohawk: [00:33:15] Yeah. I'm worried about the funding. But absolutely, I think that there is such - it would make the difference. I think that people would get out there and get on public transportation if it was free, but I don't know exactly how we're going to pay for that. But we do have - we have a friend in the White House, at last. And looking at those federal dollars is something that I will be aggressive about. I have a pretty good track record of raising money. My agency at Chief Seattle Club - we're raising tons and tons of money. I have gotten very good at doing that - and I will do that at the federal level, I'll do that at the local level - and get those dollars in. I'm sorry, I got a little sidetracked about raising money there because I get excited about that. But yes, free transit is a really, really great idea. But as the CEO of the City, the mayor of the City, you've got to know where the dollars are coming from, and that's the only concern. I would love to see that. And we already are doing some good things there. The ORCA LIFT program is really powerful, it's doing good things. And I think finding ways to make sure that that is more accessible to our community should be a priority of our mayor. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:39] So you wouldn't stand in the way of the policy, but finding funding for it may not be a priority of a Echohawk administration. Colleen Echohawk: [00:34:48] My first priority of an Echohawk administration is to solve the crisis of homelessness. Having 5,000-6,000 people sleeping outside - I feel like it's immoral in a city like Seattle. And so that will be my first priority. That's where any funding that we have out there - it's got to go towards that. And then, once we get that settled, we have a 14-month plan for getting folks who are living outside inside. Then I'll be looking at other priorities like free transit, because it is a beautiful idea and I would love to see that happen. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:26] So in a sea of candidates who are saying that addressing the homelessness crisis is also a priority, what will - from a voter's perspective, from a resident's perspective - how will an Echohawk administration be visibly, tangibly different than all of your competitors? Colleen Echohawk: [00:35:45] Well, I think number one is that I have a proven track record of solving homelessness. In the past seven years at Chief Seattle Club, we've housed 681 people. We're building $180 million of affordable housing. I'm the only candidate that's built affordable housing. It's also the main reason I'm jumping into this race. I am not going to be a career politician. I am jumping in this race because I am frustrated, I care about our homeless community, I care about our larger community, and I have the skills to get it done. I think that is something that truly sets me apart. No one else has ever been successful at actually housing people, and I care about them. I was taught to jump in when there is people who are hurting. I grew up with parents who literally would pick up hitchhikers off the side of the road, and then they would live in our house if they were homeless. That is where I come from. And so, that's what I'll bring to the mayor's office. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:57] I mean, and you say you don't want to be a career politician, so do you have a term limit in mind? I always wonder that when people say that. Is there a maximum term that separates you from being a politician to a career politician? Colleen Echohawk: [00:37:10] I don't know. This is hard. Everyone was like, "Colleen, campaigning is hard. Being in this world is hard," and it is. And so, I don't know how much of this I want to do. I think that if we're successful in our first year, which I think we will - in our first four years, which I think we will be. I think that the City of Seattle needs to have a two-term mayor. We haven't had one in a really, really long time, and we need some consistency. It's part of the reason that our climate policy hasn't gotten to where we want it to get. So that could be it.  But I don't have any ambitions to be a Governor or a Senator, or - I like Seattle. When I was thinking about doing this, I had an opportunity come up in DC. And I was talking about my sister who lives in DC - she's like, "Colleen, why would you do that? You love Seattle. That's your place." And I was like, "Okay." That was helpful for me. Seattle's my place. I look forward to - I have a lot of other things I want to do in my lifetime. But if I can support our community now, I really believe that you should do that.  Well, and the other thing that's exciting for me is that - to be the first woman mayor, indigenous mayor of a major city is really cool for me. I have a daughter who has the most incredible leadership skills. When she was three, she told me she wanted to be the leader who's in charge of the other leaders. I love that. I'll never forget it. I mean, she should be President of the United States someday. If she can see that her mom, a Native woman, was able to be the mayor of a major city in this country, and is willing to take on the hard parts of it - because it is hard. She's saying to me sometimes like, "Wait, you're not getting done with work until like 8:30?" or whatever. But I want her to see that Native leadership and indigenous perspective's important for our country, and I love that part of it. It's something that we need. I want my daughter to see that you can do it, and that you should do it - if you have a call for leadership and you have a call to serve the community, so that part is pretty cool. Crystal Fincher: [00:39:49] Well, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today and have this conversation, and look forward to seeing how the race unfolds. Colleen Echohawk: [00:39:56] Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Crystal Fincher: [00:39:59] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

On today's podcast I have the honor of having James Lovell, director of development for the Chief Seattle Club in Seattle, WA as a guest. Not only has James been an advocate for the homeless, specifically in the native american community, he has become a good friend. James also is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band reservation of the Chippewa nation near Belcourt, ND which is where my dad's native side is from.   Today we discuss the Chippewa, or Ojibwe, the heritage, culture, artwork and travels of this great band of American Indians.   After the show you can find the show notes at irishmikesmith.com/podcast-ojibwe.

Show Notes On this week in review, Heather Weiner joins Crystal to analyze progressive revenue being passed in the state legislature, developments in fundraising in the Seattle mayoral race, and more on the “compassionate” charter amendment seeking to make encampment sweeps in Seattle more prevalent. 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, Heather Weiner, at @hlweiner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Learn more about the Working Families Tax Credit here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-lawmakers-passed-a-tax-credit-for-working-families-in-2008-is-this-the-year-they-finally-fund-it/  Track several of the bills mentioned in this show, including capital gains tax, here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/03/bills-were-tracking-2021-washington-state-legislature#taxes  Learn more about the background of the capital gains tax here: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/03/29/democrats-include-capital-gains-tax-in-state-budget-proposals/  Read the Hugh Spitzer article mentioned by Heather in the show here: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/whatever-your-opinion-about-a-state-capital-gains-tax-its-constitutional/  Get to know more about candidates in the Seattle mayor's race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/tag/2021-seattle-mayoral-race/  Learn more about the proposed chart amendment meant to address the homelessness crisis here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-begins-to-digest-proposal-that-would-change-city-charter-to-address-homelessness/    Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's co-host, local political consultant, Heather Weiner. Heather Weiner: [00:00:44] Hi, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:45] Hey. Heather Weiner: [00:00:46] Hey. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:47] So happy to have you back. Heather Weiner: [00:00:48] I'm so glad to be here. We have so much to talk about as usual. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:53] So much to talk about. And I guess the first thing that I'd love to talk about is... You know what? We're about to get some progressive revenue, it looks like. Capital gains in the legislature ... Heather Weiner: [00:01:03] Yeah - just minutes ago! Crystal Fincher: [00:01:04] ... is moving to the floor in the House. Heather Weiner: [00:01:07] Oh gosh, there's two really exciting things happening right now. So the first one is the legislature has finally included the Working Family Tax Credit in the budget process, which means that thousands and thousands of families in Washington state will get a cash infusion starting soon, coming from the state. And that'll be every year, not just during the pandemic. So that is great news. The second thing that's great news is we are taking a second step in balancing our regressive tax system and have just passed, out of the House committee - just minutes before this recording, hot off the presses - a capital gains tax. So that just passed out of committee 11-6, out of the House Finance Committee. That's Chair Noel Frame's committee. Go, Noel. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:59] Go, Noel. Heather Weiner: [00:01:59] And with Vice-chair April Berg, they have passed, really, a historic bill that will tax the extraordinary profits made by exceptionally rich people on the stock market. So this does not affect retirement accounts, it does not affect sales of small businesses, or any real estate at all. It's just people who are getting passive income from selling their stocks and bonds. And you would think, $250,000, wow. Who's selling $250,000 worth of stock? That are making $250,000 off of stock sales at a time. And the answer is not that many people, actually. It's really just the 0.02 per top 2%. Wait, 0.2 top percent. Am I saying that correctly? Crystal Fincher: [00:02:53] Yeah, not even 2 - 0.02 percent. Heather Weiner: [00:02:55] Yeah, right? So that's 2 out of 1,000 people who will be paying this tax. And it's just 7% of everything that they make over $250,000. Doesn't sound like that much, but we have enough billionaires in this state that that will raise $500 million for childcare and early learning every year from now going forward. And that's amazing. So Crystal, here's how the process works. The bill passed out of the Senate, came to the House, just passed with some amendments out of the House committee. The full House has to vote on it. It then goes back to the Senate and the Senate's got to decide if they're going to vote on the House version or not. It's all got to happen in 10 days. Only geeks like us - think this is exciting. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:44] We think it's super exciting. I think that there's a lot of people even beyond geeks. I mean, only the geeks are following along to every step in this process of the legislation moving, certainly, but my goodness, this is going to help a lot of people. And just thinking about, in this entire conversation about taxation, which is actually pretty popular - polls very well now, people are understanding, now more than they ever have, about just how wide the gap is between those who are regular working class. Whether it's lower, middle-class even upper middle class - completely different conversation, completely different universe, than the ultra wealthy, than the billionaires. And we have our fair share of billionaires here in Washington state because they have gotten off scot-free for so long. This is a great place, has been a great place for billionaires to live and to hoard wealth, and that they make so much money that just taxing 2 out of every 1,000 people can change lives of thousands of families in this state. That's what the stakes are in this conversation. Heather Weiner: [00:05:02] Right now, I'm looking at this spreadsheet with the Department of Revenue data. Okay. Okay. We will not spend the entire half an hour talking about this. [laughter, crosstalk] Nothing more sexy than talking about a spreadsheet you can't see. That's hot. But let me just tell you, look, according to the Department of Revenue, there are over 3.7 million households that file taxes every year. And of those 3.7 million, I'm going to tell you exactly how many people out of those 3.7 million are going to actually have to pay this. Are you ready? 8,000. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:43] Jeez. Heather Weiner: [00:05:44] 8,000. And you know how much money those folks make or have every year - just that's taxable? Crystal Fincher: [00:05:53] How much? Heather Weiner: [00:05:54] No, wait. $9.8 billion, just for those 8,000 people. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:04] Of taxable income? Annually? Heather Weiner: [00:06:08] Taxable capital gain income. [crosstalk] That's not money that they're making by selling gadgets or gidgets, right? Crystal Fincher: [00:06:19] Just money from capital gains. Okay. Heather Weiner: [00:06:20] It's just money from capital gains that they put into the stock market, where rich people trade money back and forth with each other. And then they take it off the top, right? It's basically gambling money, because when you're putting that much money into the stock market, what you're essentially doing is playing poker. And so, you're putting it in, you're trying to see if that bet works, and then you win off of that gambling money. So this is money that is [crosstalk] basically gambling winnings that we should be taxing. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:46] Every year, almost $10 billion of taxable capital gains income. Okay. Heather Weiner: [00:06:52] Okay. All right. All right. Let's not talk about this the whole time. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:55] That was a bigger number than I was prepared for. That was - I knew it was big. I did not know it was that big. That is obscenely huge. Heather Weiner: [00:07:03] Yeah, obscenely huge. Just off the stock market. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:08] Tax it, tax it. Tax it long and tax it hard. Tax it, Tax it. Heather Weiner: [00:07:12] Oh, you're saying the words to me that make me so excited. Let's tax it. Nearly every other state in the country, including our next door neighbors - Idaho, Oregon, California - all tax capital gains. It's time for us to do the same thing. And don't give me that BS argument about how it's an income tax. It's not an income tax. Income is something that you earn. This is from the sale of something. This is essentially a sales tax on the sale that you just did of your stocks. So it is an excise tax. It's a sales tax. There was a great op-ed written by Spitzer Hugh. Spitzer's a renowned constitutional lawyer here in the State of Washington, who said, "Not only is this going to pass a constitutional test, this is actually going to help a whole bunch of other issues." Now, here's what I think is going to happen next, Crystal. I think this is going to pass the House, going to pass the Senate, the governor's going to sign it. And then, conservatives - who want to protect the interests of these super wealthy, uber rich people - are going to try to do a referendum to repeal it. Just like what we saw with sex ed last year. So I think we may be in for a referendum fight. We'll see what happens. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:28] Bring it on. Heather Weiner: [00:08:29] Yeah. Bring it on. You tell people who are still struggling. You tell people who are still unemployed. You tell people who don't have childcare, whose children are being set back by the last year of not getting education, that you don't want to tax 8,000 super rich people in the State of Washington. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:49] Yeah. I think conservatives are - we saw it in last year's elections, I think, where for years and years and years, the kind of knee-jerk reaction to any revenue is - Taxes, taxes are bad. Say taxes, and it's scary, and people are going to run in the other direction. And that actually worked, but it worked too well for too long. And taxes actually fund things that collectively we need and have decided are valuable and necessary and beneficial to our entire society. And we robbed cities and states and localities of tax revenue for so long and created a situation where income is so unequal that we are seeing the effects of that and people have put together that, "Hey, this is actually what happens when not everyone is paying their fair share." When we ask people at the bottom to shoulder the burden for everyone, and then the work and all of the benefits just skyrocket to the people at the top and leave everyone else behind. People are not in the mood for it anymore. Public polling shows that's the case. Last year's elections show that that is the case. People are no longer afraid of the word tax. That's an old, tired boogeyman that does not play anymore. So - Heather Weiner: [00:10:04] No, and in fact, nationally, when now we are talking about Biden administration investing billions and billions of dollars into infrastructure, roads, broadband, repairing our bridges, trains, buses, transit, everything. People really support it. And then the support increases when you tell them the money is coming from big corporations and the super rich. So I think when it comes to childcare and early learning, I think that you say you want to cut funding for people to get childcare because you don't want to tax these 8,000 people? Bring it on. All right. So that's just one hot thing that's moving right now, Crystal. What else do you want to talk about? Crystal Fincher: [00:10:44] One hot thing. Well, look, let's talk about the Seattle mayor's race. Let's talk about what's going on in the realm of spending and fundraising. Heather Weiner: [00:10:54] Oh boy. Are you paying much attention to the Seattle mayor's race or you've got other things going on in your life? Crystal Fincher: [00:11:00] I am not working on anything in the mayor's race. I'm happily not working with anyone or on anything in the Seattle mayor's race. I'm just a bystander. I'm just watching, and looking, and learning, and listening, and doing all of that. I'm just over here in my corner, watching everyone. Heather Weiner: [00:11:19] Well, I'm excited to hear your take on these things, then, as an outsider. Because I am in it deep. I just can't quit Lorena González, I'm sorry. I just think she's fabulous. So full disclosure, I am doing a little bit of work for Lorena González who's running for mayor. So take everything that I say as the extremely biased point of view that it is. Nevertheless, I'll try to be still professional and honest when I say fundraising is very interesting right now. So if you'd just look at the plain SEC data and what's been filed - and filings just came in a couple of days ago - Colleen Echohawk is kicking ass. She's really out-fundraising everybody else right now. And she's doing that mostly through democracy vouchers, which is the way it was intended to work. As someone who helped pass democracy vouchers, I'm thrilled to see how many people are using it. Excuse me. Echohawk's numbers currently say that she is close to $300,000 and remember the cap for people taking democracy vouchers is $400,000 for the primaries. So she's about to max out. I think González - Lorena - is not that far behind her. She started a little bit about a month after Echohawk did. So, Echohawk got a little bit of a month lead there, going and picking up vouchers first - smart of her and González is not far behind her. Then there's Andrew Grant Houston, who has raised $137,000. And this is phenomenal - really great activist, architect, housing activist, homelessness activist, and also 100% behind defunding the police. And so, he's really captured people's attention on that. He's raised $137,000. Although if you look at his spending, he spent about half of it on fundraising, or half of it already. And really, when you're in a race where you have a cap like this of a very low amount, the race isn't so much who can raise the most, because everybody will get there. The race really is about who can spend the least until the moment when they're ready to start talking to voters. So I think it's interesting that Houston has already spent half of his, half of his funds. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:34] Just a pause in that, when you say, until the moment they're ready to talk to the voters, people are like, "Well, aren't they talking to voters right now?" And early on in campaigns, a lot of it is trying to fundraise, trying to get endorsements, establish credibility. And so, early on, there's a lot of talking to insiders, talking to people who are involved in the political process, are involved in organizations in one form or another. There are hundreds of thousands of voters that need to be talked to. And usually, that happens later on in a campaign as you get closer to the primary. So throughout June and July, as we get closer to the August primary, that's when campaigns are really focused, almost exclusively, on just making sure voters know who they are and understand their message. So that happens later. It's really expensive. And you need a lot of resources, a lot of money, to do it. Heather Weiner: [00:14:33] Yep. That's absolutely right. Direct voter contact is really what candidates should be spending the majority of their money on, not on fundraising and not on consultants like me, to be honest with you. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:43] Not on consultants. Yep. Heather Weiner: [00:14:45] Don't spend it on me, spend it on voter contact. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:48] Spend a little, but don't spend much. Heather Weiner: [00:14:50] No, don't even spend that much. Because I'm going to give you a lot of advice, but when it really comes down to it, what you want to be spending your money on is mail, you want to be spending it on advertising, you want to be spending it on people knocking on doors, on materials, on events. You want to be spending it on things where you can reach the biggest number of likely voters who are likely going to vote for you. And that's what we talk about when we say, "Get out the vote." So in this race, because it's going to be capped at $400,000, I am very interested to see who's going to be spending money on advertising, who's going to be spending it on mail, and who's just going to be spending it on grassroots door knocking during a pandemic. It's going to be really interesting to see what happens there. Now, you're going to ask, Crystal, because I am Crystal's crystal ball. You're going to say, "Well, is anybody going to do an independent expenditure?" And under the Seattle rules, if somebody comes in - if everybody is using the voucher system, which is what's happening right now. Bruce Harrell's using it, everybody's using it. If an independent group comes in and starts spending money for one candidate or against a candidate, the Ethics and Elections Commission will then lift that $400,000 cap and allow people to continue to raise more money, to keep up with the influence of that independent expenditure. So I'm very interested to see who might be spending money in this. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:11] Also very interested to see who might be spending money in this. And one entity who has announced that they won't be involved in the race, as we've seen them be involved before, is the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. That was an interesting announcement. What was your read on that? Heather Weiner: [00:16:30] As I said to the reporter, Daniel Beekman, about the... No, it was Paul Roberts in the Seattle Times, who wrote - they had this headline, Seattle Chamber Executive Director Rachel Smith Calls for a Truce. I was like, "I think it's more of a surrender." Because you don't call a truce after you've lost over and over and over again. And they really had a big misstep under the leadership of Marilyn Strickland when they raised millions of dollars, spent it to try to defeat a progressive slate of candidates, and the voters had a big backlash against that. So I don't think it's really... Crystal Fincher: [00:17:11] [inaudible] . Heather Weiner: [00:17:11] What did you say? Crystal Fincher: [00:17:12] Soundly and thoroughly rejected them after they spent a ton of money. Heather Weiner: [00:17:17] A ton of money. So, I also don't believe it. I mean, I think that we're not going to see money being spent directly from CASE, the Chamber's PAC. But I do think we're going to see it coming through some of those other groups, again, like Moms for Seattle. And I think the charter amendment is a proxy for that. Because - Crystal Fincher: [00:17:37] It's 100% of proxy for that. Heather Weiner: [00:17:38] Do you think so too? Crystal Fincher: [00:17:39] Oh my gosh. That's absolutely what it is. And to your point, the spending isn't going away. The title above the spending is going to change, and it's going to be just funneled through other groups and other means. So it's not going to come through through the Chamber's PAC but it's going to come through others. Heather Weiner: [00:17:59] Yeah. I mean, we're already seeing it in terms of the money that is currently going into the new PAC that's going to try to pass this charter amendment. So for your listeners who don't know - Crystal Fincher: [00:18:10] Compassionate Seattle, Heather ... It's compassion. Heather Weiner: [00:18:12] Yeah, okay. Compassionate Seattle. So for your listeners who don't know - Tim Burgess, bless his heart, is a nice guy. But served as the president of the Seattle Chamber, not Seattle Chamber, of the Seattle Council. And nevertheless, despite the fact that he was on the Council, now thinks that the Council is horrible, and blames the Council for everything that's going wrong. Really what he means when he says that is Kshama Sawant. So what he is doing, because he knows he can't run people directly against the Council, is he's trying to attack the Council by running a charter amendment. And the charter amendment, for your listeners who don't know about this yet, it's called Compassionate Seattle. And it claims to address the homelessness emergency that we have had - well, it's been declared for more than five years now, but it doesn't have any source of funding. So it sets a whole bunch of lofty goals - most of which are already in place and are being implemented with some success, some without success, by the current mayor. Have been authorized by the current City Council. And this, I think really, brilliantly - in a bad way, brilliantly - turns the table on the City Council by blaming the City Council and then saying, "We're going to make a charter amendment that requires the City and the City Council to do X, Y and Z." X, Y and Z, the City Council's already doing. And then it says, "But we're not going to give you any money to do it. You've got to take money from other programs." And I don't know what the voters are going to think about that. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:49] Well, it's interesting. So we've talked about this the last couple of weeks on the show and have certainly talked about how, from its title to how they're trying to spin this charter amendment change, it is wrapped in the language of compassion, wrapped in compassionate language. There's very much - that is the rhetoric direction that they've decided to take. Because although it's a lot of the same people who last year were talking - and frankly offensive, just very blatantly offensive and incorrect terms about people who are unhoused - equating them with crime, and everyone just wants to be, and they're refusing to get help, and they should be swept, and just get them off of the sidewalk. And viewing the problem with people being unhoused as one that the people who are looking at them - who have homes and warm places to be, and food, and are comfortable - they're the ones who are being inconvenienced by having to look at people and encounter people who do not have homes. Very much from that group. And so, they were defeated soundly, decisively. Seattle voters just wholesale rejected that. So now, that group is back, with prettier language this time, saying, "No, this is compassion. And what we're going to do is we're going to make sure that there are 2,000 new units built, that there's some money available. And then we're going to sweep everyone and have the police get them off sidewalks and confiscate the few belongings that they do have, and so on and so forth." Except that one, the amount of housing that they've identified does not come anywhere even close to what the actual need is. It is largely planned for already, from both the mayor and Council. There is no disagreement that there needs to be a lot more housing than they have planned. But what they have planned looks like what is proposed here. There is nothing substantively new or innovative. And in the timelines that they propose - as we've seen with this Durkan administration and the Council - you can appropriate money to be spent and the mayor can choose not to spend it and they can not act on it. It can take a long time to actually have policies that are approved and funded actually implemented. Certainly the case with housing. So yeah, we can say, "Hey, we've authorized the building of new units of housing." But those new units of housing may not materialize for years, as we have continued to see. Meanwhile, today, you're going to say, "Well, there is new housing appropriated. I know that you have nowhere to go, and that doesn't help you, or change this conversation in any way, but you need to get out of here and go somewhere else, mysteriously, just not here in this area, even though you have nowhere else to go." Heather Weiner: [00:22:58] Yeah, I think it's interesting to see what the positions are of the mayoral candidates. So Colleen Echohawk, who, of course, comes from a homelessness advocacy background, is in favor of it. And interestingly, a lot of the organizations, including the Chief Seattle Club that she is Executive Director of have been listed as endorsers of it. So that's really interesting. Jessyn Farrell has said, "It really depends on the next mayor." Kind of implicitly saying, a lot of the problems are this current mayor who has not been implementing or spending the money that the Seattle Council has authorized. Lorena González has said, "Great first step, but we need to go a lot bigger than this. We need to actually have a big source of funding in terms of progressive revenue. We need to make these goals much bigger so that we are able to keep up with the rising needs of people who need housing." That's not going to go away, particularly with the ending of eviction bans. And she's also said, "We need to deal with the lack of affordable housing and the way that the City is zoned." That such a large percentage of private property is zoned single family housing. And there's very little way for us to build multi-family and affordable housing. Bruce Harrell has said that he's in favor and Houston has said, "Absolutely not. 100% against it." So I think, again, it is going to be an interesting litmus test for mayoral candidates, and it is a proxy for attacking the City Council, which is going to also be very interesting to watch. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:45] It is going to be interesting to watch. I'm definitely very curious to see how the candidates for both the mayor and City Council talk about this charter amendment moving forward. You mentioned that there are some groups that have been helpful in areas, and who have been helpful in providing services for unhoused folks - who have signed on, notably Lisa Daugaard and the Public Defenders Association have been supportive of this bill. We had a conversation with Erica Barnett, who has been covering this at PubliCola for quite some time. And she brought up an excellent point - was that service providers, who actually stand to benefit from this in terms of revenue and contracts - we've seen service providers, some of them, come out in favor of it. But people who aren't - we haven't seen much of that from that community. Certainly, advocates, we've seen a lot of opposition. And there seems to not be communication or input that was gathered from people with lived experience. And from a lot of other very valuable, very knowledgeable expert resources on not just the issue of homelessness. But specifically in Seattle, and what we're dealing with in terms of the service and provider ecosystem, in relation to the need and how that's all playing together. So it certainly seems like there are a lot of voices missing from this conversation that should have been included and that should continue to be included. It will be interesting to see how people talk about, and account for, and respond to that. And how organizations who stand to profit from this, frankly - receive a lot of revenue from this and certainly, that helps the security of the folks in those organizations. No one wants people to wind up on the street or struggling themselves financially because of this. And even people who oppose this amendment don't want that. But how do you talk about that and account for that? And is that a motivator? That, if that were not a factor, may have impacted whether or not they chose to support this charter amendment. And certainly with the voices that have been left out of the conversation, and with some of the inadequacies of its - part of its stated intent - which I think people question is genuine or not. But it certainly seems like there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the housing and shelter end of this, for that conversation to be taken seriously. Heather Weiner: [00:27:35] So look for ads about the Compassionate Seattle charter amendment, as it's moving forward, that say things where the bad guy in this case is pictures of the City Council, and particularly people who are currently running, right? So Teresa Mosqueda, who's running for re-election, Lorena, who's running for governor - mayor, sorry, I skipped a step. Running for mayor. And Brianna Thomas, who is also running for City Council, who currently is Chief of Staff for Lorena. So that is who this charter amendment is going to be targeting as the bad guys, all women of color. Instead of really naming what's really happening here, which is that we have a massive wealth inequality. And going back to my first topic, no revenue to pay for all of the things that need to happen. And that happened 10 years ago during the great recession of 2008 and 2009, when our state cut funding resources for mental health, housing, and a whole bunch of other services. And that is why we are now seeing a homelessness epidemic in the state. Thank you so much, by the way, giving me a big soap box because this is - I think everything and every problem that the state is currently facing comes down to wealth inequality, and that we do not tax the rich enough. And I think we have a great solution in front of us right now, and I'm really excited about it. Can you tell, Crystal? I'm such a geek. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:04] I can tell and I'm absolutely excited about it. I think that this is a reflection of - I think, obviously, we work in politics. Conversations in politics have been different. They are different today than they were 10 years ago, 15 and 20 years ago. I think a lot of people are still hesitant to really acknowledge the reality that has been made apparent from - whichever type of data point you want to look at, whether it's polling or just general public sentiment, whether it's who's being elected, whether it's who the most vocal people are. No matter how you slice it, people are infuriated about the issues that are driven by income inequality. They know that is the cause and they are upset that people are not doing more to fix it. They are demanding action and showing up and holding people accountable who are not taking action. And so, this is long overdue and I'm happy to see that it is finally here with this one issue. And hopefully, this is the beginning of a conversation and not the end of it, when it comes to more fair and progressive taxation. Heather Weiner: [00:30:32] Well, we did not talk about the recent horrific shootings and murders of people by police, the horrific shootings by lone gunmen across the country. I mean, we've got a lot more to talk about. So are we going to stay on for an extra hour? No, we got to go. Don't we? Crystal Fincher: [00:30:51] We do have to go. Certainly that is being talked about in a lot of arenas. I'm very online. You can see my thoughts on Twitter about most things. Heather Weiner: [00:31:03] [crosstalk] Why don't you remind us of your Twitter account? Crystal Fincher: [00:31:09] Wait, what'd you say? Heather Weiner: [00:31:10] Remind us of what your Twitter account is. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:12] Oh, it's @finchfrii, F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. But, I mean, it's been a tough week, and when you have to ask, which police shooting? Which police shooting of a child? Which mass shooting? Which - we can't even keep them straight, they're coming so frequently, they're coming so relentlessly, and they're just so blatant and obvious and egregious. And the accounts that differ. Yeah. I won't get into all of that. That's - that's a lot. And - Heather Weiner: [00:31:50] Well, thank goodness for the people who we have elected to our State Senate and our State House who are changing the laws so that juries can hold police accountable for murders, which has been almost impossible for juries to do because of the way that the law has been written. So thank goodness we have elected those fantastic people, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens there. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:16] Absolutely. And as you mentioned, that is our time. So I do want to thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, April 16th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful cohost today was Seattle political consultant, Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner, W-E-I-N-E-R. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks and 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 mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And you know what? Reviews actually make a really big difference in the discovery of podcasts. If you like the show or whatever your thoughts are, please feel free to share a review on iTunes or wherever else you are listening. And if you would like to get a full transcript of the episode, it's available as well as links to the resources referenced on the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. So thanks for tuning in, and we'll talk to you next time.

Erica C. Barnett joins Crystal on the show this week to discuss developments in Seattle's response to the homelessness crisis, the ironic language of the Compassion Seattle Initiative, the cancellation of a needle exchange program in Federal Way, and calls for the King County sheriff to resign in light of a recently publicized email articulating her support for a cop who unjustly murdered a civilian. 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, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett, and read more of their work at Publicola.com. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Watch our guest today, Erica C. Barnett, talk with Omari Salisbury about the “Compassion Seattle” Charter Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohb-H65i9AY  Learn more about the proposed charter amendment here: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/04/02/group-seeks-amendment-to-charter-requiring-homeless-services-and-clearing-of-parks/  Find more information about the Federal Way decision to end needle exchanges here: https://publicola.com/2021/04/08/hostile-architecture-at-the-library-needle-exchange-ban-in-federal-way-and-a-roads-heavy-transpo-bil/  Read about calls for the King County Sheriff to resign here: https://publicola.com/2021/04/09/calls-for-king-county-sheriff-resignation-expand-beyond-county-council/   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on policies in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and author of Quitter: A memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:48] Great to be here, Crystal.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:50] Great to have you here with us again. It's always an enlightening time when you're here. And as one Seattle City Councilmember noted, It seems like Erica's always on there.  Erica Barnett: [00:01:01] Ooh, which one? Crystal Fincher: [00:01:06] So you're - people are hearing you.  Erica Barnett: [00:01:08] Awesome.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:08] And I wanted to start off talking - with an issue that is really relevant in the City of Seattle right now. A proposed charter amendment - an initiative that's being brought up that they'll be gathering signatures for, from a group called Compassion Seattle. We talked about this a little bit last week, but do you want to go over what it is and who is putting that forward? Erica Barnett: [00:01:33] Sure. Compassion Seattle is a group of organizations and individuals. So the original proposal was made by former City Councilmember, Tim Burgess. But it's being funded primarily at this point by the Downtown Seattle Association. There's also some organizational support from the Public Defender Association and the Chief Seattle Club and the Downtown Emergency Service Center, so some homeless service providers.  And what the initiative would do is it would set a mandate in the City charter. So it would amend the city's constitution to mandate that the City spend 12% of its budget every year on a special human services fund that would pay for homeless services, behavioral health, and things like that. And it would also mandate 2,000 new units, beds of shelter. It says shelter or housing, but I, think that realistically, what we're talking about is shelter, within the first year after the charter amendment passes. So it constrains future mayors and City Council members in that way. And then in addition, it says that as this housing/shelter becomes available, the City shall endeavor to keep, or it shall keep, parks and public spaces open and clear of encampments, which I would say opponents and just people kind of reading between the lines would say is a return to sweeps. So that's the broad strokes of what it does. Still a lot of unanswered questions about some of those mandates in particular.  Crystal Fincher: [00:03:20] Well and still a lot of questions, certainly. One of the first ones that I have just currently is - What exactly is different in this proposed charter amendment than the current state now? Are we currently funding anywhere close to 12%? Is that - that's being certainly billed as a big amount and, Hey, we're really investing. Is that a big investment?  Erica Barnett: [00:03:44] Well, I mean, it will be a big investment, if it ends up being additive to what the City is already providing to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And I know that's a bit of a wonky answer, but we are supposedly going to a regional approach to homelessness. And so the question - I mean, a huge unanswered question with that 12% of the budget, which is about, I think, $185 million a year at the current budget size, is that - is this going to be the City remaining in the business of providing homeless services, or is this going to the King County Authority? So that's a whole other giant policy question of - are we moving toward regionalism or is this a step in the other direction? The 12% number was apparently based on it being 1% higher than what we spent in the 2021 budget, but that is sort of a very, very - not misleading, but not representative amount. We usually - the City usually spends considerably less than that. So more like 9%. So this would be a pretty big hike and it would commit the City in perpetuity. So, no matter what happens, if there's a giant earthquake or other disaster, if we have another economic depression - no matter what, this money would have to be spent in this way. And so it really is - sorry that this is a legalistic term and I'm sure they've vetted this legally, but it is a prior restraint on future city councils and on mayors, to spend this money in this way. And to use the City's constitution to do that, as I've reported on PubliCola, is unprecedented. It's just, it's not usually what we amend the City charter for. So there's a lot of things about this proposal that are highly unusual and unprecedented.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:46] Definitely. And this initiative was announced just over a week ago, but you have been reporting at PubliCola on this for months and saw this coming. So I guess, as you're looking at what the actual impact of this is going to be in terms of housing units and in terms of sweeps, what does it look like?  Erica Barnett: [00:06:11] Well, I think that the - if you look back at the early drafts of the amendment, and I'll have a story coming up on Monday about this as well with more details. But if you look back at the early drafts, it was all about sweeps. And I think that one sort of reason some of these groups that are not business groups bought into it is that some of that language was eliminated.  But where this came from was polling that found a tremendous amount of support for encampment sweeps. And so, the early language was all about removing encampments, keeping parks and public spaces clear of encampments, and it was much more punitive. So I think that, you know, that language isn't quite in there as much anymore, but the fact that that's how it originated says to me that this is fundamentally about removing encampments from parks and public spaces where they are visible. And whatever the actual language - it's important to know that context of that's where it comes from.  I think that because there's so many unanswered questions at this point, it's a little hard to say what the long-term impact is going to be. But I think that there - when you have a very vague language, like emergency housing including everything from enhanced shelter to permanent supportive housing, that tends to default to the cheapest, lowest, common denominator of those things. So if you're saying you have to build a thousand units of something, it's much, much easier to put in a thousand shelter beds in a congregate, enhanced shelter than it is to build a thousand units of permanent supportive housing. And of course that's impossible in one year. It's just not going to happen that quickly. So what I perceive this as is - a mandate for shelter that probably won't happen because there is no historical precedent for the City building shelter that fast. I mean, look at the pandemic. We stood up 95 new shelter beds in the first six months, not a thousand, not 500. 95. So the City is very slow about this stuff, and there's a little bit of, I think, magical thinking going on that if we just tell the City they have to do something, they're going to do it. We tried that with the emergency declaration on homelessness and that's been five and a half years now. And the emergency is still here and if anything, worse than ever. So, I don't think the immediate impact that you're going to see, in terms of actual housing, is going to be very great.  I mean, I could be proved wrong. That's certainly why some of the supporters from the kind of more left-leaning, homeless service provider community are - say they are supporting it. Because it actually does set sort of priorities and principles out, but let's also look at practice and look at what the City has done historically. And there's just not - there's not a whole lot of promising precedent there.  Crystal Fincher: [00:09:16] Yeah. And you actually raised a really interesting point that caught a lot of people's attention when they announced. This isn't - certainly with the original language and as many people see the intent, it is being supported by a lot of people who have been very in favor of sweeps without any services and seem to be primarily concerned with doing away with visible homelessness and not actually providing shelter for people. With the language around, one, just the name of the organization now - Compassion Seattle. It just sounds, I mean, how can anything bad happen from a group named Compassion Seattle? I mean, come on. How could you not trust that? But at the same time, there is a coalition of organizations and people like Lisa Daugaard from the Public Defenders Association, who people associate with the LEAD program, other programs that have been lauded as beneficial from social justice advocates and others. And so they're looking at this going, Well, why is she on board? Are they on board? Why does this - has this attracted someone who seems to be pushing in the other direction, I guess, what have you seen from that? And what have you heard from them as to why they're supporting.  Erica Barnett: [00:10:46] Well, I mean, what I've heard from Lisa and from other groups in their statements - Chief Seattle Club put out a statement and other groups have as well - is that, as I said, this sort of sets out principles and it doesn't contain language that mandates sweeps without any kind of services. So it ties those two together, in principle. I think, and I've written a little bit about this too - the Downtown Seattle Associa-, uh, the Downtown Emergency Service Center, and the PDA, and Chief Seattle Club, and Plymouth Housing as well - I mean, these are not as unlikely of allies as you might think.  Simplistically, it's easy to just think that, Oh, these are homeless advocates and these are bad business guys. Right? But the Downtown Seattle Association and DESC and all these groups have been working together on various things for many, many years. I mean, LEAD is Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion. They started out as an organization in Belltown that came out of complaints about encampments and about drugs and - actually primarily drug users and crime in the Belltown area. And it's - it was done in collaboration with police. So, you know, the directors of Plymouth Housing and the Chief Seattle Club sit on the board of the Downtown Seattle Association. The CEO of DSA is on the board of the Downtown Emergency Service Center. So these organizations are all connected, and I don't mean that in a conspiratorial way, just that they've worked together for a really long time and it's not really that surprising.  I mean, I think that advocates, the fact that advocates have not signed on - advocates like Real Change, like the Lived Experience Coalition, which is made up of individuals who actually have lived experience of homelessness. They told me yesterday that they have not even been consulted on this initiative and they have asked to be - they've asked to be included in conversations and they say that they have been refused or just didn't get any response. So, look at who's not there, I think, and that is more telling than the fact that these downtown groups are there and are at the table. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:06] Yeah, certainly. And again, as we've talked about in candidate races with endorsements and figuring out where people stand and where their interests seem to align, follow the money. Who is funding this and who is likely to benefit from it? And that's pretty illuminating, but in this entire conversation, we will certainly continue to keep paying attention. They will be collecting signatures - will probably be able to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot. So we will see, as this unfolds, but certainly a lot of people are asking questions. A lot of people are skeptical, and there's a lot of people who have not been heard from, as you said. So I guess looking - in a related issue - currently what we're dealing with, there are more sweeps planned right now. Do you want to talk about those?  Erica Barnett: [00:14:09] Sure. So the City is, well, this week actually, this morning, as we're talking on Friday - the City's parks department removed an encampment at the Rainier Playfield. And it was a small encampment that was inside the dugout. It was a number of men who all are Spanish speakers who were removed from that place. And the City has told me that four of them were moved to the Executive Pacific Hotel, or at least offered spaces there. I'm not sure if they are actually there right now. And then the rest of them are being offered some kind of shelter.  So that's kind of the first in a wave that's going to be happening over the next few weeks, I'm told. Miller Park, on Capitol Hill, is next. They've got a playfield there that kids, I guess, play Little League there and there's a school a few hundred feet away. So that's happening. There's one up in Ballard at Gilman Playfield. And then - or Gilman Playground rather. And another happening at the University Playground after that. So, this is just kind of the beginning of a ramp up, I think, of returning to encampment removals, which have been mostly suspended during the pandemic because it's the danger of moving people around. I would argue that moving people around is dangerous to those people no matter what. So yeah, so we're back at this again. And the reasoning given is that it interferes with playfield use, it interferes with children being able to get to school safely, and all the same kind of reasons you always hear for these encampment removals. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:54] Well, you know - speaking of a reason that we always hear. In two separate instances, we have heard people say, Well, you know, if there is trafficking going on within encampments, and there may be sex trafficking or trafficking of minors - have you ever heard of that happening, or are aware of any instance of that happening ever in Seattle? Erica Barnett: [00:16:19] I'll be honest with you, Crystal. I mean, yes, that does happen at encampments. I mean, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. That certainly does happen. Not on the level that it would be proportional to the response. Because I think instead of using a scalpel like we do with housed people, where we target the individual who is engaging in the activity, as opposed to saying, you know, we're going to sweep everybody who lives in the house. We should be doing that in encampments. There's certainly, I mean, there's bad stuff happening in encampments just like there's bad stuff happening in people's houses and people's apartments across the City.  So I would say that that has happened, and sex trafficking has happened in encampments from what I understand. And I don't want to whitewash that or sugarcoat it, but that's not - but to me, that is still not a justification for saying we're going to remove every encampment, or we're going to remove every single person at this 60-tent encampment where something bad or illegal was happening in one tent. I mean, we don't do that with any other kind of crime. It's only with homeless and vulnerable people that we use that kind of broad brush and just say, We're going to get rid of all of them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:17:40] Yeah, absolutely, and appreciate the perspective. It is important to address the problem and not just do that broad brush. It doesn't matter how many people we negatively impact if we are trying to address a problem. And also this week, in Federal Way. Federal Way decided to ban needle exchanges. Do you want to talk about what happened there?  Erica Barnett: [00:18:17] Yeah. There was a City Council vote this week, I think on, Oh boy, Wednesday? I don't know - time is meaningless. But essentially, the precipitating factor - so what happened before, leading up to this meeting, was that there's this needle exchange that is run by King County. It's called SCORE. And it's a van that goes out upon request when people call and say, I would like to exchange needles. So you're talking about - generally, drug users. And they go out there and a lot of times, they will go to a Park and Ride in that area and do the needle exchange. So it's on request.  So a woman, you know, neighborhood activist woman, called and said, I don't have any needles to exchange, but can I get some needles? She claims that she was given a hundred needles and this kind of turned into a giant social media nightmare like a lot of things like this do. And it just kept getting blown up and blown up more and more. And so this ended up leading to King County, actually, agreeing to suspend this program down there. And then last, or earlier this week, the City Council voted to affirm that, and to extend it, so that they can convene a working group to talk about what to do about this, I would say, non-existent problem.  Crystal Fincher: [00:19:46] Yeah, definitely a non-existent problem. And making sure this does not get mixed in with the conversation about safe consumption sites, which, you know, that has been a conversation, definitely in South King County, that has been used to scare people and as a wedge issue.  With needle exchanges, these have been around for decades and are very uncontroversial from a public health perspective. They've been around, they've been established. It is a benefit to all of our health. We have a very recent example of how our health depends on the health of our neighbors. And if there is a vector of risk that we can address, we should do that. And that's really what needle exchanges do. We are all healthier when we make sure that everyone in our community is healthier. And if we can reduce the risk from activity that is going to happen - people are currently using, and even if we're unhappy about it in our own minds, it doesn't solve or address substance use disorder. So people are going to be using. If they're going to be doing that, we want to make sure that they are not inflicting more harm than they would be otherwise. And actually make sure that they're alive and healthy so that if they can get back on a healthier path then excellent. But there's no reason to just let our neighbors die if there's a better option. Really. Frankly.  Erica Barnett: [00:21:22] Yeah. What was so - what was so shocking to me - I mean, because I've been a reporter for a long time and these debates about drug use have really evolved over the years. And there's much more of an acceptance of the idea of harm reduction. And what was shocking to me at this meeting, or maybe not shocking, but surprising, was that people in Washington state were saying things like, I don't, you know, if they get AIDS, I don't care. And, well the drugs are going to get them anyway, so who cares if they get hepatitis. And, if you give them needles, it will make them do drugs.  And I mean, which is truly like the kind of stuff I heard as a kid, growing up in the eighties, about condoms. I mean, it just - it doesn't make sense that condoms cause sex and it doesn't make sense that clean needles cause drug use. The reason for needle exchanges, just to be clear is - if you're reusing needles over and over again, first of all, as you said, there, it becomes a vector. I mean, you can get hepatitis, you can get HIV. All kinds of diseases are communicable that way. But also if you have old needles that aren't sharp, it leads to abscesses. It leads to horrible infections. It leads to, frankly, hospital stays, which costs all of us as a society, money to put people in the hospital for weeks for abscesses that - for people who are uninsured. So even if you're just looking at it from a selfish perspective, it's not a good policy to let people get infected and sick and need long hospital stays, which is truly what happens and where the needle exchange movement emerged out of - was that people were getting very, very sick and being sick didn't deter them from using drugs either. So, there's just absolutely no evidence that denying people access to clean needles and clean drug paraphernalia causes them to stop using drugs because that's just not how addiction works.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:35] Yeah. It's not a choice at that point. If someone is experiencing addiction, then choice has been removed from the equation and they are experiencing a health issue. And so to simply act like they could choose to stop, or to not care that they can't, and to even get them to a place where that's an option, we need to keep them healthy. It's just, it's just sad.  And to me, I see the connection between this conversation about "Seattle is Dying" and that whole thing, which a lot of people in Seattle can very easily dismiss because the portrait that they're painting of Seattle does not ring true from anyone who lives in the City and is moving about. I mean, it's very disingenuous. They're telling a - it's propaganda. It is not reality. But for people in the suburbs, I don't think people really understand that Seattle is not actually the audience for that. It's the suburbs. And it's people who do not have an immediate experience in Seattle and who they're trying to inoculate against public health guidance. The data that is becoming increasingly clear and conclusive, in a variety of different areas saying, Yes, we have many shared concerns with public health. The health of our neighbor directly impacts us - our immediate health financially. It does. And that helping people instead of criminalizing them is generally the most effective method to deal with most problems that have a health or substance use component. So, there are people who are very, very interested from the religious right, from the alt-right, and who just see this as a front on their culture war. And that is how they're battling against it. And so this propaganda and scaring people that, Hey, Seattle treated people like humans and look what they got - it's dying. And that is being heard and reacted to in suburbs, and rural areas, and areas outside of Seattle. And it's not a coincidence that we're seeing this kind of backlash. And that we're not just having a conversation about the policies in Seattle today. This is leading to the repeal of long-term, decades-long accepted, uncontroversial issues and practices that now they're using to advance their agenda on the other side, really. So it's just really troubling.  Erica Barnett: [00:26:23] Yeah, it'd be nice if people listened to public health experts instead of the testimony of somebody who says they knew one person who used drugs and they responded well to a tough love approach, which is secondhand, anecdotal, and not based in any actual public health data or expertise.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:44] Not based in any public health data at all. I mean, everything flies in the face of it. This is uncontroversial from a public health perspective. It just was used by people who wanted to advance a social agenda. And who felt that humanizing people was not compatible with that agenda. And treating people like people - like people we care for, and not just not caring if people die. So I hope that we see a change of that. And certainly there are a lot of local elections this year that are going to dramatically influence that conversation. And I hope you all get involved in that wherever you're listening to this from.  There's another issue this week. Looking at the King County Sheriff, the current King County Sheriff, who was elected, but actually will be - the Sheriff is going to transition to an appointed position after a vote last year by voters in King County. But the Sheriff is not having a good time right now. And lots of people from lots of different corners are asking for her resignation. You want to explain why? Erica Barnett: [00:27:57] Sure. So, and this is based on reporting by my reporter Paul Kiefer, as well as some great reporting in the South Seattle Emerald by Carolyn Bick. Great reporting by both of these reporters about a department-wide email that the Sheriff, Mitzi Johanknecht, I believe is how you say it, sent after the killing, or about the killing of Tommy Le in Burien in 2017. And in this email, she basically said that the settlement with King County for Tommy Le's death was not uncalled for, but that she understood why the deputy shot Le. A couple of the shots landed in his back. It was clear that he was not in fact, as the deputy argued, running at him or a threat in any way. But what she said in the email was that, It was an understandable decision and that she did not entirely agree with the decision to settle. So this is causing a lot of consternation on the city- on the County Council. And this week, State Senator Joe Nguyen joined the chorus and said that she should resign. Now, I don't know that that is going to have any impact on her directly. There's going to be an appointment process that comes up. It will probably not include her among the candidates, but I have not heard that she has any plans to resign so far. So it looks like, at this point, we're going to have to wait to see that appointment process play out.  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:46] Yeah, certainly it looks like that. She just did a King 5 interview. I feel like it was three days ago, but this week - days run into each other for me. So in the past she did that and certainly said that she did not plan on resigning, that she has no plans to resign, and really defended her actions. And is going on a tour to try and cover things up, and I guess get beyond this crisis for her, but, it certainly is troubling. She certainly is not reading the room. Just, you know, this is a conclusive finding. This is not - this seems like it should have been out of the realm of opinion by this time with the data and evidence that came out. There doesn't seem to be room for question about what happened and that it wasn't correct. There were King County Councilmembers who, right after the decision said, Hey, we legally could not comment while this was going on, but now that it has settled, this is the bare minimum that the family should have received. And they also should have received an apology that this was wrong. And for her not to be able to engage with that just further underscores why a lot of people say, Hey, this conversation about reform - it's not actually working for a lot of people, because if that is the attitude that we're dealing with in that extreme circumstance where it looks pretty conclusive that the version of events given by the deputy did not match the version of events that actually happened. And that that was an outcome that was not necessary. And that if it's not necessary to kill someone, then someone shouldn't wind up dead.  Erica Barnett: [00:31:42] Yeah. It's interesting to sort of contrast the way - you know, looking at the Sheriff's response to this and sort of saying, She understands why this deputy did what he did and he made a tough decision. And it - that feels like the kind of statement that you would hear from police chiefs and sheriffs maybe a decade ago. And now it seems as though there's, in most cases, at least some lip service to the idea of reform from chiefs and from people who are high up in law enforcement. So what struck me about it is, Wow, this is just such a throwback attitude. And not to say that the Seattle Police Department has made meaningful strides toward reform and certainly not defending them in any way, but just to go out of your way and cross 12 lanes of traffic that you don't need to cross to say, to defend the actions of somebody who has pretty unequivocally acted badly. Just, I think, speaks to how behind the times and how the Sheriff is and how inappropriate that kind of leadership is for 2021.  So in some ways I think it really validates the decision - I mean, we'll see who the County Council ultimately appoints, or the commission that's going to be discussing the appointments. But it does speak to the reasons that the voters passed this initiative to have an appointed sheriff rather than an elected one.  Crystal Fincher: [00:33:22] Absolutely. And that is our time, actually, for today.  Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on this Friday, April 9th, 2021. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler and our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett. That's Erica with a "C" and on PubliCola.com. You can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery anywhere right now. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F I N C H F R I I. And now you can follow Hacks and 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 show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed.  Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

In the first Seedcast podcast episode of 2021, Chief Seattle Club Executive Director Colleen Echohawk (Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma), who is currently running to be the first Indigenous mayor of Seattle, Washington. Colleen talks about how her Indigenous identity and the inspiring matriarchs in her life shaped her as a leader. Topics include Indigenous farming and Native Works’ Sovereignty Farm, Chief Seattle Club’s new Native housing project, seed keeping, and setting aside assumptions about others. Produced by Felipe Contreras, who shares some of his story as well; hosted by Jessica Ramirez.

“Over the last three years in cities and on reserves and reservations across the continent, I have listened to Native people’s stories of loss, injustice and resilience. They are stories that echo Chief Peguis’ story. In myriad ways, each narrator’s life had been shaped by that same struggle: how to share space with a settler nation whose essential aim is to take all that is ours.” These are words from an article oral historian Sara Sinclair wrote for Salon last year, speaking about her mission to hear and share contemporary Indigenous stories. This mission led to the creation of her edited collection How We Go Home: Voices from Indigenous North America. It gathered inclusive and diverse narratives from Indigenous voices, with a common thread: all of their lives have been shaped by loss, injustice, and resilience. Sinclair was joined in this virtual conversation by two of the narrators from How We Go Home, to discuss their own stories and experiences. Join them for this impactful and essential conversation about the cruel, ongoing dispossession of Indigenous people in North America—and their astounding spiritual wealth and fortitude. Sara Sinclair is an oral historian, writer, and educator of Cree-Ojibwe and settler descent. She is the editor of How We Go Home: Voices from Indigenous North America. Sinclair teaches in the Oral History Masters Program at Columbia University. She has contributed to the Columbia Center for Oral History Research’s Covid-19 Oral History, Narrative, and Memory Archive; Obama Presidency Oral History; and Robert Rauschenberg Oral History Project She has conducted oral histories for the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and the International Labor Organization, among others. She is co-editor of Robert Rauschenberg: An Oral History. Althea Guiboche (Métis/Ojibwe/Salteaux) is a narrator in the oral history book, How We Go Home: Voices from Indigenous North America. After experiencing homelessness with her own young children, Althea became a community advocate for Winnipeg’s most vulnerable populations. She started the organization Got Bannock?, which serves meals to hundreds of people, in response to the constant need she saw around her. Althea helped to develop a definition of Indigenous homelessness in Canada that considers the structural issues contributing to the disproportionate number of Indigenous people among Canada’s homeless communities. Buy the Book: https://bookshop.org/books/how-we-go-home-voices-from-indigenous-north-america-9781642594089/9781642592719  Presented by Town Hall Seattle, Chief Seattle Club, and Urban Native Education Alliance. To make a donation or become a Town Hall Seattle member click here. 

Paul Hillaire-Villaluz is Native American and homeless. Although he enjoys his life outdoors, he finds community in the Chief Seattle Club, a place where urban homeless Native people can go for food, showers, and drug help. Paul tells his story and explains how the club has impacted him. | **RadioActive Snapshots: 10 years of stories by Seattle teens - new episodes every Thursday**

Paul Hillaire-Villaluz is Native American and homeless. Although he enjoys his life outdoors, he finds community in the Chief Seattle Club, a place where urban homeless Native people can go for food, showers, and drug help. Paul tells his story and explains how the club has impacted him. | **RadioActive Snapshots: 10 years of stories by Seattle teens - new episodes every Thursday**

The City of Seattle announced Tuesday that it will begin using a pair of hotels as 24/7 enhanced shelter spaces for homeless individuals.That will encompass 66 non-congregate rooms at Belltown’s Kings Inn, and 155 non-congregate rooms at the Executive Hotel Pacific in downtown Seattle. Both sites will include some combination of wraparound services, case management, housing navigation services, and more.The Kings Inn shelter will be operated by the Chief Seattle Club, while the Executive Hotel Pacific shelter space will be managed by the Low Income Housing Institute pending the finalization of a contract between LIHI and the city.Both hotels will be leased out by the city for a year, which will include “a one-month set-up and ramp-down process.”This comes during a larger effort to focus on providing stable shelter spaces in unoccupied rooms of King County hotels. In 2021, the county plans to buy a series of hotels to permanently house up to 45% of its homeless population.Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.Support the show (https://buymeacoff.ee/seattlepodcast)

Colleen Echohawk wants to be the next Seattle mayor. If elected, she would be Seattle's first indigenous mayor. Echohawk is the executive director of the Chief Seattle Club a native-led human service agency and day center. On this episode, Echohawk joins the Chino Y Chicano to explain why she is running for Seattle's top city post and how she would handle the numerous challenges facing the city from Covid-19 to police accountability, homelessness, and inequity.  

Segregation in America—the incessant kind that continues to dog our major cities and has contributed to so much recent social strife—is the byproduct of explicit government policies at the local, state, and federal levels, researcher Richard Rothstein argues. He believes this is especially true for the racial segregation in our neighborhoods. In this presentation with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County, Rothstein joined us to share findings from his book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. With an eye to how the structural conditions established by 20th century federal policy endure to this day, Rothstein explored the legacy of discriminatory practices. Following his talk, Rothstein joined a panel of local experts to discuss how both the history of colonization and the history of redlining manifest in Seattle’s housing crisis, as well as considering both current and proposed housing policies. Moderated by Seattle Foundation’s Michael Brown, the panel features Colleen Echohawk of Chief Seattle Club, Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, and Councilmember Claudia Balducci. Don’t miss this essential and timely conversation about how the history of neighborhood segregation impacts Seattle today. Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute and a Fellow at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He lives in California, where he is a Fellow of the Haas Institute at the University of California-Berkeley. Colleen Echohawk is the Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club, a nonprofit dedicated to the needs of Native American and Alaska Native people who are experiencing homelessness in Seattle. She is an enrolled member of the Kithehaki Band of the Pawnee Nation and a member of the Upper Athabascan people of Mentasta Lake. She also founded the Coalition to End Urban Native Homelessness. Teresa Mosqueda is Budget Chair of the Seattle city council, elected in 2017. Her top priority on City Council is promoting healthy communities, lifting up working families, and creating more affordable housing for all residents through the city. She chairs the Housing & Finance Committee, and is a member of the National League of Cities. Claudia Balducci is Chair of the King County Council. She is a leader in transportation and affordable housing, and a strong advocate for education and the arts. She serves as chair of the Sound Transit Board’s System Expansion Committee, vice president of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and chair of the County’s Affordable Housing Committee. Michael Brown is the Chief Architect of Civic Commons at the Seattle Foundation, a regional civic infrastructure aimed at uniting more community voices in decision-making to advance racial and economic equity. He has led efforts to tackle complex challenges in the areas of affordable housing, economic and racial equity, policy, and advocacy. This event is part of Affordable Housing Week, and is supported by West Coast Poverty Center, Seattle for Everyone, Pacifica Law Group, and Whatcom Housing Alliance. Buy the Book: https://www.elliottbaybook.com/book/9781631494536   Presented by Town Hall Seattle and Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County.

Colleen Echohawk is the Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club. She is an enrolled member of the Kithehaki Band of the Pawnee Nation and a member of the Upper Athabascan people of Mentasta Lake.As the founder of the Coalition to End Urban Indigenous Homelessness, Echohawk is committed to homeless advocacy and changing the trajectory of Native American and Alaska Native people living away from reservations in urban places and experiencing homelessness. Recognizing a lack of equity in housing design and development, and the profound impact that this can have on the well-being of people of color, Echohawk has turned her focus to equitable low-income housing development and indigenous-led design. Under Echohawk’s leadership, Chief Seattle Club received the Puget Sound Sage Visionary for Justice Award (2019), Seattle Community Law Center’s Equity Award (2018), the Neighborhood Builder Award (2017), and Municipal League of King County’s Organization of the Year (2016).Echohawk’s education has been focused on organizational development and leadership; helping brilliant people do better work for the greater good. She is the co-founder and principal at Headwater People Consulting Group. Some of her recent recognitions include: recipient of King County’s Martin Luther King Jr. Medal of Distinguished Service (2020), one of Seattle’s most influential people by Seattle Magazine (November 2019) and one of Seattle Met Magazine’s 50 most influential women (2018). Colleen Echohawk serves on many local boards, including a Mayoral appointment to the Community Police Commission. Other board affiliations include Seattle Foundation, KUOW (National Public Radio member station,) Downtown Seattle Association, and All-Home Coordinating Board. In this episode Colleen shares what led her to answer the call to lead the Chief Seattle Club and her love for the people she serves. Reflecting on her studies in public health, Colleen speaks about the trauma the pandemic has unearthed and exacerbated for the Native community. She calls out the impact of white supremacy and systemic racism continues to have on housing, economic development and beyond. Alongside leaders in the greater Seattle area, Colleen continues to ensure that Native people have a place to connect with their respective tribal community. We also learn about the work that she is currently engaged in with the Equitable Recovery & Reconciliation Alliance. Colleen also shares her thoughts on what an emerging Native leader should consider in their professional journey.We are humbled in our leadership and name the truth of our experiences as we share Forward 4O’s platform with this phenomenal WOC in the nonprofit and social enterprise sector.Stay connected to Colleen on LinkedIn, Twitter and Instagram. Follow the work of the Chief Seattle Club on Twitter and Instagram. Follow Forward 40(4tea) on IG and Twitter @forward4tea. Continue to support and nominate a guest to be on the show. You can also learn more about the host Coach Faith here.

This is a special edition of the podcast that was recorded on Thursday, November 5th, two days after the 2020 election. While we now know the results of the election, this conversation still provides such honest and optimistic insight shared between three well-known regional leaders. We were lucky enough to have Colleen Echohawk, Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club; Girmay Zahilay, King County Councilmember for District 2; and Markham McIntyre, Acting Chief Executive Officer of The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Spanning commerce, legislation, and Native-led human services; our guests come from a variety of backgrounds and expertise but what ties them all together is the push towards creating a more inclusive region where everyone thrives. That is the vision we need for 2021 and beyond! The trio shared their unsettled yet hopeful thoughts on the outcome of the 2020 election, the experiences and history that makes them who they are, and the exciting projects they are working on. Markham talked about Housing Connector, which bridges the space between landlords and those in need of housing. He also pitched the great work of Green Plate Special which operates in the Rainier Valley. They work with local youth and teach them how to farm, cook, and share through the power of food. Girmay spoke about the Youth Achievement Center which would provide housing and supportive services for young people in the Southend. They are currently working on a capital campaign to raise more funds and we will share more information when it comes available. The councilmember also highlighted two King County charter amendments that can reimagine how the county moves forward with public safety and makes the King County Sheriff an appointment position and not an elected one. Colleen talked about their ?al?al project to build housing in Pioneer Square. She talked about the park next to their location and how they are re-imagining from an indigenous land usage. You can follow this project on The Growing Old podcast (found on all major podcast services) and their Instagram account @GrowingOldProject. They will cover this development in their second season! She also spoke about the Equitable Recovery and Reconciliation Alliance. It’s a way to get past the lip-service of many well-intentioned white relatives but to actually follow the leadership of BIPOC peoples in a way that values that Coast Salish values of welcoming and inclusivity. This will show up on the Chief Seattle Club website in a week or two! Special thanks to Big Phony for providing music for the We Belong Here podcast. 

Learn more at GrowingOldProject.com.  Subscribe on your favorite streaming platform, and follow the Growing Old Project on Instagram.  This series was created in collaboration.   Created by:Lylianna Allala, Colleen Echohawk, and Tamara Power-Drutis Produced by:Katie Mosehauer Written by:Tamara Power-Drutis Narrated by:Zoey Echohawk-Hayashi, Collen Echohawk, Lylianna Allala, Tamara Power-Drutis along with various members of the Growing Old team. Music for the series by:Black Stax, Glass Heart String Choir, Lacey Warrior, and Talaya Logan Marque Studios with engineering and mixing by Katie Mosehauer and Greg Fields and mixing and mastering by Pierre Ferguson. Music in Episode 8 by:  Chris Zabriskie, C. Scott, Kai Engel, and Tamara Power-Drutis.   Recording by:Katie Mosehauer and Tamara Power-Drutis In Partnership With:Chief Seattle Club and Earth Day Northwest 2020

Learn more at GrowingOldProject.com.  Subscribe on your favorite streaming platform, and follow the Growing Old Project on Instagram.  This series was created in collaboration.   Created by:Lylianna Allala, Colleen Echohawk, and Tamara Power-Drutis Produced by:Katie Mosehauer Written by:Tamara Power-Drutis Narrated by:Zoey Echohawk-Hayashi, Collen Echohawk, Lylianna Allala, Tamara Power-Drutis along with various members of the Growing Old team. Music for the series by:Black Stax, Glass Heart String Choir, Lacey Warrior, and Talaya Logan Marque Studios with engineering and mixing by Katie Mosehauer and Greg Fields and mixing and mastering by Pierre Ferguson. Music in Episode 7 by:  Glass Heart String Choir (Ian Williams and Katie Mosehauer), Black Stax, Kai Engel, Chris Zabriskie, and Tamara Power-Drutis.   Recording by:Katie Mosehauer, Tamara Power-Drutis, and Katie Myers In Partnership With:Chief Seattle Club and Earth Day Northwest 2020

Food insecurity now affects 1.6 million Washingtonians. Here in Seattle, the City has partnered with businesses, nonprofits like FareStart, and other community organizations to donate thousands of meals each day. The Chief Seattle Club is among those helping the city's most vulnerable residents. Lately, it has expanded its outreach beyond the city's Native American population to anyone in need. And as businesses slowly reopen, Sail Sand Point charts a new course. But improving one's sailing skills is just one of the lessons learned. Host Nicole Sanchez has these stories and more from her living room studio!

Learn more at GrowingOldProject.com. Subscribe on your favorite streaming platform, and follow the Growing Old Project on Instagram. This series was created in collaboration. Created by:Lylianna Allala, Colleen Echohawk, and Tamara Power-DrutisProduced by:Katie MosehauerWritten by:Tamara Power-DrutisNarrated by:Zoey Echohawk-Hayashi, Collen Echohawk, Lylianna Allala, Tamara Power-Drutis along with various members of the Growing Old team.Music for the series by:Black Stax, Glass Heart String Choir, Lacey Warrior, and Talaya Logan Marque Studios with engineering and mixing by Katie Mosehauer and Greg Fields and mixing and mastering by Pierre Ferguson.Music in Episode 6 by: Black Stax, Talaya Logan Marque Studios, C. Scott, Chris Zabriskie, and Tamara Power-Drutis. Recording by:Katie Mosehauer, Tamara Power-Drutis, and Katie MyersIn Partnership With:Chief Seattle Club and Earth Day Northwest 2020

Our series goes live on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day in a rapidly changing city.

Colleen Echohawk is the founder of the Coalition to End Urban Native Homelessness and the director of an organization called Native Works which aims to better Seattle’s homeless Native American community. By crafting authentic artwork and in partnership with it’s parent organization, The Chief Seattle Club, Native Works aims to honor Native tradition while fostering a healthier native future.Named as one of Seattle’s most influential people by Seattle Magazine in 2019 and one of Seattle Met Magazine’s 50 most influential women in 2018, Colleen Echohawk is the recipient of multiple public service awards for her leadership and dedication to homeless advocacy. In this interview Colleen shares with us what drives her passion for this work and all the ways that her organization is working to support the native homeless community. To learn more about Native Works please visit: https://nativeworkscsc.orgTo learn more about The Chief Seattle Club please visit: https://www.chiefseattleclub.orgTo learn more about host, Christy McCaffrey, please visit: https://www.christymccaffrey.com/about

Self-isolation and handwashing are a large part of the national game plan for combatting COVID-19. But those experiencing homelessness have far fewer options when it comes to heeding health experts’ basic recommendations. Urban Native homeless resource centers like the Chief Seattle Club and Central Arizona Shelter Services are continuing to offer health, nutrition and shelter services to those in need. But complying with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 guidelines is difficult with already limited space and resources. We’ll check in with those who are helping vulnerable Native Americans.

Jayden Alexander opens our episode with his personal story about being forced to leave home as a teenager due to his gender identity. After living in a group home, he moves from Florida to San Fransisco for a job offer that doesn't pan out and finds himself alone, an entire continent apart from everyone he knows. After days of wandering along the freeway, he eventually lands in Los Angeles, finds permanent supportive housing, and begins work as an advocate for others in the community.Molly then interviews Colleen Echohawk, executive director of the Chief Seattle Club, a non-profit dedicated to meeting the needs of homeless and low-income urban Native people in Seattle. They discuss the unique circumstances and inter-generational trauma facing the native community, as well as the specific measures needed to address urban indigenous homelessness.https://www.chiefseattleclub.org/We close the episode with Molly's son Jack reading the poem "Rabbit Is Up To Tricks" by Joy Harjo, the first Native American US Poet Laureate. 

How do we approach designing our cities in equitable ways? Colleen Echohawk, Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club, and Ben Franz-Knight, urban planner and former Executive Director of Pike Place Market, join us for a conversation reflecting on the relationship between white privilege and urban design. They outline the ways that native populations are victimized by patterns of development. Join Echohawk and Franz-Knight as they highlight troublesome patterns in our ever-changing city’s cycles of expansion—and explore the potential for reframing our urban narrative by creating an ethic of design centered on indigenous knowledge. Presented by Town Hall Seattle and Chief Seattle Club. Recorded live in The Forum by Town Hall Seattle on September 4, 2019. 

1 in 4 Native Americans live in Poverty. Chief Seattle Club provides sacred space to nurture, affirm and renew the spirit of urban Native Americans through medical and housing services. Philip and Jerika talk about needs in these communities and how Chief Seattle Club is helping. 

Colleen Echohawk is the Executive Director of the Chief Seattle Club in Seattle’s historic Pioneer Square neighborhood, a non-profit dedicated to meeting the needs of homeless and low-income urban Native people in Seattle. The Chief Seattle Club provides a sacred space to nurture, affirm and renew the spirit of urban Native people. Colleen Echohawk is an enrolled member of the Kithehaki Band of the Pawnee Nation and a member of the Upper Ahtna Athabascan people of Mentasta Lake. She serves on multiple boards, including KUOW (National Public Radio member station), All Home Coordinating Board, Metropolitan Improvement District, Pioneer Square Preservation Board and is the board chair at Red Eagle Soaring Native Youth Theatre. As co-founder and principal at Headwater People Consulting Group, she is interested in working with community to create systems and structures that help facilitate wellness and encourages kindness and courage. In this episode of RePlacing Church, she joins me to discuss: How the Chief Seattle Club provides a sacred space to nurture, affirm and renew the spirit of urban Native people. How a native song transformed a dirty downtown alley into a place of remembrance and empowerment What the Urban Relocation Act of 1956 was and its impact on Native communities 3 ways non-Native people can honor the Native communities that originally inhabited the particular places where they now live How to create a culture of wellness in a workplace that engages significant trauma What organizations can do to invite different cultural perspectives Why our world needs to hear the Native voice right now *Get your free RePlacing Church Resource List, a guide to being and becoming the church in the neighborhood. SUBSCRIBE, RATE, and REVIEW the RePlacing Church Podcast on iTunes, or listen on Stitcher, Google Play, or Podbean. Sign up for RePlacing Church updates at www.replacingchurch.org. Like on Facebook, Follow on Instagram. Episode Song Credits: "Another Wrong to Right" and "You Won't Walk Alone" by Mercir. "Closed" by Zadok Wartes. Used with Permission. Production Assistance by Nate Tubbs.

Gyasi and Wesley welcome Deyo Esquival of the Chief Seattle Club to talk facial hair, Dakota Access, the Royal visit to NDN in Canada, and a couple other bits. Plus, Gyasi talks the rampant sexism he was accused of in Episode 1!