Podcasts about east precinct

5pm - Powerball winning numbers for May 13 drawing: Jackpot grows to $59 million // Mega Millions winner sued by family for breaking promise to share $1.35B jackpot // Lottery Winner Vanishes After Giving Away Over 1.7 Million Dollars | Floribama Murders // Street takeover, someone does donuts around a cop car, no one arrested // Video shows East Precinct officers back down after bystanders step in over heavy response to Capitol Hill ‘shots fired’ 911 calls //  Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's Archewell Foundation Declared 'Delinquent,' Ordered to Stop Soliciting or Spending // ‘Royal Jam WAR’ | Buckingham Palace “Trolls” Meghan Markle By Promoting Their Jam // LETTERS

The makeup of Seattle City Council may be changing a lot next year, but the issues they'll face won't. Over the six weeks leading up to ballots being mailed out for the 2023 general election, Hacks & Wonks presented our series of interviews with most of the Seattle City Council candidates! On this topical show re-air, join Crystal and Shannon behind-the-scenes of Hacks & Wonks for a bonus (not-so) short episode where they discuss how questions got chosen and written, the why behind those kludgy SPOG contract questions, thoughts and observations after all the interviews, and their approach to editing. And also, a bit of venting. 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 Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle.   Resources Elections 2023 One-Stop Shop | Hacks & Wonks   “Rob Saka, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maren Costa, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 1 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 2 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Joy Hollingsworth, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Alex Hudson, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 3 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maritza Rivera, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Ron Davis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 4 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “ChrisTiana ObeySumner, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 5” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 5 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Pete Hanning, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 6” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 6 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Andrew Lewis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 7” from Hacks & Wonks “Seattle City Council District 7 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   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, this is a little bonus short - I don't know, we'll wind up seeing how long this turns out to be. I am joined here with someone who you don't hear from on the mic often, but every time we do, it's wonderful. She is the person who does so much work for the podcast - this is a team effort. I'm here with Dr. Shannon Cheng. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:14] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal! [00:01:16] Crystal Fincher: So Dr. Shannon Cheng - who is incredible, who works with me, who is a subject matter expert on public safety, is the guru for knowledge about like the SPOG contract, SPMA contract, that kind of stuff. She really understands and has the ability to actually explain it and share it in really accessible ways. But I just want to back up and talk about what you do and how you became an expert. What do you do, Shannon? [00:01:44] Shannon Cheng: So I find myself involved in local policy and politics kind of by accident. I mean, you referenced that I'm a doctor - my doctorate is in Space Propulsion, I'm an aerospace engineer by training. And I guess if I try to think about the throughline of how I've operated in life is that I kind of don't want to end up doing things that aren't gonna let me go to sleep at night. So what happened with me with aerospace is - at one point - understanding that basically staying involved in that industry was contributing to weapons of destruction and war. And I just couldn't bring myself to do that. So through volunteering and activism, I guess that's how I met up with Crystal and got connected and have been doing a lot of things. I work on People Power Washington, which is focused on equitable public safety and policing across Washington state. We've worked on the Seattle, King County and State Legislature levels. We work on things ranging from budget advocacy to monitoring these difficult to understand police guild contracts and understanding how those get in the way of accountability, trying to work to pass charter amendments at the county level that would support better public safety and-- [00:02:59] Crystal Fincher: Shannon was instrumental in the passage of that 2020 County Charter Amendment to reform public safety. Instrumental. [00:03:07] Shannon Cheng: And yeah, then recently I was invited to join the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. And so that's been really a wonderful experience to just engage with families who have been directly impacted by police violence and brutality, and trying to work to have that not happen to anybody else ever again. So that's kind of me. [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: That is. Except you are the ultimate fun fact person. Like you have so many fun facts. A prior student of yours is currently on the Space Station right now. [00:03:42] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - he was up there for a six month stint. He may have come back down by now, but - I think the launch was in February - and when they were showing the pictures, I was like, Wait, I taught that guy Dynamics. [00:03:58] Crystal Fincher: You have a picture of you like in zero gravity working on a thing. You are an orienteering champion, which is a whole thing. [00:04:07] Shannon Cheng: Yes. It is a sport that is not super popular in this country - it's widely popular in Europe, in Australia, New Zealand, those areas. But yes, you could say I am an orienteering champion of sorts-- [00:04:20] Crystal Fincher: You are literally an orienteering champion. [00:04:24] Shannon Cheng: --thanks to participation and attendance. [00:04:27] Crystal Fincher: And you being great. It's not like there were no competitors. Yeah, there are so many fun facts about Shannon - just awesome things that pop up here and there. But Shannon is talented at everything basically, and is just one of the best human beings I know. And an instrumental part of Hacks & Wonks. So that's why we're both here talking to you right now. So we wanted to have this conversation to talk about just what we were thinking when we were putting together questions for the Seattle City Council candidate interviews. And we meet and kind of do a whole thing - have an approach anytime we do series of candidate interviews - this is no exception. But especially with all of them and this conversation, there's been a lot of tangential conversation brought up - a lot on social media, a lot in the community. And some of these questions have become even more relevant in the past couple of weeks, particularly the ones revolving around policing in the city of Seattle and the new contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild that is in the process of being negotiated. And so I guess starting out - when we start thinking about how we're going to do candidate interviews, what do we usually talk about? How do we usually approach that? [00:05:51] Shannon Cheng: I think we're - I know you are always wanting to kind of understand how would a candidate actually vote on issues that matter to people in this city? Because ultimately people can say things and have platitudes, but it really comes down to when there's a hard vote, which way are they gonna go? So I think, especially for the lightning round, a lot of our questions were centered around trying to ask these questions - and getting a Yes, No, or seeing if there was a waffle from these candidates - just to better understand how they think about these things and when push comes to shove, which way they would lean. [00:06:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think that is my approach. And it is an approach that is the result of years of working in politics, years of seeing how candidates process information throughout a campaign, how they conduct themselves just in their general lives, and how that translates to policy, and whether they govern in a way that's consistent with how they campaigned. And certainly one thing that is a throughline is - especially when it comes to tough votes - everybody will say, I believe the children are the future. Everybody will say - yes, they wanna address root causes of stuff, right? But as we see, like we've seen recently in this city, when it comes to issues of public safety or homelessness, people have all these value statements - but it comes down to a vote. It comes down to - Are you going to fund something or are you not? Are you going to really put into place the necessary elements to successfully implement what you're going to say or not? Are you going to just fund what you said - Oh, we need to do more than that. - but if you're only like voting to fund that, that's a different thing. So we tend to ask more specific questions than sometimes we hear elsewhere - we're not the only people who ask specific questions, but I definitely try to do that. And we try to figure out what votes are likely to be coming up, where are the big fault lines, especially for the upcoming year, going to be? What does it look like different interests are pushing for and where do they stand on that? Because it's gonna be an issue. There's going to be pressure put on them to vote certain ways. And if they can't stand up strongly for what they believe and be conclusive about what they're gonna say, that doesn't have a good track record of resulting in the kind of policy that people expect in that direction - if they're soft on that. So that's part of what we do. And I've interviewed people from different philosophical orientations, political orientations. And sometimes there are people who I think or suspect I'm gonna agree with, who are soft on things I don't expect. People who I don't expect to agree with, who - I hear their answers on some things - I'm like, Okay, that was thoughtful and informed. And I certainly have my opinions - you know that - we talk about my opinions on the show. But I really do hope - my goal isn't to super interrogate and like make all the points - it's really to get what they think on the record, out in the open. And really help people to make an informed decision based on what the candidates are saying, kind of without the - with the exception of the lightning round - without the time limit on - Okay, you got to get your answer out in 30 seconds or 1 minute. There's some nuance - sometimes it's more than that - or an issue is complex and we need to talk about it. [00:09:01] Shannon Cheng: And I would just also add that we have a lot of first time candidates this year, especially with open seats. And so it's also understandable that maybe a candidate isn't well-versed in every single issue area that is going to come up. And so I think having this robust set of questions also can help educate - both them and the voters - what is coming up. And maybe if they feel a little weak, or they get a question and they don't understand what it's even about, that's a signal of - Hey, this is kind of important. Maybe you need to look into that, and understand what's going on, and figure out where you stand on it. [00:09:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I - we'll have candidates be like, Whoa, I hadn't thought about that before, I need to learn more about that. And I appreciate that - when someone - taking office, we can talk about all of these issues. But there will always be issues or events that happen, that pop up that you don't talk about while on the campaign. And so a candidate's always going to have to get up to speed on something new. Electeds have to get up to speed on new things all the time. And so how do they approach that not knowing - knowing that they don't know something - How do they approach that? Who are the people they turn to to help learn? What sources of information are they learning from? How do they process information? Those are all things that are useful to hear and to know. And so even if they encounter something that - okay, maybe they didn't think about, you have a perspective about how they process information. So I guess in how we approach writing questions, what is the process for that? Okay, Shannon right now is like, Okay, so Crystal is like - ties herself into knots and then tries to avoid writing the questions. And then it's - maybe we don't want to do interviews at all. And oh my gosh - they're too many, they're too few. It's a little bit of a tortured process sometimes, but you help bring some clarity and order to that whole process. [00:10:55] Shannon Cheng: I mean, you've done candidate forums - so we look at what you've done for candidate forums in the past. And then my issue area - that I work on in my spare time - is public safety and policing, and so I had the opportunity to put candidate questionnaire questions about that topic in as possible questions to ask. So - I don't know-- [both laughing] [00:11:19] Crystal Fincher: Well, with that. [00:11:20] Shannon Cheng: It's very last minute. [both laughing] [00:11:22] Crystal Fincher: It's so, yeah. [00:11:23] Shannon Cheng: But I don't know that people need to know that. [both laughing] We'll edit that part out. [00:11:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, it is - we do this in between our regular work. I'm a political consultant. Shannon works with me. We're busy doing that for most of the day on most days, and we squeeze this podcast in between them - with lots of coordination and research and preparation done by Shannon, which I sincerely appreciate. But it is a process and we're trying to figure out what makes sense to ask. We do still have time limits-ish - we stretch it sometimes. But I do - maybe we should start off talking about some of these questions about policing in the contract because some of these issues have come up lately. Shaun Scott, who is a great follow on Twitter - I don't know if he's elsewhere, but on Twitter, certainly - he was talking about, Hey, the city passed an ordinance. And he's absolutely right - City passed an ordinance giving the city council and OPA? - I think, one of the entities - the city council subpoena power over SPD and other entities, but like including SPD. And they did pass an ordinance that did that. Unfortunately, the SPOG contract of 2018 superseded that. Basically, it had clauses that contradicted and said, No, we're not gonna do that. And then another clause that says, And if City law says that we need to do that, that doesn't matter, this contract is going to replace or supersede City law in that. So subpoena power was essentially taken away. A number of accountability measures were taken away. So the questions that we asked were more specific than we usually ask. It wasn't like - oh, everybody deals with this and talks about it all the time. It was more - these are some areas in the SPOG contract that might be opaque or obscure that haven't been widely publicly discussed, but that are very important in dealing with issues like we're seeing now in the news. How did you put together those questions, and why are those specific ones important? [00:13:30] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, so I think it's important to first understand that officer discipline is considered a working condition under state labor law, and that's why these union contracts are kind of the last stop for determining how things happen. So as you said, the City has passed, I think, multiple ordinances to try to give subpoena power to our accountability bodies - the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General. But the thing is that because we're governing under state law, unless that officer discipline-related provision gets negotiated into a contract that is accepted by the police unions, then it's not gonna be in effect. And so it's confusing, right? We see this all the time that there's these announcements made - Hey, like huge step forward in accountability. We managed to pass a law that says we have subpoena power. - but then what's left out is the asterisk that is, Well, once it gets negotiated with the union. And so I think that's the thing that gets lost a lot. And so I see that a lot. And so when we came up with our questions - literally it's from observing what the process has been, and then going actually through the contract line-by-line and trying to understand - okay, where are these provisions that kind of weaken the glorious accountability system that everybody likes to point to and pretend that we have. So knowing that going through labor contracts is not everybody's favorite thing, that's why we try to boil it down into - Okay, here's a few especially egregious things that seem like baseline we should try to get in the next contract - which is why talking to electeds about it is important because they are the ones who are gonna hold the power in terms of getting what we want in the next contract. So that's the process that we came up with our questions. [00:15:23] Crystal Fincher: So, the question that we asked candidates in the lightning round was - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, known as OPA, and the Office of the Inspector General, known as OIG, subpoena power? Why is subpoena power important and what difference could it make? [00:15:41] Shannon Cheng: Subpoena power is important if you're trying to do an investigation and the information you think is necessary to understand what's happening for your investigation isn't available, or if people involved aren't cooperating and giving you that information. So at that point, a subpoena allows you to basically demand that that information is shared with you. In the 2017 Accountability Ordinance that was passed, it was explicitly laid out that the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General would have subpoena power. However, in the 2018 SPOG contract - I'll just read directly from the contract - they list those two sections and then they have an addendum that says, "The City agrees that these sections of the Ordinance will not be implemented at this time with regard to bargaining unit employees and their family members, and third party subpoenas seeking personal records of such employees and their family members." So basically, the contract said - there's no subpoena power for these two entities. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: And yeah, I mean, we've heard and seen in several stories - the Seattle Police Department did not cooperate with the investigation. They can just say, currently - No, we're not gonna give that to you. No, we're not gonna share that. We decline to do that. And in issues - right now, there's an international conversation about both the killing of Jaahnavi Kandula and its aftermath with an officer mocking her killing. And the record of the police officer who was doing that, the records of officers overall. And we still don't know everything that happened with the East Precinct and it's leaving, we don't know what happened with CHOP - like those kinds of things - we still don't have answers because we can't demand them. We can't compel them. And this does. Not that that's gonna solve everything, but it is a tool of accountability. And at minimum, if you can't even get information about what happened, how are you gonna attach any kind of accountability to that? So it really is a very primary - we have to at least understand what happened, we have to be able to get that information. So that is what went behind that question. Another question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? What is this sworn versus civilian issue about, and why is it important? [00:17:57] Shannon Cheng: So the Office of Police Accountability has investigators - they're actually embedded in the Seattle Police Department - and a lot of their investigators are actually sworn officers. And so some people might think, Well, doesn't that seem kind of problematic? Because you would end up in this scenario where you have cops investigating other cops. Also, the cops that come into the OPA as these sworn investigators - my understanding is they kind of rotate in and out - so a cop going in could expect to then be back out at some point. And that would lead one to think, Well, maybe they wouldn't want to be as thorough in their investigations. So what the civilian aspect was - was that I think people would trust more to have a civilian who is not a sworn officer doing these investigations. And in that original 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance, there was provision made that there could be civilian investigators on this team within the OPA. However, again, that 2018 SPOG contract specifically said - and here, I'll again read from the contract - "The parties agree as follows: Unless otherwise agreed, at any time after the date of signing, the City may replace up to two (2) sworn investigator positions with up to two (2) civilian investigators." So they've basically limited the OPA to only have at any time two civilian investigators, and then that contract goes on to say, "Any case that reasonably could lead to termination will have a sworn investigator assigned to the case." So not only have they limited the number of civilian investigators, they also say those civilian investigators can't work on any cases that would lead to any kind of discipline that is on the harsher side of things. So that's why we asked that question. [00:19:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these, it is important to understand - different jurisdictions have different things that they can do, right? They all have their own levers that they can push and pull. Some things you can only do at the county level, some things you can only do at the city level - in a variety of ways. And so we do try and focus in our questions also on what can they do in their capacity as a city councilmember. And because they do have the power to approve or reject this contract, putting - understanding what their conditions for doing so would be, getting them on the record about that is important 'cause this impacts how the police operate within the city and with residents. The next question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? Why was this a question? [00:20:34] Shannon Cheng: This is a question because - as we all know, the City has been trying for a very long time to stand up a alternative crisis response that may or may not involve the police. I think a big hurdle to that being stood up is this concern that I've heard - that if the City was to stand something up that didn't involve the police or the police didn't agree with, that they could file an Unfair Labor Practice with the state and basically say - this is some violation of their contract, that kind of work that had been under the purview of the police department was now being taken away from them and given to somebody else. So it's - I don't know that there's wording explicitly in the contract that says that, but it would be the union invoking the contract to say that the City was taking work away from them, basically, that they wanted to keep. [00:21:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's a big major issue. And right now we're kind of at an impasse - alternative responses and funding non-police public safety responses and interventions is one of the most popular things supported by Seattle residents right now. They vote for candidates who say they're gonna support that. Polling shows that north of 70% across the board, it's been over 80% in some polls. When asked explicitly - hey, if your tax dollars are gonna be spent, what do you most want it to be spent on? Highest thing is standing up alternatives to policing to address things like behavioral health crises. We all see that this is so desperately needed and that - it used to be five years ago, kind of pre-2016, pre-George Floyd, when police used to have no problem. They said all the time - we aren't social workers, we don't have the tools to handle this other stuff, we wanna do our core jobs and not handle all these other things that we don't really have the tools for. And it seems like because of fear of losing funding, losing headcount, whatever, that stopped and they started clinging to everything that they could have. So like we ask a question - Do you think parking should be housed within SPD? Lots of cities are having conversations, especially since police are saying that they're short-staffed to say - Okay, how can we more effectively deploy police officers and take things off of their plate that shouldn't be on there in the first place, that are not core to what a sworn officer - a sworn armed officer - is needed for. But the challenge is that that is coming up against, as you described, those feelings that - Well, that's something that we, you know, that was in our sphere of responsibility, funding is attached to it, headcount is attached to it. And if we lose that, maybe that's gonna be a slippery slope to losing other things. So like in the City of Seattle, the city council has actually funded alternative police responses. They have decided they wanna move forward with that, they've allocated money for that. And once that happens, it's basically up to the executive - currently Bruce Harrell, before with Jenny Durkan - to use that funding and implement the thing. Well, it's kind of stuck there. The money isn't being used. And for a while, especially with Monisha Harrell, when she was with the city, they talked about, Okay, well, we wanna do all that, we're just gonna do it with an internal department of public safety that will also house civilian responses. And I think part of standing that up as an internal department was to address the concern of the issue of headcount. And if the headcount decreases, even if it's just parking officials who do not need a gun to enforce parking, that - hey, let's not call that like a regular response, let's not use sworn headcount to do that, we can deploy that more effectively. But that is a problem that is stalled. And so the question really is - will they ensure that in the contract that is currently being negotiated, the contract that the council will be voting on, can they eliminate that as an issue? And obviously this has to be negotiated by both sides, but is there something they can come to that enables the City to move forward with what the residents are demanding and what leaders have committed to do? We've gotta find a way to have the contract not impede the progress that the city is repeatedly begging to make and promising to make. So that's what went into that question. Another question we asked - Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? Why is this an issue? [00:24:53] Shannon Cheng: So the current contract that we're under explicitly gives SPD officers the right to work off-duty. And this is in-uniform, so one factor in this is that this is basically allowing them to use public resources, meaning their uniform - and they retain their police powers while they're working for not us, not the public that's paying them, but for private clients who they work for. So, a lot of these things are things like security or traffic direction, and they get paid a lot of money for these jobs - sometimes I think even more than they make as an officer. And so one of our concerns is that, especially in a time when it's short-staffed, then allowing in-uniform off-duty work - it creates confusion with the public, for one thing, when you see a police officer not working in their official capacity as a police officer, but dressed as one and maintaining all the same powers that they do - it just doesn't have clear boundaries between their professional work and then their side job. And then with the short staffing, these added hours that they're doing on top of, in theory, their full workload at SPD, plus potential overtime that they're gonna have to do - this is just gonna lead even more to officer fatigue. And we can see how that could lead to more of the poor decision-making or judgment calls, and has detrimental consequences for all of us in the public. And often - with their history of biased policing - would affect certain populations more than others. So that was why we asked this question. [00:26:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these questions overall, some people are like - Well, why are these all like accountability questions? Are there any other things? Like, do you just hate cops? And to me, hating cops is not the issue, right? This is about public safety for everyone in the city and in the region. And every candidate who's run - I collect and keep political mail, advertising, blah, blah, blah - and what is really astounding is kind of the revisionist history of members of the council who are known for being moderate or conservative. Everybody's like - Well, you know, they elected me to be moderate and conservative. Or like people covering them - They elected someone. But when you look at what they said when they were running, when you look at their mail and what they communicated to voters - to a person - they talked about the importance of police accountability and reform. And, you know, some people wanna go further than others, but they all promised that. And so, if that wasn't just BS - anyone who's serious about that, and even if you're working towards community-centered, different things - anyone who is serious about what we're currently doing, and this contract is currently being negotiated, we really do have to contend with these things. And if we aren't, then we're not really serious about doing anything about accountability, let alone re-imagining what public safety can actually be. So no matter what someone's ideological position is on the council, they should be engaging with this. This is in their sphere of responsibility. They're gonna have to vote on this contract. And so we need to know - we should know, and we should be talking about - what these parameters are. It's very important and consequential, and can determine whether we wind up in similar situations to now - where we have an officer where basically the globe has said, That's disgusting and should be unacceptable. Why is this officer still there? And we have City electeds basically going - Oh, there's nothing we can really do about it. The contract, you know, like, can't really fire them. There's no precedent. - and like, those are all legal issues because of the contract. But they approved this contract - Bruce Harrell approved the contract that we currently have. He's not the only one - I think Debora Juarez was on the council at that point in time. Lorena González used to be, and said she regretted the vote. Like, this was consequential. We talked about this at the time - not many people were listening in the wider community. But like, this is not a surprise that we're seeing problems because of the overriding of accountability measures passed by the City and supported by people in the city. So that's why we asked those public safety questions. We asked a bunch of questions in the lightning round about how people vote. Why do you think these were good questions to include? [00:29:06] Shannon Cheng: I think they're good because this is an instance where they had to sit down with their pen in hand and make a choice - bubble choice A or bubble choice B. And so in this process of trying to figure out how these candidates think and where they stand on things, asking them about times where they actually did have to make a decision and knowing what decision they made, I think that's why we asked those. [00:29:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it's fair to ask. And it gives you insight into how they process information when it does come time to make a choice on one or the other, even if they think - maybe they don't think either choice is perfect, but they do need to make a choice and what they made is informative. In these, you know, also informing on different issues, where they stand there. We asked also issues about housing. We asked them if they rent or own - and that's an important question to ask, it's an important thing to know. And it's wild that we don't talk about that more because that is one of the biggest dividing lines in Seattle politics. It's one of the biggest dividing lines in voters. When you look at any results map of an election, you basically see the results of homeowners versus renters, higher income, higher net worth people versus lower income, lower net worth people. That is a fault line in Seattle politics. And looking at how votes happen, we see people voting aligned with their housing status a lot. It's something that matters, that is predictive pretty regularly. And so we wanted to ask that. We wanted to understand if they rented, if they own, and if they're a landlord. Some candidates were, some candidates were not. And then we face questions - the council actually passed an ordinance that was vetoed by Mayor Harrell, just about some more accountability for landlords and more sharing of information to try and better poise the City to address the housing affordability crisis. And so that's why we asked those. We asked the question about allowing police in schools because that has been talked about in some meetings. It looks like there are some influential interests that want to make that happen and encourage that. I don't think that's wide-ranging, but there were a couple of powerful and well-placed people who - that was coming from their camps - and so we thought it was important to get people on record about that. We asked about trans and non-binary students - making sure they could play on sports teams that fit with their gender identities and using public bathrooms and public facilities - and got a range of answers on this one. Why did you feel this was so important to ask? [00:31:37] Shannon Cheng: I think this is a community that's been under attack just nationwide, at all levels. And so it's important to know - I think Seattle touts itself as a progressive, inclusive, welcoming city - and we want to make sure the people who are leading us actually are. [00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And respecting people's humanity without condition, without making them less than. And unfortunately, the sports issue is propaganda. It's propaganda. I understand why the propaganda campaign caught on - it's using very cynical tactics - but we do have to stand up and say, That's propaganda. We can't be like - Okay, yeah, trans people, we accept everybody - live, love, and light - all that kind of stuff. And then say, Yeah, but if your kid wants to play on a sports team - which is a very important formative part of growing up for many people, if they choose to do that, and also not just sports, just any kind of activities attached to school, which is something that so many people partake in - and say, Yeah, but not that. Like that is an issue of just fundamental humanity and inclusion - and so we should be explicit about where people stand, and we should talk about that, and we should force people to be accountable for where they stand on that. And make sure people know - before they vote - whether people plan on including every member of this community in our community. We asked about the economy, the JumpStart Tax - which there's been lots of talk from different interests about, from some Chamber interests saying, Maybe we need to divert some of that to help restart, relaunch downtown's economy. There are other people saying, Hey, this might be something that we need to increase to help with the upcoming budget deficit. And some people who just disagree with it overall, and think that we - that that's placing a burden on business, and that's gonna be bad for residents - and usually coming from the same people who say the sky is falling every time that there is a minimum wage increase, and then more people move here and are happier than they are in other places, so it seems like we would stop listening to people who continue to predict that and are wrong, but we don't do that. But wanted to get people on record for where they stand on that, because - in Seattle politics, interests are tied to taxes - that that's where a lot of corporate interests are really concerned about. And they will use other issues as wedge issues in messaging, but their primary concerns are about taxation and the maintenance of their capital. That's really what's driving a lot of this. And so the JumpStart is going to be at the heart of that interest and conversation. [00:34:09] Shannon Cheng: We hear businesses - obviously they don't wanna pay more taxes, but at the same time, we also hear businesses complaining that they're not getting the services that they expect the City to deliver to them. And so I think it's pretty telling that - you don't wanna pay for it, but you wanna get it. [00:34:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and we also asked about how candidates can better support small business. I do think there's a conflation of gigantic multi-trillion dollar mega-corp interests and - in the business community - and a small mom-pop shop, local business who is - hired a couple of people from the neighborhood and is trying to make it. Both businesses, both part of the business community - but usually very different interests and needs. And we have a lot of small businesses who are struggling. Small business - business is important to the economy across the board, right? But we need it not to be extractive. We need not to say, Oh, it's so important. So like Boeing, we're gonna give you more money than we've ever given anyone before with no accountability. We did this because Boeing is gonna create jobs and we need lots of jobs. But then we don't get a refund when Boeing lays people off and leaves town, right - that's a problem. And we have trillion dollar corporations in the city of Seattle who frankly use small business owners to say - Oh, please, we're suffering and we need help, and we shouldn't pay any taxes. When most residents, according to polling and election results, feel that businesses like - mega corporations are not paying their fair share. There is a conversation to be had - some kind of income inequality and differences in access and challenges that small businesses are facing compared to large businesses. It's kind of similar to what lower income people are facing in comparison to larger income people. Small businesses are having problems affording rent - that's a really, really, really big issue - they are suffering from predatory rent increases. Also, that's putting people out of business. But there's a lot to be discussed. And if you talk to business owners - we've done shows with different business interests - and their needs are broad and varied and they should be listened to, they are part of the community. But we do need to talk about them as part of the community and not as this super entity or something like that. So that's what those questions were looking to get at. And then just some perspective stuff - asking if they're happy with Seattle's waterfront, asking about return to work mandates - just helping to further get inside their minds, how they think, what their perspective is, where they're coming from, and who and what they may be sympathetic to as interests and as bills - when that comes up. Transportation and transit related questions - we have absolutely seen a difference in engagement and thoughtfulness, willingness to fund and include provisions that are helpful for pedestrians and people on transit, people riding bikes from leaders who actually use them. And we suffer when leaders are responsible for transit policy who don't use and ride transit - all sorts of distorted and weird policy and perspectives come out when we have people governing systems that they don't themselves engage with. And so we asked those questions to try and see - are you actually using the system? Because we hear different things from people who do take them versus things that don't. And just, that's a useful thing to know. Similarly, Pike Place car traffic is something that we talk about - just another one of those perspective things in there. We obviously asked about the upcoming revenue shortfall in the City of Seattle for $224 million. Everyone is going to have to contend with that. Every candidate on the campaign trail, every candidate that we interviewed has talked about wanting to implement new things that are going to require additional revenue, that are going to require resources. And we're moving into - Okay, we're going to have fewer resources and either we're gonna need to raise revenue or make cuts. And so it's just not a serious position to be in to say we should be doing all of these other things - these new things that require revenue - when there's going to be less of it. And everyone is kind of dodgy usually when it comes to cutting things, but they're going to need - odds are it's gonna be a combination of cuts and attempting to pursue new revenue. If someone is saying they aren't gonna pursue that, then we need to view their other plans that do require revenue differently. If someone is saying, I'm gonna go after revenue hard - that's great, but we should also know if there are any cuts that they think they may need to do. Revenue may take a while to come in. We will probably need to do some trimming in the meantime - just because the City's mandated to have a balanced budget. And so that's something real that they're gonna have to contend with. And those are really hard decisions. And you can see how hard they are by how unwilling or unable candidates are to answer how they're gonna prioritize cutting, where they think they should come from. If revenue doesn't pass or come through, what does that mean? How are you gonna approach that? And we do need to press on those tough decisions 'cause those are gonna be really consequential things. And I think sometimes candidates - we've talked about this on this show before - think that just like the hard part is running, and then you get elected, and then you can exhale. Running for office is the easy part - it only gets harder - and the spotlight on you gets hotter and brighter when you actually do have to make a decision that's consequential for the people in the city. And so we should poke and prod about that and try to get as specific as we can. We don't always do perfectly with that - I'm reflecting on the answers that we got. There were so many vague answers - and try and poke and prod - and some people just don't wanna answer specifically, or just are unable to answer specifically. But hopefully, as you said before, that is an indication that they should think about that seriously. And they're gonna need a game plan 'cause it's coming and they're going to have to deal with that. And it's going to be bad if they just start engaging with that after they take office and have to really make those decisions and move forward with it. [00:40:16] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - I feel like in response to that question in particular, we heard a lot of answers to the effect of - Well, we need to look at the existing budget and look at where there are inefficiencies and you know, blah, blah, blah. And I am curious how many of those candidates - we have an entire City Budget staff, right? - who works on that kind of stuff and auditing. It's not like there aren't people looking at that. I just wonder how much have those candidates engaged with what is already out there? Have they found things that have been already identified? Would that even be in their process of trying to figure out how to reallocate resources, if that's the way they're going to go? [00:40:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And with these - I think it's important - obviously I have my own perspective, and I think it's important to ask questions and to frame them appropriately for the moment and for what's happening. And when I ask a question, I do - with these - try to give people a fair shot to respond, to give whatever their response is, right? I'm not going to cut them off in their response. I want voters to be able to hear what they think - even if I disagree with what they think, they get to hear what they think. But one observation I do have certainly, and formed definitely from working with candidates over the years, is that - we do hear, we heard a lot, we heard more than I was comfortable with, like, Oh, we do need to take a look at that. We need to start to understand where this stuff is. We need to ask tough questions. Like, you decided to run for office. This information has been out there, it's publicly available. There's a ton of information and resources just on the City website itself to walk you through the budget - each budget process - and hearings and a ton of Information. That's not usually where the issue is. The issue is when it's time to make a decision about what to cut, people are hesitant to do that. They're afraid of making people mad. And so we have these situations where candidates either don't feel like they need to come with a game plan, but we are in multiple crises. We need people who are saying - Okay, I have talked to community, I have done homework on what's happening, and this is my plan for what I think will fix it. We need people coming with solutions. We need people coming for proposals. That's the job. The job isn't to ponder and examine and to have endless meetings, right? That's part of the problem in Seattle and many places is that they want to task force something to death and workgroup it and blah, blah, blah. And then we end up in the same place that we were. I do hope that they get some more concrete solutions and process because that is going to enable them to hit the ground running. And it really does make a difference. If you don't understand the budget - the basics of the budget - just the, you know, like not every line item, that's a really hard thing to do. But have you even bothered to go on the City website and look at the budget documents they do have? Have you bothered to read and recall where some of the major issues of funding and major decisions were before? If you haven't, maybe you should. Maybe that would help inform you as to what's possible. You know, even if you think there's waste, fraud, and abuse - as they talk about with all that stuff - well, where specifically? 'Cause that general nebulous thing of we've been - it's not like this is the first rodeo with the City with a budget shortcut, it's not like all of that. And I'm not saying that there's nothing that can be reallocated - that should be looked at - but that information is out there and available. You can find that out. And I'm continually surprised - not necessarily surprised - I'm continuously dismayed by the number of candidates who say - Oh, I don't know that. You know, how can we know that? Or I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it yet. Well, look into it. You decided to run for office - get it together, figure out what you wanna do, and share that. But it's a risky proposition to have someone go - You know, I need to figure out what's going on, we need to look into that, I'm not sure what it's gonna be. And meanwhile, trust me to make this decision. Based on what? That's my personal opinion - that was a little venty, but I do feel strongly about that. And as a political consultant who works with candidates and gotten people up to speed on this kind of stuff - people can do better. People can do better. People need to be better. The city needs the people to be better, to deal with stuff like this. Anywho. We also asked about climate change and specifically 2030 climate goals. This is happening amidst a backdrop where it seems like every major body - 5, 10 years ago, people were like, Yay, we're totally gonna make these 2030 goals. We take climate change super seriously, and we've set forth these ambitious targets that we're gonna achieve. Everybody loved announcing those goals and that those goals reflected their commitment and blah, blah, blah - which is part of my problem sometimes, celebrating the press release instead of delivering the result. But when it came time to make the tough decisions in order to get there, they punted, punted, punted, punted until we've gotten a rash of announcements over the past couple of years that - Yeah, so those 2030 goals, we're not gonna hit them, but we're totally gonna hit our 2050 goals, right? And so if we can't hit this milestone, this benchmark, we're not gonna be on track for that. And the issue really is people just don't wanna make the decisions that are necessary to get there, right? Like, incrementalism isn't gonna get us there. And we are experiencing the impacts of climate change and it's not pretty, and it's not gonna get any better, right? Like this is the best it's going to be for a long, long time - and it's worrisome. So this is important. And specifically, it is 2023 - 2030 is right around the corner. There's a lot that can be done. And there's a lot of money being raised by the carbon credit auctions from the Climate Commitment Act. There's a lot of investment available throughout the state. Do they have plans to pursue and get some of the - what are the plans here? But we need to get on track and be serious about 2030, get back on track for 2030. 'Cause if we can't hit that, we can't hit anything. And we're in for a world of hurt. It's a serious thing. [00:46:22] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean, I think it's trying to understand - does this candidate have or feel a sense of urgency around this? Are we actually gonna put a honest effort into trying to meet these goals? And what are their ideas about how to do that? Because as you said, we needed to be doing this stuff yesterday, but the next best time to do it is starting now. And so what is the plan? [00:46:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there were some candidates - a couple that I'm thinking of - that had some good concrete ideas for this. There were others who very much did not. But also with this - candidates also learn from each other during the campaign trail. And one thing that I do think that we need to do is to encourage that more. The more candidates can learn - like actually engage with solutions - is a good thing. Sometimes - obviously if someone's biting a speech word-for-word, which happens sometimes in politics with candidates - that is irritating, especially for the people in campaigns sometimes. But if there's a good idea and someone else is - You know what, that makes sense. - that's a good thing. We should encourage that. And so I do hope - with a number of these responses, and definitely this one too - that people pay attention to what other candidates, even if they aren't in their same district, say because there are some good workable, achievable plans and ideas on the table that could definitely help. And if a candidate hasn't really engaged with that or thought about it before, there are other candidates who are great resources for them. [00:47:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I think so. I think my experience, having gone through all these candidate interviews, is just every candidate is unique and is coming from a different place to run for office. And they do come with different expertise and experience. And so I think it is kind of a helpful resource to look at for other candidates, whoever ends up getting elected, people who are just concerned about our community as a whole. What are these candidates talking about as being the issue? Why are they stepping up to do something that - to me, sounds like an awful thing to have to do - put yourself out there, and get scrutinized, and knock on doors every free moment of your life. I don't know - I mean - but they wanna do it. [00:48:35] Crystal Fincher: Shannon is a notorious introvert, yes. [00:48:38] Shannon Cheng: They wanna do it. And there's a reason why. And maybe listening and trying to understand - what is that reason and what can we do about it? What are they saying would be helpful to them to address the thing that got them to do this incredibly hard thing? [00:48:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. Another question we asked was just - was about childcare, which is a really, really big deal. We talk about - housing is on everyone's mind, it's on everyone's agenda because it's such a major expense and it keeps rising wildly. It is unsustainable, right, in this situation. The number two expense for most families, which sometimes creeps into number one with multiple children, is childcare. We talk about groceries, we talk about gas and people definitely feel those, but people are feeling childcare in a way that is wild. It's more expensive than college and college is wildly unaffordable, right? This is so expensive and it directly impacts whether people can work - period - whether people can participate in this economy. It is cost prohibitive to get childcare for a lot of people. It's cheaper just not to work, right? And that impacts people's upward mobility, likelihood to be in poverty, to be able to get out of poverty if you are in, whether they're going to need government assistance, right? This impacts so many different things. And the way kids develop depends on the quality of care that they receive from early childhood on. And so this is directly impacting many families, indirectly impacting everyone in the community - from businesses, the regional economy, other parents, community members. And so we don't talk about it enough still. There are a lot of people who are and that's awesome and great, but I think it needs to be elevated even more. And for anyone who's talking about issues of affordability, who's talking about inflation, who's talking about just families having a hard time dealing with expenses - you cannot have that conversation in any credible way without talking about the cost and accessibility of childcare. So that's why we talked about that. And then, just general - Why are you running? What are the differences between you and your opponent? I will tell you - just from my perspective as a political - this is a question that I would ask candidates before deciding to work with them. And I'm looking, in that question, to hear specific and tangible things that they wanna do for their community. It is a big red flag when that answer doesn't include how they want to help people. If the answer is just about them - Well, you know, this was the time for me and lots of people came to me and like, blah, blah, blah. People know - different jurisdictions are different. They suit different leadership types, personality types - depending on what you wanna do. So is this someone who's running for every open position available under the sun? Or do they have something specific that they wanna do in the role that they're seeking? Do you have something tangible you wanna accomplish? People should have tangible things they want to accomplish, and not just running for vanity or because power is attractive, or it's something to put on the resume or whatever - run to accomplish something to help people. I am drawn to people who are rooted in that and have answers with that. I will say just in my experience overall - that determines how someone, absolutely determines how someone governs, how consistent they are to governing - and the way that they ran absolutely has an impact on that. And even beyond, even for candidates who lose, right? Usually candidates who are like - You know, I'm running because I see this as a problem impacting lots of people, and I think that I can be part of the solution in fixing it. - is that if, even if they lose, right, they still stay engaged in the community and working on that. You can see the motivation is not power for me - to them. It is actually doing something to help the community. And so, I look at a variety of different people who've run over the years, and it's interesting to see the people who are still active in community versus those who just disappear. And it was like a phase - them wanting to be involved. Now that's - obviously there's nuance to this conversation - people don't owe their lives to serving and all that kind of stuff. But if you are saying this is an important part of who you are, it seems like that would continue beyond a campaign and that you would see consistency there. So that for me, as a person who is either deciding who I'm gonna vote for, or who I'm gonna work with or in support of - that answer matters a lot to me. That motivation matters a lot to me. How do you see it? [00:53:17] Shannon Cheng: I agree with a lot of what you just said. What I really liked about the interviews we did was that opportunity you gave them to just talk without time limits that forums often impose. And it was refreshing to kind of hear people kind of being more their authentic self. And I think that's just - I don't know that I can describe it, right? But I think just you have to listen and hear how they talk about things. And that was - there were many candidates who came on who, just based on reading, doing all the research ahead of time for their interview and reading about them - and then when they came on, they were not what I expected. I mean, some were. But there were some surprises as well. And I mean, that was, it was really great to - ultimately, these candidates are all people. And I think on the campaign trail and it can get heated - sometimes it can get kind of boiled down to a caricature almost, or just what their campaign website makes them out to look like. And I don't know that that really is the most informative in terms of understanding who these people actually are. And for me, that just feels like - I wanna know that the people who are making these hard decisions for myself, and people I care about, and neighbors who I care about - even if I don't know them directly - I just want them to be good people. [00:54:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I want them to care. I want them to see the people and the humanity. I want them to not see statistics. I want them to understand that it's people. I want them to not celebrate the fact that they - it's fine and good - Hey, we passed something. But that then has to be implemented in a way that is felt by the people who it's intended to help. And if that doesn't happen, it all doesn't matter. And I feel like we don't pay enough attention to that part of it a lot. And so I personally, as a voter, am looking for people who understand that and who at least value writing legislation that has a reasonable shot at being implemented well and can deliver on the result. And who track that and who are willing to course correct there and not just paper over things that may not be great and act as if they are - 'cause the goal is to help people. I do wanna talk about - so we took a little bit of a different approach to editing. Candidate interviews - I know how things can get in campaigns and being a candidate is not easy, it's nerve-wracking and being in these interviews - and editing can make people sound better, sound worse. Sometimes people take a pause to consider, or - and that is a, Shoot, I don't know, or like, will say different things, right? And so the approach that we took to candidate interviews - particularly when we had both candidates in the race - we wanted to present them as straightforwardly as we could, to basically not edit their answers. Because there was a lot - we would lose things on a variety of sides, right? And my goal is to not interject our presentation of the candidate. It's to give you the candidate. And I think people can hear throughout these interviews that you can hear someone thinking, you can hear someone processing, you can hear someone being - dodging, or like really contending with someone - like that whole thing mattered. And it seemed like we didn't - editing that, that was just gonna be a no-win situation for - Are we making someone look better? Are we making someone look worse? Are we interjecting what we think into there? So we actually decided just to - sometimes I would flub up a question, right? And like that's edited out, but we let candidates just answer and let their answers be their answers. And you can hear them. And they are people, right? And this isn't easy. And people can be super nervous in an interview, right? Like this is - I get nervous sometimes before I do things - that's totally fair. So I - if someone - I'm not looking for someone to sound perfect or perfectly polished, right? There are some times you can sound too polished. But just to give people an accurate impression of who they are, and how they're engaging with the answer, and can make their own call on whatever that is. But basically it was like - we don't record live, but you got the answer as though it was. So that's the approach that we took there. 'Cause we did get a couple of questions on - Are these edited? Or like, How, like, are you going to do that? Or like, Did you, you know, take - No, that's, that's exactly how it happened. [00:57:50] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, we cut out things like coughing fits or the ever-present train siren behind Crystal. [00:57:57] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. [00:57:58] Shannon Cheng: Otherwise - tried to keep it real. I mean, you know, our goal with this project is to educate people about who they are going to make choices between and hopefully inform them in that decision that's coming up. November 7th! [00:58:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You can register to vote online. Even if you have been convicted of a felony and have been incarcerated, the moment you are released, you are eligible to re-register and vote again. Just be involved in making this decision. Voting locally is really important. It's more consequential than all the federal stuff that's going on. Although we hear wall-to-wall coverage and every news program every night is talking about Congress and the president - and not that that's not important. But like, look at how different states are. Look at how different Washington and Alabama are. Look at how different Forks and Seattle and Cle Elum and Spokane and Ellensburg - that is how much control cities have over who they are and how they operate. It can be as different as all of these different cities. They can be night and day difference. And that is all the impact of these local officials that we're electing in the elections that we're having this November. So that's why I do this show. It's really, really important to talk about this stuff and not enough people do regularly. And I'm not saying that it's easy - we make it hard for people to understand and participate in these issues. So just trying to make that more accessible to more people and to help understand where it may be helpful to focus and consider and engage. But this matters, and it matters to try and elect people who will actually deliver on the policy that you think they should be delivering and implementing. So that's why we did this and appreciate you listening to our little explainer about our approach. [00:59:47] Shannon Cheng: Thank you everyone! [00:59:48] 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.

In this special episode, we revisit the most tumultuous summer of the last 50 years, the summer of 2020. Email us: thefacthunter@mail.comWebsite: thefacthunter.comSnail Mail:George HobbsPO Box 109Goldsboro, MD21636Closing Song: Days of Old by Roy WilliamsShow Notes:CBS News Special Report: Protests over George Floyd's death enter 6th night https://youtu.be/AM0HQDtf8OI?si=FRelSJkPBLiZ0pOb Body camera footage of George Floyd's death released https://youtu.be/Pzjln_SCxY8?si=ZUfFy0S2InI36CoO Derek Chauvin charged with third degree murder in death of George Floyd https://youtu.be/Ve8S0rGd9-c?si=ewKchO8gGJbwqlfb Protests turn violent across the nation https://youtu.be/tcOPrL3XsCI?si=8qwc6o1Qw805Neh6 Thousands rally worldwide for Black Lives Matter https://youtu.be/AWjGUGbhNsQ?si=ZZD0cb0LucQ-dgiv Police respond to looting at Midway Target in St. Paul https://youtu.be/Rj3HhnoSWNE?si=LBDfJATfka9yLOHU Democrats kneel for length of time officer knelt on George Floyd's neck https://youtu.be/FWiY7b7PO50?si=iR8splbIMHuSwBZb 'We were wrong': Goodell admits NFL should have listened to players on protests https://youtu.be/XmSS5lQJ_68?si=vQUiWnRrD_7MA1QH LeBron James, Colin Kaepernick & More Reactions to George Floyd's Death https://youtu.be/6XmYCDfj22E?si=qnyohelgnBD5O1Ol Rev Al Sharpton: I have seen grandchildren of slave masters tear down slave master statues https://youtu.be/Dh2htAJQgho?si=9-2bWKDMNhWxhbza On the ground after 68 days of Black Lives Matter protests https://youtu.be/mwoLJ9FtRHs?si=qA-Z9_jiRxiJCz_V Candace Owens on where the money donated to ‘Black Lives Matter' has actually gone. https://youtube.com/shorts/ceSDmcOwW14?si=lxNlLwF6bdnHMI1w Protests For George Floyd Spread Around The World https://youtu.be/wm0mCmfWK3M?si=UKEAX_AEIgNz8Isp HCSO needs help identifying hundreds of Walmart looters https://youtu.be/TJ38ZyidZDs?si=mHYZYvNutPU2IuVW NYC stores destroyed by looters, riots during George Floyd protests https://youtu.be/3B79fn6Fmj0?si=T0_NIXVMIPhbR5gf Black Lives Matter: Federal agents confront protesters in Portland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYx2m13MqJs FBI Director Wray Clarifies Antifa ‘More Of An Ideology Than An Organization' https://youtu.be/C_EmwEcDcBg?si=Gci62cefeSLN8-RK FBI Director Christopher Wray: 'Majority' Of Domestic Terrorism Cases Are White Supremacy https://youtu.be/wY7P0ETDfls?si=8wsWu59gJV3PcIp- Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists and namechecks Proud Boys during debate https://youtu.be/h-q-drlJg1U?si=jSaI3z47Ym2xWi2F Crowd of alt-right activists clash with Antifa in violent afternoon demonstrations in Portland https://youtu.be/UCYwosTp0hg?si=btK-CE4OEjTdF2oG By the Numbers: White supremacist propaganda surged in 2020, study finds https://youtu.be/0lDxWCDOIzc?si=L1Lg6qNT7BSOCfzh Nemours Children's Hospital staff kneel in silence in support of ‘White Coats 4 Black Lives' https://youtu.be/2RYhN5URA0w?si=W0X7NloDHf6LMgDh BLM Ex-Founder Dropped By Warner Bros For Not Honoring Contract https://youtube.com/shorts/RR-MX9w8tfw?si=hqRAD2DfQMkXNHMn Police Attack Reporters at Black Lives Matter Protest https://youtu.be/IMfBIW0Pqvg?si=6d7aNW-MQsilR3PH Nana Akua: Black Lives Matter is a scam https://youtu.be/Kni15wFRZrA?si=a5Z1uFTQXp4Y5mde Peaceful protesters continue to clash with federal agents in Portland https://youtu.be/wLLtYAP5TGE?si=nLPtn2CLeYYN8P7_ Protests continue after Seattle police dismantle 'CHOP' zone, 25 arrested overnight https://youtu.be/AWPPS3ZW0UY?si=fbouTIfGLYa2AI8p BLM ‘blows through' funds raised in the wake of George Floyd's death https://youtube.com/shorts/iiRqLzwGpoQ?si=cqebc-2W2g0dcnwj Inside look at Seattle's East Precinct after police dismantle 'CHOP' zone https://youtu.be/mFBmiNwI8WI?si=5dGSzTM9MJVy0gCh Luxury Stores Looted in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica https://youtu.be/MS5C38kayWI?si=9BmLJCCn6PQHWnqL Escalating Protests Nationwide Over Death Of George Floyd https://youtu.be/q2L-8-rUM7s?si=fCulsD4n-4M4C_49 Jeep Drives Through Crowd of Black Lives Matter Protesters in Colorado https://youtu.be/B2_wraEmEGo?si=Vzx0AsE9fFYiJxEM New video shows Antioch teen just before deadly Kenosha protest shooting https://youtu.be/DpDZJ_dPxYo?si=4C-pw2QUgEspmPGk How a night of protest turned deadly in Kenosha https://youtu.be/VLtx4yymt6s?si=M4M0kQSdvkHPSMUN Kenosha protests: National Guard troops deployed to Wisconsin https://youtu.be/dY8iual96WM?si=Om71Nju-Fd45ejvx United States is becoming ‘ideologically fractured' amid leftist media agendas https://youtu.be/oscQ89B31U0?si=el7ujpqhuatE394c "Mostly Fair" Media https://youtu.be/yN3WZUgYcV0?si=tZNo_Eub9ZsHMKx8 Media's "Peaceful Protest" Narrative SHATTERS On Live TV https://youtu.be/_sJZbKDy-Fk?si=eN06wPlkgtAZ09Bk 3 years since CHOP: Seattle's Capitol Hill still bears the scars of 2020 protests, occupation https://youtu.be/WZni1VBVD-k?si=enr_jmgt5IkUcP9y Derek Chauvin stabbed in federal prison https://youtu.be/jsmChHLST8E?si=PBS27jMqMGHgmeN_ New court docs say George Floyd had "fatal level" of fentanyl in his system https://youtu.be/ECUAJXVaIE4?si=ryC4leeAtRF0r1Jr Medical examiner says he has certified overdoses for lower fentanyl levels https://youtu.be/_FF-n23rdbw?si=BtGOX7RoNkq0gPhP Video Released Of 2019 George Floyd Arrest In Mpls. https://youtu.be/oEc3TKTI4yI?si=owBCkxu0HDiNDmEu Further evidence suggests George Floyd and former cop knew each other, Minneapolis police chief spea https://youtu.be/LNAoDzq22zY?si=ICcNgfz6PZ7vI2yE

Over the last six weeks, Hacks & Wonks presented our series of interviews with most of the Seattle City Council candidates! (We did have one cancel, one decline, and one not respond to our invitation…) Now, join Crystal and Shannon behind-the-scenes of Hacks & Wonks for a bonus (not-so) short episode where they discuss how questions got chosen and written, the why behind those kludgy SPOG contract questions, thoughts and observations after all the interviews, and their approach to editing. And also, a bit of venting. 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 Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle.   Resources “Rob Saka, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maren Costa, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 1 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 2 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Joy Hollingsworth, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Alex Hudson, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 3 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maritza Rivera, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Ron Davis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 4 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “ChrisTiana ObeySumner, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 5” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 5 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Pete Hanning, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 6” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 6 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Andrew Lewis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 7” from Hacks & Wonks “Seattle City Council District 7 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   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, this is a little bonus short - I don't know, we'll wind up seeing how long this turns out to be. I am joined here with someone who you don't hear from on the mic often, but every time we do, it's wonderful. She is the person who does so much work for the podcast - this is a team effort. I'm here with Dr. Shannon Cheng. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:14] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal! [00:01:16] Crystal Fincher: So Dr. Shannon Cheng - who is incredible, who works with me, who is a subject matter expert on public safety, is the guru for knowledge about like the SPOG contract, SPMA contract, that kind of stuff. She really understands and has the ability to actually explain it and share it in really accessible ways. But I just want to back up and talk about what you do and how you became an expert. What do you do, Shannon? [00:01:44] Shannon Cheng: So I find myself involved in local policy and politics kind of by accident. I mean, you referenced that I'm a doctor - my doctorate is in Space Propulsion, I'm an aerospace engineer by training. And I guess if I try to think about the throughline of how I've operated in life is that I kind of don't want to end up doing things that aren't gonna let me go to sleep at night. So what happened with me with aerospace is - at one point - understanding that basically staying involved in that industry was contributing to weapons of destruction and war. And I just couldn't bring myself to do that. So through volunteering and activism, I guess that's how I met up with Crystal and got connected and have been doing a lot of things. I work on People Power Washington, which is focused on equitable public safety and policing across Washington state. We've worked on the Seattle, King County and State Legislature levels. We work on things ranging from budget advocacy to monitoring these difficult to understand police guild contracts and understanding how those get in the way of accountability, trying to work to pass charter amendments at the county level that would support better public safety and-- [00:02:59] Crystal Fincher: Shannon was instrumental in the passage of that 2020 County Charter Amendment to reform public safety. Instrumental. [00:03:07] Shannon Cheng: And yeah, then recently I was invited to join the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. And so that's been really a wonderful experience to just engage with families who have been directly impacted by police violence and brutality, and trying to work to have that not happen to anybody else ever again. So that's kind of me. [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: That is. Except you are the ultimate fun fact person. Like you have so many fun facts. A prior student of yours is currently on the Space Station right now. [00:03:42] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - he was up there for a six month stint. He may have come back down by now, but - I think the launch was in February - and when they were showing the pictures, I was like, Wait, I taught that guy Dynamics. [00:03:58] Crystal Fincher: You have a picture of you like in zero gravity working on a thing. You are an orienteering champion, which is a whole thing. [00:04:07] Shannon Cheng: Yes. It is a sport that is not super popular in this country - it's widely popular in Europe, in Australia, New Zealand, those areas. But yes, you could say I am an orienteering champion of sorts-- [00:04:20] Crystal Fincher: You are literally an orienteering champion. [00:04:24] Shannon Cheng: --thanks to participation and attendance. [00:04:27] Crystal Fincher: And you being great. It's not like there were no competitors. Yeah, there are so many fun facts about Shannon - just awesome things that pop up here and there. But Shannon is talented at everything basically, and is just one of the best human beings I know. And an instrumental part of Hacks & Wonks. So that's why we're both here talking to you right now. So we wanted to have this conversation to talk about just what we were thinking when we were putting together questions for the Seattle City Council candidate interviews. And we meet and kind of do a whole thing - have an approach anytime we do series of candidate interviews - this is no exception. But especially with all of them and this conversation, there's been a lot of tangential conversation brought up - a lot on social media, a lot in the community. And some of these questions have become even more relevant in the past couple of weeks, particularly the ones revolving around policing in the city of Seattle and the new contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild that is in the process of being negotiated. And so I guess starting out - when we start thinking about how we're going to do candidate interviews, what do we usually talk about? How do we usually approach that? [00:05:51] Shannon Cheng: I think we're - I know you are always wanting to kind of understand how would a candidate actually vote on issues that matter to people in this city? Because ultimately people can say things and have platitudes, but it really comes down to when there's a hard vote, which way are they gonna go? So I think, especially for the lightning round, a lot of our questions were centered around trying to ask these questions - and getting a Yes, No, or seeing if there was a waffle from these candidates - just to better understand how they think about these things and when push comes to shove, which way they would lean. [00:06:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think that is my approach. And it is an approach that is the result of years of working in politics, years of seeing how candidates process information throughout a campaign, how they conduct themselves just in their general lives, and how that translates to policy, and whether they govern in a way that's consistent with how they campaigned. And certainly one thing that is a throughline is - especially when it comes to tough votes - everybody will say, I believe the children are the future. Everybody will say - yes, they wanna address root causes of stuff, right? But as we see, like we've seen recently in this city, when it comes to issues of public safety or homelessness, people have all these value statements - but it comes down to a vote. It comes down to - Are you going to fund something or are you not? Are you going to really put into place the necessary elements to successfully implement what you're going to say or not? Are you going to just fund what you said - Oh, we need to do more than that. - but if you're only like voting to fund that, that's a different thing. So we tend to ask more specific questions than sometimes we hear elsewhere - we're not the only people who ask specific questions, but I definitely try to do that. And we try to figure out what votes are likely to be coming up, where are the big fault lines, especially for the upcoming year, going to be? What does it look like different interests are pushing for and where do they stand on that? Because it's gonna be an issue. There's going to be pressure put on them to vote certain ways. And if they can't stand up strongly for what they believe and be conclusive about what they're gonna say, that doesn't have a good track record of resulting in the kind of policy that people expect in that direction - if they're soft on that. So that's part of what we do. And I've interviewed people from different philosophical orientations, political orientations. And sometimes there are people who I think or suspect I'm gonna agree with, who are soft on things I don't expect. People who I don't expect to agree with, who - I hear their answers on some things - I'm like, Okay, that was thoughtful and informed. And I certainly have my opinions - you know that - we talk about my opinions on the show. But I really do hope - my goal isn't to super interrogate and like make all the points - it's really to get what they think on the record, out in the open. And really help people to make an informed decision based on what the candidates are saying, kind of without the - with the exception of the lightning round - without the time limit on - Okay, you got to get your answer out in 30 seconds or 1 minute. There's some nuance - sometimes it's more than that - or an issue is complex and we need to talk about it. [00:09:01] Shannon Cheng: And I would just also add that we have a lot of first time candidates this year, especially with open seats. And so it's also understandable that maybe a candidate isn't well-versed in every single issue area that is going to come up. And so I think having this robust set of questions also can help educate - both them and the voters - what is coming up. And maybe if they feel a little weak, or they get a question and they don't understand what it's even about, that's a signal of - Hey, this is kind of important. Maybe you need to look into that, and understand what's going on, and figure out where you stand on it. [00:09:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I - we'll have candidates be like, Whoa, I hadn't thought about that before, I need to learn more about that. And I appreciate that - when someone - taking office, we can talk about all of these issues. But there will always be issues or events that happen, that pop up that you don't talk about while on the campaign. And so a candidate's always going to have to get up to speed on something new. Electeds have to get up to speed on new things all the time. And so how do they approach that not knowing - knowing that they don't know something - How do they approach that? Who are the people they turn to to help learn? What sources of information are they learning from? How do they process information? Those are all things that are useful to hear and to know. And so even if they encounter something that - okay, maybe they didn't think about, you have a perspective about how they process information. So I guess in how we approach writing questions, what is the process for that? Okay, Shannon right now is like, Okay, so Crystal is like - ties herself into knots and then tries to avoid writing the questions. And then it's - maybe we don't want to do interviews at all. And oh my gosh - they're too many, they're too few. It's a little bit of a tortured process sometimes, but you help bring some clarity and order to that whole process. [00:10:55] Shannon Cheng: I mean, you've done candidate forums - so we look at what you've done for candidate forums in the past. And then my issue area - that I work on in my spare time - is public safety and policing, and so I had the opportunity to put candidate questionnaire questions about that topic in as possible questions to ask. So - I don't know-- [both laughing] [00:11:19] Crystal Fincher: Well, with that. [00:11:20] Shannon Cheng: It's very last minute. [both laughing] [00:11:22] Crystal Fincher: It's so, yeah. [00:11:23] Shannon Cheng: But I don't know that people need to know that. [both laughing] We'll edit that part out. [00:11:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, it is - we do this in between our regular work. I'm a political consultant. Shannon works with me. We're busy doing that for most of the day on most days, and we squeeze this podcast in between them - with lots of coordination and research and preparation done by Shannon, which I sincerely appreciate. But it is a process and we're trying to figure out what makes sense to ask. We do still have time limits-ish - we stretch it sometimes. But I do - maybe we should start off talking about some of these questions about policing in the contract because some of these issues have come up lately. Shaun Scott, who is a great follow on Twitter - I don't know if he's elsewhere, but on Twitter, certainly - he was talking about, Hey, the city passed an ordinance. And he's absolutely right - City passed an ordinance giving the city council and OPA? - I think, one of the entities - the city council subpoena power over SPD and other entities, but like including SPD. And they did pass an ordinance that did that. Unfortunately, the SPOG contract of 2018 superseded that. Basically, it had clauses that contradicted and said, No, we're not gonna do that. And then another clause that says, And if City law says that we need to do that, that doesn't matter, this contract is going to replace or supersede City law in that. So subpoena power was essentially taken away. A number of accountability measures were taken away. So the questions that we asked were more specific than we usually ask. It wasn't like - oh, everybody deals with this and talks about it all the time. It was more - these are some areas in the SPOG contract that might be opaque or obscure that haven't been widely publicly discussed, but that are very important in dealing with issues like we're seeing now in the news. How did you put together those questions, and why are those specific ones important? [00:13:30] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, so I think it's important to first understand that officer discipline is considered a working condition under state labor law, and that's why these union contracts are kind of the last stop for determining how things happen. So as you said, the City has passed, I think, multiple ordinances to try to give subpoena power to our accountability bodies - the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General. But the thing is that because we're governing under state law, unless that officer discipline-related provision gets negotiated into a contract that is accepted by the police unions, then it's not gonna be in effect. And so it's confusing, right? We see this all the time that there's these announcements made - Hey, like huge step forward in accountability. We managed to pass a law that says we have subpoena power. - but then what's left out is the asterisk that is, Well, once it gets negotiated with the union. And so I think that's the thing that gets lost a lot. And so I see that a lot. And so when we came up with our questions - literally it's from observing what the process has been, and then going actually through the contract line-by-line and trying to understand - okay, where are these provisions that kind of weaken the glorious accountability system that everybody likes to point to and pretend that we have. So knowing that going through labor contracts is not everybody's favorite thing, that's why we try to boil it down into - Okay, here's a few especially egregious things that seem like baseline we should try to get in the next contract - which is why talking to electeds about it is important because they are the ones who are gonna hold the power in terms of getting what we want in the next contract. So that's the process that we came up with our questions. [00:15:23] Crystal Fincher: So, the question that we asked candidates in the lightning round was - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, known as OPA, and the Office of the Inspector General, known as OIG, subpoena power? Why is subpoena power important and what difference could it make? [00:15:41] Shannon Cheng: Subpoena power is important if you're trying to do an investigation and the information you think is necessary to understand what's happening for your investigation isn't available, or if people involved aren't cooperating and giving you that information. So at that point, a subpoena allows you to basically demand that that information is shared with you. In the 2017 Accountability Ordinance that was passed, it was explicitly laid out that the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General would have subpoena power. However, in the 2018 SPOG contract - I'll just read directly from the contract - they list those two sections and then they have an addendum that says, "The City agrees that these sections of the Ordinance will not be implemented at this time with regard to bargaining unit employees and their family members, and third party subpoenas seeking personal records of such employees and their family members." So basically, the contract said - there's no subpoena power for these two entities. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: And yeah, I mean, we've heard and seen in several stories - the Seattle Police Department did not cooperate with the investigation. They can just say, currently - No, we're not gonna give that to you. No, we're not gonna share that. We decline to do that. And in issues - right now, there's an international conversation about both the killing of Jaahnavi Kandula and its aftermath with an officer mocking her killing. And the record of the police officer who was doing that, the records of officers overall. And we still don't know everything that happened with the East Precinct and it's leaving, we don't know what happened with CHOP - like those kinds of things - we still don't have answers because we can't demand them. We can't compel them. And this does. Not that that's gonna solve everything, but it is a tool of accountability. And at minimum, if you can't even get information about what happened, how are you gonna attach any kind of accountability to that? So it really is a very primary - we have to at least understand what happened, we have to be able to get that information. So that is what went behind that question. Another question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? What is this sworn versus civilian issue about, and why is it important? [00:17:57] Shannon Cheng: So the Office of Police Accountability has investigators - they're actually embedded in the Seattle Police Department - and a lot of their investigators are actually sworn officers. And so some people might think, Well, doesn't that seem kind of problematic? Because you would end up in this scenario where you have cops investigating other cops. Also, the cops that come into the OPA as these sworn investigators - my understanding is they kind of rotate in and out - so a cop going in could expect to then be back out at some point. And that would lead one to think, Well, maybe they wouldn't want to be as thorough in their investigations. So what the civilian aspect was - was that I think people would trust more to have a civilian who is not a sworn officer doing these investigations. And in that original 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance, there was provision made that there could be civilian investigators on this team within the OPA. However, again, that 2018 SPOG contract specifically said - and here, I'll again read from the contract - "The parties agree as follows: Unless otherwise agreed, at any time after the date of signing, the City may replace up to two (2) sworn investigator positions with up to two (2) civilian investigators." So they've basically limited the OPA to only have at any time two civilian investigators, and then that contract goes on to say, "Any case that reasonably could lead to termination will have a sworn investigator assigned to the case." So not only have they limited the number of civilian investigators, they also say those civilian investigators can't work on any cases that would lead to any kind of discipline that is on the harsher side of things. So that's why we asked that question. [00:19:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these, it is important to understand - different jurisdictions have different things that they can do, right? They all have their own levers that they can push and pull. Some things you can only do at the county level, some things you can only do at the city level - in a variety of ways. And so we do try and focus in our questions also on what can they do in their capacity as a city councilmember. And because they do have the power to approve or reject this contract, putting - understanding what their conditions for doing so would be, getting them on the record about that is important 'cause this impacts how the police operate within the city and with residents. The next question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? Why was this a question? [00:20:34] Shannon Cheng: This is a question because - as we all know, the City has been trying for a very long time to stand up a alternative crisis response that may or may not involve the police. I think a big hurdle to that being stood up is this concern that I've heard - that if the City was to stand something up that didn't involve the police or the police didn't agree with, that they could file an Unfair Labor Practice with the state and basically say - this is some violation of their contract, that kind of work that had been under the purview of the police department was now being taken away from them and given to somebody else. So it's - I don't know that there's wording explicitly in the contract that says that, but it would be the union invoking the contract to say that the City was taking work away from them, basically, that they wanted to keep. [00:21:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's a big major issue. And right now we're kind of at an impasse - alternative responses and funding non-police public safety responses and interventions is one of the most popular things supported by Seattle residents right now. They vote for candidates who say they're gonna support that. Polling shows that north of 70% across the board, it's been over 80% in some polls. When asked explicitly - hey, if your tax dollars are gonna be spent, what do you most want it to be spent on? Highest thing is standing up alternatives to policing to address things like behavioral health crises. We all see that this is so desperately needed and that - it used to be five years ago, kind of pre-2016, pre-George Floyd, when police used to have no problem. They said all the time - we aren't social workers, we don't have the tools to handle this other stuff, we wanna do our core jobs and not handle all these other things that we don't really have the tools for. And it seems like because of fear of losing funding, losing headcount, whatever, that stopped and they started clinging to everything that they could have. So like we ask a question - Do you think parking should be housed within SPD? Lots of cities are having conversations, especially since police are saying that they're short-staffed to say - Okay, how can we more effectively deploy police officers and take things off of their plate that shouldn't be on there in the first place, that are not core to what a sworn officer - a sworn armed officer - is needed for. But the challenge is that that is coming up against, as you described, those feelings that - Well, that's something that we, you know, that was in our sphere of responsibility, funding is attached to it, headcount is attached to it. And if we lose that, maybe that's gonna be a slippery slope to losing other things. So like in the City of Seattle, the city council has actually funded alternative police responses. They have decided they wanna move forward with that, they've allocated money for that. And once that happens, it's basically up to the executive - currently Bruce Harrell, before with Jenny Durkan - to use that funding and implement the thing. Well, it's kind of stuck there. The money isn't being used. And for a while, especially with Monisha Harrell, when she was with the city, they talked about, Okay, well, we wanna do all that, we're just gonna do it with an internal department of public safety that will also house civilian responses. And I think part of standing that up as an internal department was to address the concern of the issue of headcount. And if the headcount decreases, even if it's just parking officials who do not need a gun to enforce parking, that - hey, let's not call that like a regular response, let's not use sworn headcount to do that, we can deploy that more effectively. But that is a problem that is stalled. And so the question really is - will they ensure that in the contract that is currently being negotiated, the contract that the council will be voting on, can they eliminate that as an issue? And obviously this has to be negotiated by both sides, but is there something they can come to that enables the City to move forward with what the residents are demanding and what leaders have committed to do? We've gotta find a way to have the contract not impede the progress that the city is repeatedly begging to make and promising to make. So that's what went into that question. Another question we asked - Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? Why is this an issue? [00:24:53] Shannon Cheng: So the current contract that we're under explicitly gives SPD officers the right to work off-duty. And this is in-uniform, so one factor in this is that this is basically allowing them to use public resources, meaning their uniform - and they retain their police powers while they're working for not us, not the public that's paying them, but for private clients who they work for. So, a lot of these things are things like security or traffic direction, and they get paid a lot of money for these jobs - sometimes I think even more than they make as an officer. And so one of our concerns is that, especially in a time when it's short-staffed, then allowing in-uniform off-duty work - it creates confusion with the public, for one thing, when you see a police officer not working in their official capacity as a police officer, but dressed as one and maintaining all the same powers that they do - it just doesn't have clear boundaries between their professional work and then their side job. And then with the short staffing, these added hours that they're doing on top of, in theory, their full workload at SPD, plus potential overtime that they're gonna have to do - this is just gonna lead even more to officer fatigue. And we can see how that could lead to more of the poor decision-making or judgment calls, and has detrimental consequences for all of us in the public. And often - with their history of biased policing - would affect certain populations more than others. So that was why we asked this question. [00:26:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these questions overall, some people are like - Well, why are these all like accountability questions? Are there any other things? Like, do you just hate cops? And to me, hating cops is not the issue, right? This is about public safety for everyone in the city and in the region. And every candidate who's run - I collect and keep political mail, advertising, blah, blah, blah - and what is really astounding is kind of the revisionist history of members of the council who are known for being moderate or conservative. Everybody's like - Well, you know, they elected me to be moderate and conservative. Or like people covering them - They elected someone. But when you look at what they said when they were running, when you look at their mail and what they communicated to voters - to a person - they talked about the importance of police accountability and reform. And, you know, some people wanna go further than others, but they all promised that. And so, if that wasn't just BS - anyone who's serious about that, and even if you're working towards community-centered, different things - anyone who is serious about what we're currently doing, and this contract is currently being negotiated, we really do have to contend with these things. And if we aren't, then we're not really serious about doing anything about accountability, let alone re-imagining what public safety can actually be. So no matter what someone's ideological position is on the council, they should be engaging with this. This is in their sphere of responsibility. They're gonna have to vote on this contract. And so we need to know - we should know, and we should be talking about - what these parameters are. It's very important and consequential, and can determine whether we wind up in similar situations to now - where we have an officer where basically the globe has said, That's disgusting and should be unacceptable. Why is this officer still there? And we have City electeds basically going - Oh, there's nothing we can really do about it. The contract, you know, like, can't really fire them. There's no precedent. - and like, those are all legal issues because of the contract. But they approved this contract - Bruce Harrell approved the contract that we currently have. He's not the only one - I think Debora Juarez was on the council at that point in time. Lorena González used to be, and said she regretted the vote. Like, this was consequential. We talked about this at the time - not many people were listening in the wider community. But like, this is not a surprise that we're seeing problems because of the overriding of accountability measures passed by the City and supported by people in the city. So that's why we asked those public safety questions. We asked a bunch of questions in the lightning round about how people vote. Why do you think these were good questions to include? [00:29:06] Shannon Cheng: I think they're good because this is an instance where they had to sit down with their pen in hand and make a choice - bubble choice A or bubble choice B. And so in this process of trying to figure out how these candidates think and where they stand on things, asking them about times where they actually did have to make a decision and knowing what decision they made, I think that's why we asked those. [00:29:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it's fair to ask. And it gives you insight into how they process information when it does come time to make a choice on one or the other, even if they think - maybe they don't think either choice is perfect, but they do need to make a choice and what they made is informative. In these, you know, also informing on different issues, where they stand there. We asked also issues about housing. We asked them if they rent or own - and that's an important question to ask, it's an important thing to know. And it's wild that we don't talk about that more because that is one of the biggest dividing lines in Seattle politics. It's one of the biggest dividing lines in voters. When you look at any results map of an election, you basically see the results of homeowners versus renters, higher income, higher net worth people versus lower income, lower net worth people. That is a fault line in Seattle politics. And looking at how votes happen, we see people voting aligned with their housing status a lot. It's something that matters, that is predictive pretty regularly. And so we wanted to ask that. We wanted to understand if they rented, if they own, and if they're a landlord. Some candidates were, some candidates were not. And then we face questions - the council actually passed an ordinance that was vetoed by Mayor Harrell, just about some more accountability for landlords and more sharing of information to try and better poise the City to address the housing affordability crisis. And so that's why we asked those. We asked the question about allowing police in schools because that has been talked about in some meetings. It looks like there are some influential interests that want to make that happen and encourage that. I don't think that's wide-ranging, but there were a couple of powerful and well-placed people who - that was coming from their camps - and so we thought it was important to get people on record about that. We asked about trans and non-binary students - making sure they could play on sports teams that fit with their gender identities and using public bathrooms and public facilities - and got a range of answers on this one. Why did you feel this was so important to ask? [00:31:37] Shannon Cheng: I think this is a community that's been under attack just nationwide, at all levels. And so it's important to know - I think Seattle touts itself as a progressive, inclusive, welcoming city - and we want to make sure the people who are leading us actually are. [00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And respecting people's humanity without condition, without making them less than. And unfortunately, the sports issue is propaganda. It's propaganda. I understand why the propaganda campaign caught on - it's using very cynical tactics - but we do have to stand up and say, That's propaganda. We can't be like - Okay, yeah, trans people, we accept everybody - live, love, and light - all that kind of stuff. And then say, Yeah, but if your kid wants to play on a sports team - which is a very important formative part of growing up for many people, if they choose to do that, and also not just sports, just any kind of activities attached to school, which is something that so many people partake in - and say, Yeah, but not that. Like that is an issue of just fundamental humanity and inclusion - and so we should be explicit about where people stand, and we should talk about that, and we should force people to be accountable for where they stand on that. And make sure people know - before they vote - whether people plan on including every member of this community in our community. We asked about the economy, the JumpStart Tax - which there's been lots of talk from different interests about, from some Chamber interests saying, Maybe we need to divert some of that to help restart, relaunch downtown's economy. There are other people saying, Hey, this might be something that we need to increase to help with the upcoming budget deficit. And some people who just disagree with it overall, and think that we - that that's placing a burden on business, and that's gonna be bad for residents - and usually coming from the same people who say the sky is falling every time that there is a minimum wage increase, and then more people move here and are happier than they are in other places, so it seems like we would stop listening to people who continue to predict that and are wrong, but we don't do that. But wanted to get people on record for where they stand on that, because - in Seattle politics, interests are tied to taxes - that that's where a lot of corporate interests are really concerned about. And they will use other issues as wedge issues in messaging, but their primary concerns are about taxation and the maintenance of their capital. That's really what's driving a lot of this. And so the JumpStart is going to be at the heart of that interest and conversation. [00:34:09] Shannon Cheng: We hear businesses - obviously they don't wanna pay more taxes, but at the same time, we also hear businesses complaining that they're not getting the services that they expect the City to deliver to them. And so I think it's pretty telling that - you don't wanna pay for it, but you wanna get it. [00:34:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and we also asked about how candidates can better support small business. I do think there's a conflation of gigantic multi-trillion dollar mega-corp interests and - in the business community - and a small mom-pop shop, local business who is - hired a couple of people from the neighborhood and is trying to make it. Both businesses, both part of the business community - but usually very different interests and needs. And we have a lot of small businesses who are struggling. Small business - business is important to the economy across the board, right? But we need it not to be extractive. We need not to say, Oh, it's so important. So like Boeing, we're gonna give you more money than we've ever given anyone before with no accountability. We did this because Boeing is gonna create jobs and we need lots of jobs. But then we don't get a refund when Boeing lays people off and leaves town, right - that's a problem. And we have trillion dollar corporations in the city of Seattle who frankly use small business owners to say - Oh, please, we're suffering and we need help, and we shouldn't pay any taxes. When most residents, according to polling and election results, feel that businesses like - mega corporations are not paying their fair share. There is a conversation to be had - some kind of income inequality and differences in access and challenges that small businesses are facing compared to large businesses. It's kind of similar to what lower income people are facing in comparison to larger income people. Small businesses are having problems affording rent - that's a really, really, really big issue - they are suffering from predatory rent increases. Also, that's putting people out of business. But there's a lot to be discussed. And if you talk to business owners - we've done shows with different business interests - and their needs are broad and varied and they should be listened to, they are part of the community. But we do need to talk about them as part of the community and not as this super entity or something like that. So that's what those questions were looking to get at. And then just some perspective stuff - asking if they're happy with Seattle's waterfront, asking about return to work mandates - just helping to further get inside their minds, how they think, what their perspective is, where they're coming from, and who and what they may be sympathetic to as interests and as bills - when that comes up. Transportation and transit related questions - we have absolutely seen a difference in engagement and thoughtfulness, willingness to fund and include provisions that are helpful for pedestrians and people on transit, people riding bikes from leaders who actually use them. And we suffer when leaders are responsible for transit policy who don't use and ride transit - all sorts of distorted and weird policy and perspectives come out when we have people governing systems that they don't themselves engage with. And so we asked those questions to try and see - are you actually using the system? Because we hear different things from people who do take them versus things that don't. And just, that's a useful thing to know. Similarly, Pike Place car traffic is something that we talk about - just another one of those perspective things in there. We obviously asked about the upcoming revenue shortfall in the City of Seattle for $224 million. Everyone is going to have to contend with that. Every candidate on the campaign trail, every candidate that we interviewed has talked about wanting to implement new things that are going to require additional revenue, that are going to require resources. And we're moving into - Okay, we're going to have fewer resources and either we're gonna need to raise revenue or make cuts. And so it's just not a serious position to be in to say we should be doing all of these other things - these new things that require revenue - when there's going to be less of it. And everyone is kind of dodgy usually when it comes to cutting things, but they're going to need - odds are it's gonna be a combination of cuts and attempting to pursue new revenue. If someone is saying they aren't gonna pursue that, then we need to view their other plans that do require revenue differently. If someone is saying, I'm gonna go after revenue hard - that's great, but we should also know if there are any cuts that they think they may need to do. Revenue may take a while to come in. We will probably need to do some trimming in the meantime - just because the City's mandated to have a balanced budget. And so that's something real that they're gonna have to contend with. And those are really hard decisions. And you can see how hard they are by how unwilling or unable candidates are to answer how they're gonna prioritize cutting, where they think they should come from. If revenue doesn't pass or come through, what does that mean? How are you gonna approach that? And we do need to press on those tough decisions 'cause those are gonna be really consequential things. And I think sometimes candidates - we've talked about this on this show before - think that just like the hard part is running, and then you get elected, and then you can exhale. Running for office is the easy part - it only gets harder - and the spotlight on you gets hotter and brighter when you actually do have to make a decision that's consequential for the people in the city. And so we should poke and prod about that and try to get as specific as we can. We don't always do perfectly with that - I'm reflecting on the answers that we got. There were so many vague answers - and try and poke and prod - and some people just don't wanna answer specifically, or just are unable to answer specifically. But hopefully, as you said before, that is an indication that they should think about that seriously. And they're gonna need a game plan 'cause it's coming and they're going to have to deal with that. And it's going to be bad if they just start engaging with that after they take office and have to really make those decisions and move forward with it. [00:40:16] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - I feel like in response to that question in particular, we heard a lot of answers to the effect of - Well, we need to look at the existing budget and look at where there are inefficiencies and you know, blah, blah, blah. And I am curious how many of those candidates - we have an entire City Budget staff, right? - who works on that kind of stuff and auditing. It's not like there aren't people looking at that. I just wonder how much have those candidates engaged with what is already out there? Have they found things that have been already identified? Would that even be in their process of trying to figure out how to reallocate resources, if that's the way they're going to go? [00:40:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And with these - I think it's important - obviously I have my own perspective, and I think it's important to ask questions and to frame them appropriately for the moment and for what's happening. And when I ask a question, I do - with these - try to give people a fair shot to respond, to give whatever their response is, right? I'm not going to cut them off in their response. I want voters to be able to hear what they think - even if I disagree with what they think, they get to hear what they think. But one observation I do have certainly, and formed definitely from working with candidates over the years, is that - we do hear, we heard a lot, we heard more than I was comfortable with, like, Oh, we do need to take a look at that. We need to start to understand where this stuff is. We need to ask tough questions. Like, you decided to run for office. This information has been out there, it's publicly available. There's a ton of information and resources just on the City website itself to walk you through the budget - each budget process - and hearings and a ton of Information. That's not usually where the issue is. The issue is when it's time to make a decision about what to cut, people are hesitant to do that. They're afraid of making people mad. And so we have these situations where candidates either don't feel like they need to come with a game plan, but we are in multiple crises. We need people who are saying - Okay, I have talked to community, I have done homework on what's happening, and this is my plan for what I think will fix it. We need people coming with solutions. We need people coming for proposals. That's the job. The job isn't to ponder and examine and to have endless meetings, right? That's part of the problem in Seattle and many places is that they want to task force something to death and workgroup it and blah, blah, blah. And then we end up in the same place that we were. I do hope that they get some more concrete solutions and process because that is going to enable them to hit the ground running. And it really does make a difference. If you don't understand the budget - the basics of the budget - just the, you know, like not every line item, that's a really hard thing to do. But have you even bothered to go on the City website and look at the budget documents they do have? Have you bothered to read and recall where some of the major issues of funding and major decisions were before? If you haven't, maybe you should. Maybe that would help inform you as to what's possible. You know, even if you think there's waste, fraud, and abuse - as they talk about with all that stuff - well, where specifically? 'Cause that general nebulous thing of we've been - it's not like this is the first rodeo with the City with a budget shortcut, it's not like all of that. And I'm not saying that there's nothing that can be reallocated - that should be looked at - but that information is out there and available. You can find that out. And I'm continually surprised - not necessarily surprised - I'm continuously dismayed by the number of candidates who say - Oh, I don't know that. You know, how can we know that? Or I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it yet. Well, look into it. You decided to run for office - get it together, figure out what you wanna do, and share that. But it's a risky proposition to have someone go - You know, I need to figure out what's going on, we need to look into that, I'm not sure what it's gonna be. And meanwhile, trust me to make this decision. Based on what? That's my personal opinion - that was a little venty, but I do feel strongly about that. And as a political consultant who works with candidates and gotten people up to speed on this kind of stuff - people can do better. People can do better. People need to be better. The city needs the people to be better, to deal with stuff like this. Anywho. We also asked about climate change and specifically 2030 climate goals. This is happening amidst a backdrop where it seems like every major body - 5, 10 years ago, people were like, Yay, we're totally gonna make these 2030 goals. We take climate change super seriously, and we've set forth these ambitious targets that we're gonna achieve. Everybody loved announcing those goals and that those goals reflected their commitment and blah, blah, blah - which is part of my problem sometimes, celebrating the press release instead of delivering the result. But when it came time to make the tough decisions in order to get there, they punted, punted, punted, punted until we've gotten a rash of announcements over the past couple of years that - Yeah, so those 2030 goals, we're not gonna hit them, but we're totally gonna hit our 2050 goals, right? And so if we can't hit this milestone, this benchmark, we're not gonna be on track for that. And the issue really is people just don't wanna make the decisions that are necessary to get there, right? Like, incrementalism isn't gonna get us there. And we are experiencing the impacts of climate change and it's not pretty, and it's not gonna get any better, right? Like this is the best it's going to be for a long, long time - and it's worrisome. So this is important. And specifically, it is 2023 - 2030 is right around the corner. There's a lot that can be done. And there's a lot of money being raised by the carbon credit auctions from the Climate Commitment Act. There's a lot of investment available throughout the state. Do they have plans to pursue and get some of the - what are the plans here? But we need to get on track and be serious about 2030, get back on track for 2030. 'Cause if we can't hit that, we can't hit anything. And we're in for a world of hurt. It's a serious thing. [00:46:22] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean, I think it's trying to understand - does this candidate have or feel a sense of urgency around this? Are we actually gonna put a honest effort into trying to meet these goals? And what are their ideas about how to do that? Because as you said, we needed to be doing this stuff yesterday, but the next best time to do it is starting now. And so what is the plan? [00:46:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there were some candidates - a couple that I'm thinking of - that had some good concrete ideas for this. There were others who very much did not. But also with this - candidates also learn from each other during the campaign trail. And one thing that I do think that we need to do is to encourage that more. The more candidates can learn - like actually engage with solutions - is a good thing. Sometimes - obviously if someone's biting a speech word-for-word, which happens sometimes in politics with candidates - that is irritating, especially for the people in campaigns sometimes. But if there's a good idea and someone else is - You know what, that makes sense. - that's a good thing. We should encourage that. And so I do hope - with a number of these responses, and definitely this one too - that people pay attention to what other candidates, even if they aren't in their same district, say because there are some good workable, achievable plans and ideas on the table that could definitely help. And if a candidate hasn't really engaged with that or thought about it before, there are other candidates who are great resources for them. [00:47:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I think so. I think my experience, having gone through all these candidate interviews, is just every candidate is unique and is coming from a different place to run for office. And they do come with different expertise and experience. And so I think it is kind of a helpful resource to look at for other candidates, whoever ends up getting elected, people who are just concerned about our community as a whole. What are these candidates talking about as being the issue? Why are they stepping up to do something that - to me, sounds like an awful thing to have to do - put yourself out there, and get scrutinized, and knock on doors every free moment of your life. I don't know - I mean - but they wanna do it. [00:48:35] Crystal Fincher: Shannon is a notorious introvert, yes. [00:48:38] Shannon Cheng: They wanna do it. And there's a reason why. And maybe listening and trying to understand - what is that reason and what can we do about it? What are they saying would be helpful to them to address the thing that got them to do this incredibly hard thing? [00:48:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. Another question we asked was just - was about childcare, which is a really, really big deal. We talk about - housing is on everyone's mind, it's on everyone's agenda because it's such a major expense and it keeps rising wildly. It is unsustainable, right, in this situation. The number two expense for most families, which sometimes creeps into number one with multiple children, is childcare. We talk about groceries, we talk about gas and people definitely feel those, but people are feeling childcare in a way that is wild. It's more expensive than college and college is wildly unaffordable, right? This is so expensive and it directly impacts whether people can work - period - whether people can participate in this economy. It is cost prohibitive to get childcare for a lot of people. It's cheaper just not to work, right? And that impacts people's upward mobility, likelihood to be in poverty, to be able to get out of poverty if you are in, whether they're going to need government assistance, right? This impacts so many different things. And the way kids develop depends on the quality of care that they receive from early childhood on. And so this is directly impacting many families, indirectly impacting everyone in the community - from businesses, the regional economy, other parents, community members. And so we don't talk about it enough still. There are a lot of people who are and that's awesome and great, but I think it needs to be elevated even more. And for anyone who's talking about issues of affordability, who's talking about inflation, who's talking about just families having a hard time dealing with expenses - you cannot have that conversation in any credible way without talking about the cost and accessibility of childcare. So that's why we talked about that. And then, just general - Why are you running? What are the differences between you and your opponent? I will tell you - just from my perspective as a political - this is a question that I would ask candidates before deciding to work with them. And I'm looking, in that question, to hear specific and tangible things that they wanna do for their community. It is a big red flag when that answer doesn't include how they want to help people. If the answer is just about them - Well, you know, this was the time for me and lots of people came to me and like, blah, blah, blah. People know - different jurisdictions are different. They suit different leadership types, personality types - depending on what you wanna do. So is this someone who's running for every open position available under the sun? Or do they have something specific that they wanna do in the role that they're seeking? Do you have something tangible you wanna accomplish? People should have tangible things they want to accomplish, and not just running for vanity or because power is attractive, or it's something to put on the resume or whatever - run to accomplish something to help people. I am drawn to people who are rooted in that and have answers with that. I will say just in my experience overall - that determines how someone, absolutely determines how someone governs, how consistent they are to governing - and the way that they ran absolutely has an impact on that. And even beyond, even for candidates who lose, right? Usually candidates who are like - You know, I'm running because I see this as a problem impacting lots of people, and I think that I can be part of the solution in fixing it. - is that if, even if they lose, right, they still stay engaged in the community and working on that. You can see the motivation is not power for me - to them. It is actually doing something to help the community. And so, I look at a variety of different people who've run over the years, and it's interesting to see the people who are still active in community versus those who just disappear. And it was like a phase - them wanting to be involved. Now that's - obviously there's nuance to this conversation - people don't owe their lives to serving and all that kind of stuff. But if you are saying this is an important part of who you are, it seems like that would continue beyond a campaign and that you would see consistency there. So that for me, as a person who is either deciding who I'm gonna vote for, or who I'm gonna work with or in support of - that answer matters a lot to me. That motivation matters a lot to me. How do you see it? [00:53:17] Shannon Cheng: I agree with a lot of what you just said. What I really liked about the interviews we did was that opportunity you gave them to just talk without time limits that forums often impose. And it was refreshing to kind of hear people kind of being more their authentic self. And I think that's just - I don't know that I can describe it, right? But I think just you have to listen and hear how they talk about things. And that was - there were many candidates who came on who, just based on reading, doing all the research ahead of time for their interview and reading about them - and then when they came on, they were not what I expected. I mean, some were. But there were some surprises as well. And I mean, that was, it was really great to - ultimately, these candidates are all people. And I think on the campaign trail and it can get heated - sometimes it can get kind of boiled down to a caricature almost, or just what their campaign website makes them out to look like. And I don't know that that really is the most informative in terms of understanding who these people actually are. And for me, that just feels like - I wanna know that the people who are making these hard decisions for myself, and people I care about, and neighbors who I care about - even if I don't know them directly - I just want them to be good people. [00:54:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I want them to care. I want them to see the people and the humanity. I want them to not see statistics. I want them to understand that it's people. I want them to not celebrate the fact that they - it's fine and good - Hey, we passed something. But that then has to be implemented in a way that is felt by the people who it's intended to help. And if that doesn't happen, it all doesn't matter. And I feel like we don't pay enough attention to that part of it a lot. And so I personally, as a voter, am looking for people who understand that and who at least value writing legislation that has a reasonable shot at being implemented well and can deliver on the result. And who track that and who are willing to course correct there and not just paper over things that may not be great and act as if they are - 'cause the goal is to help people. I do wanna talk about - so we took a little bit of a different approach to editing. Candidate interviews - I know how things can get in campaigns and being a candidate is not easy, it's nerve-wracking and being in these interviews - and editing can make people sound better, sound worse. Sometimes people take a pause to consider, or - and that is a, Shoot, I don't know, or like, will say different things, right? And so the approach that we took to candidate interviews - particularly when we had both candidates in the race - we wanted to present them as straightforwardly as we could, to basically not edit their answers. Because there was a lot - we would lose things on a variety of sides, right? And my goal is to not interject our presentation of the candidate. It's to give you the candidate. And I think people can hear throughout these interviews that you can hear someone thinking, you can hear someone processing, you can hear someone being - dodging, or like really contending with someone - like that whole thing mattered. And it seemed like we didn't - editing that, that was just gonna be a no-win situation for - Are we making someone look better? Are we making someone look worse? Are we interjecting what we think into there? So we actually decided just to - sometimes I would flub up a question, right? And like that's edited out, but we let candidates just answer and let their answers be their answers. And you can hear them. And they are people, right? And this isn't easy. And people can be super nervous in an interview, right? Like this is - I get nervous sometimes before I do things - that's totally fair. So I - if someone - I'm not looking for someone to sound perfect or perfectly polished, right? There are some times you can sound too polished. But just to give people an accurate impression of who they are, and how they're engaging with the answer, and can make their own call on whatever that is. But basically it was like - we don't record live, but you got the answer as though it was. So that's the approach that we took there. 'Cause we did get a couple of questions on - Are these edited? Or like, How, like, are you going to do that? Or like, Did you, you know, take - No, that's, that's exactly how it happened. [00:57:50] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, we cut out things like coughing fits or the ever-present train siren behind Crystal. [00:57:57] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. [00:57:58] Shannon Cheng: Otherwise - tried to keep it real. I mean, you know, our goal with this project is to educate people about who they are going to make choices between and hopefully inform them in that decision that's coming up. November 7th! [00:58:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You can register to vote online. Even if you have been convicted of a felony and have been incarcerated, the moment you are released, you are eligible to re-register and vote again. Just be involved in making this decision. Voting locally is really important. It's more consequential than all the federal stuff that's going on. Although we hear wall-to-wall coverage and every news program every night is talking about Congress and the president - and not that that's not important. But like, look at how different states are. Look at how different Washington and Alabama are. Look at how different Forks and Seattle and Cle Elum and Spokane and Ellensburg - that is how much control cities have over who they are and how they operate. It can be as different as all of these different cities. They can be night and day difference. And that is all the impact of these local officials that we're electing in the elections that we're having this November. So that's why I do this show. It's really, really important to talk about this stuff and not enough people do regularly. And I'm not saying that it's easy - we make it hard for people to understand and participate in these issues. So just trying to make that more accessible to more people and to help understand where it may be helpful to focus and consider and engage. But this matters, and it matters to try and elect people who will actually deliver on the policy that you think they should be delivering and implementing. So that's why we did this and appreciate you listening to our little explainer about our approach. [00:59:47] Shannon Cheng: Thank you everyone! [00:59:48] 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.

Another rough month in the Seattle housing market; Seattle Police Chief speaks on a controversy at the Department's East Precinct; A new picture of just how much streaming we're all doing emerges. It all happened this week. Let's get you caught up...

A business owner who voiced support for the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, or CHOP, during its existence and barred armed officers from entering her stores after it ended is now suing the city and filed a tort claim against it for actively participating in CHOP and having the police abandon its local station. Molly Moon Neitzel operates a chain of Molly Moon's Ice Cream in Seattle. Her lawsuit filed against the city on June 7 in federal court seeking damages argues that its decision to abandon the East Precinct station during the 2020 riots and unwillingness to enforce the law during the occupation "subjected businesses, employees, and residents of that neighborhood to extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties." --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/washington-in-focus/support

Truman Fitzgerald was born and raised in Birmingham. He attended Ramsay High School before graduating from John Carroll High School. He went on to attend Lawson State Community College and then the University of Alabama at Birmingham where he received a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice. He later obtained a Juris Doctor from Birmingham School of Law and was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in April 2021. In July 2011, he joined the Birmingham Police Department, graduating from the police academy in December 2011. After his academy graduation, he was assigned to the Patrol Division's East Precinct until joining the Public Information Division, where he serves as Assistant Public Information Officer.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank!  They cover WA gubernatorial candidate Bob Ferguson's controversial and publicly-mocked  endorsement from former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, an escalating battle over an illegal encampment between the Burien City Manager and King County Executive legal counsel, how a proposed “Renter's Bill of Rights” from Tacoma for All is gathering signatures in Tacoma for a local initiative, the Seattle City Attorney and a right-wing councilmember's plan to rush through a restart of the failed War on Drugs, Seattle's new tree protection ordinance and the first meeting of the Seattle Social Housing Developer Board..  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, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources Sarah Reyneveld, Candidate for King County Council District 4 from Hacks & Wonks   @BobFergusonAG on Twitter: “I'm grateful to have the support of former Seattle Police Chief”   @davidstoesz on Twitter: “I recently had a long email exchange with the AG's office about why they didn't investigate Best's and Durkan's missing texts, a felony”    “King County Executive accuses city of Burien of 'lease scheme' to evict people from homeless encampment” by Nia Wong from Fox 13 Seattle   “King County expresses 'substantial concerns' about City of Burien's intention to sweep campers off city-owned lot; won't allow police to help” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Burien City Manager responds to King County's letter warning that police won't help with encampment sweep” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Dueling Tenant Rights Measures Square Off in Tacoma” by Kevin Le from The Urbanist   “Tacoma city officials discuss updates to Rental Housing Code” by Lionel Donovan from KING 5   “Slog AM: Seattle City Council Rushes to Vote on Drug War Reboot, Tacoma Landlords Try to Squash Tenant Bill of Rights, and DeSantis's Twitter DeSaster” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Here's how the new drug possession law in Washington is different that what was on the books“ by Jim Camden from The Spokesman-Review   “Washington's War on Drugs Starts Up Again in July” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “'Real people being represented': Seattle's social housing board is just getting started” by Joshua McNichols, Libby Denkmann & Noel Gasca from KUOW   Find stories that Crystal is reading here Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows 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. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Sarah Reyneveld about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the experience she brings as a public sector attorney and community advocate, and her thoughts on addressing frontline worker wages and workforce issues, the need for upstream alternatives in the criminal legal system and substance use crisis, how to improve policy implementation, climate change and air quality, and budget revenue and transparency. 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: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:30] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back, Crystal. It's always fun to be on the show. [00:01:33] Crystal Fincher: Always great to have you on the show. So this has been an eventful week, but wow - last night, there was a little event that popped up that kind of took the notice of everyone who follows politics basically in Washington state, whether they were on the progressive side, conservative side, or somewhere in-between. That was Bob Ferguson's announcement of his endorsement by former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. Why did this attract so much attention, Robert? [00:02:03] Robert Cruickshank: Because Carmen Best is one of the most controversial figures in Seattle right now, coming out of the summer of 2020. And as Alexa Vaughn, for example, noted - she runs The Needling - this was posted on the anniversary of George Floyd's murder. And when Minnesota police murdered George Floyd three years ago, as we recall, it sparked a major wave of protest here in Seattle to demand reforms here. And in that response, that protest, Mayor Jenny Durkan and Chief Best systematically deceived the public, deleted their texts in what ought to be a felony, and essentially got away with it. Carmen Best then left her job as Police Chief of Seattle and is now making a fair amount of money as a TV pundit. And so Carmen Best, coming out of that summer, is seen as one of these leaders who sided with the cops against people demanding urgently-needed reform, and is seen as avatar of we-need-to-get-tough-on-crime policies - who has a very poor reputation among a lot of people in Seattle, including Ferguson's base. And that's what happened yesterday, in the reaction, was Ferguson's base - progressive people in Seattle who've been cheering him on as he takes on Trump, as he takes on big corporations - all of a sudden surprised to see him just bear-hugging one of the most notorious figures in recent Seattle history. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and adding on top of that - the challenges during those protests, the deleted texts that you mentioned, but also the tear-gassing of neighborhoods. I don't think people understand how radicalizing that was for some neighborhoods in Seattle. They didn't tear-gas protesters. They tear-gassed entire geographical areas. People in their homes couldn't breathe, were severely impacted by that. And where do you go at that point in time? There are protests out on the street. You're at home with your kids, with your family, and getting tear-gassed in your home. That's what happened in Seattle, and people have not forgotten that. That was a radicalizing moment. I think you've seen instances afterwards in just relations and demonstrating that the trust with the police department is completely evaporated. Neighbors banding together to question people being detained for what seems like no reason because they no longer view them and the police as being on the same side after that. They felt attacked. You aren't attacked by people you trust - yeah. [00:04:33] Robert Cruickshank: Well, they were attacked. They absolutely were. And you talk about the stories of tear-gassing the neighborhood. I will never forget hearing at one of the City Council meetings in early June 2020, when this was all going on, a father who lived in an apartment on Capitol Hill talking about how the tear-gas got into his apartment and his newborn baby started crying and having fluid coming from its nose and mouth because it couldn't handle the tear-gas that had seeped in. This is an example of just complete disregard that Carmen Best had for the public. When the Council tried to ban the use of tear-gas, ban the use of blast balls that had been fired at peaceful protesters in June 2020, Carmen Best spoke out against that. So it is a legacy of attacking - with vicious weapons of war - the people of Seattle engaged in peaceful protests during this crucial moment in our City's history. And for Bob Ferguson to tout her endorsement comes off as the state's leading law enforcement guy - that's what he is as Attorney General - embracing Carmen Best and her narrative of what happened. And I think it's a real wake-up call and a shocking moment that maybe needed to happen. Bob Ferguson has had 11 years in office of very good press. He's fought hard for LGBTQ rights. He's fought hard to ban assault weapons. We talked about his lawsuits against Trump and against big tech companies. And rightly, he's gotten a lot of credit for that. But we haven't seen much about his other views on other issues. He hasn't been asked to take a stand on housing, transit, policing. I don't believe he weighed in, at least certainly not in a loud public way, on the question of what to do about the Blake decision. And so as he's launched his "exploratory campaign" for governor, racking up endorsements all over the place - literally left and right - Pramila Jayapal and Carmen Best. He hasn't gotten a lot of scrutiny yet. I think yesterday's move to announce the endorsement of Carmen Best means he's going to start getting a lot of scrutiny. I think the honeymoon for Ferguson, at least in Seattle, is over. Now that may not be a bad thing in Ferguson's political calculation, but I think you saw the governor's race shift substantially yesterday. [00:06:41] Crystal Fincher: I think so too. What do you think went into this political calculation to seek, and accept, and publicize this endorsement? [00:06:51] Robert Cruickshank: I think Bob Ferguson is trying to shore up his right flank. He's probably looking at what he saw south of the border in Oregon last year, where the Oregon governor's race was dominated by questions of public safety. He's seen similar things happen around the country where Democrats are attacked on this. I think he is also seeing that right-wing Democrats, like Mark Mullet, are making noise about running for governor. I think Ferguson feels he has to shore up his position on the right and the way that he can do that is by touting law and order. And in fact, the day before he announced Carmen Best's endorsement, he also announced the endorsement of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, who had run for King County Prosecutor last year - losing to Leesa Manion. And Ferrell ran on a more law and order right-wing approach, so there's clearly a calculated effort here by Ferguson to show - at least maybe the media and a certain segment of the electorate - that he's not like those other Democrats. He's not a Seattle Democrat who's, in the parlance on the right, soft on crime. He's going to be tough on this stuff, and I think it means that quite a lot of scrutiny now should be directed his way in terms of asking him where he stands and what he believes on the major issues of crime and public policy. [00:08:03] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. When you see this, especially with such a - at least from the online vocal right - also such a backlash from them. This is one of those where you look at the ratio and people are like, My goodness - there was not a positive reaction to this. It was pretty negative across the spectrum. It was universally negative across the spectrum. Who does this help him with? Who do you think - there's their calculus - but in reality, do you think this helps with anyone? [00:08:36] Robert Cruickshank: I think that Ferguson has been waging a low-key but significant effort to try to win the support of The Seattle Times. He was a supporter of legislation in Olympia this year that would have created some tax breaks for media companies, including The Seattle Times, and Times lobbied hard for it. The bill was also sponsored in the Senate by Mark Mullet, so I think Ferguson is looking at this - trying to make sure that he has The Seattle Times in his corner, certain right-wing Democrats in his corner. But they're not a huge portion of the electorate. The sense I have is Ferguson wants to try to just clear the field as much as he possibly can in advance of the actual election. But there is a huge risk here because in building that coalition, you can't alienate another piece of it. Now, all of a sudden, he's got Seattle voters, who are pretty shocked by the Carmen Best endorsement, taking a second look at Ferguson. That's going to give an opportunity to someone like Hilary Franz, who launched her campaign but otherwise hasn't had much energy or momentum - gives her an opening to maybe try to win some of those Seattle voters over. [00:09:42] Crystal Fincher: There's another element of this that I find interesting, and actually this is the element that I would be concerned about backfiring over the long term - that it could play into a narrative that could turn out to be harmful. It's that - while questions were swirling around what happened with the East Precinct and how that happened, finding out the texts were deleted - which is a significant crime, really - and lots of people asking, Hey, Bob Ferguson, why aren't you investigating this? And him saying, I can't. But as has been covered several times - again recently - he has either referred, or spoken up, or suggested that in other instances. And so if a narrative catches on that - Yeah, Bob's tough if he doesn't have a friend doing something - you know, if a friend is doing one of those things that lots of people find objectionable, it's a different story if it's a friend. If it's a different story, if it's a donor, perhaps. It's a different story - that kind of thing. I would be concerned about that kind of narrative catching on. And so that to me is why - I don't understand - realistically - look, if you're trying to project law and order, he could have done what Jim Ferrell did. That didn't work for Jim Ferrell, but it didn't have this kind of backlash where - hey, different police chiefs - but to choose Seattle's Carmen Best, it just - my goodness, that is an unforced error, it seems. Lots of time left, more than a year in this campaign. Who knows who else is going to get in the race? Lots of time, so I am in no way suggesting this is fatal. He obviously financially enjoys a significant advantage and there's lots of time left. We have seen plenty of politicians at all levels step in it and make their way out. So I'm not saying that this is damning, but it's certainly - to your point - is going to invite more scrutiny than there had been before. [00:11:42] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I was thinking about this earlier today - we haven't had a contested primary for governor on the Democratic side in Washington state in nearly 20 years. Last time was when Ron Sims and Christine Gregoire ran against each other in 2004. Inslee didn't have a challenge in 2012, and obviously hasn't been challenged since. We might have one now and I think that would be healthy - healthy for the Democratic Party, healthy for the state - to have different ideas out there, candidates running on policy and having to have discussions and debates about that. I think it'd be really helpful. Ferguson has had a lot of momentum early. He's racked up a ton of endorsements, as we've talked about, but he hasn't really been challenged on policy and he hasn't - made very few statements on policy. It was surely a deliberate thing on his campaign's part. That needs to change - that'll make Ferguson a stronger candidate in the general election. And it'll make all of us - whether we're big D, small D Democrats, or just voters who care about the direction of our state - better off when there's a real policy discussion happening in the primary. [00:12:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We will continue to follow what's going on with the gubernatorial race, but in the meantime, in the City of Burien, there is a really contentious situation going on right now between the Burien - really interestingly - between the City and King County Executive's legal team. Can you just cover what is going on here? In a nutshell, what is the issue and what's currently happening? [00:13:13] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, the City of Burien - and it seems to be the City Manager in particular in Burien - is trying to sweep a homeless encampment. Now, here in the western United States, we're governed by a Supreme Court - or not, I'm sorry, not a Supreme Court decision, that's important - a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which is one level below the Supreme Court, against the city of Boise, saying that you cannot sweep a homeless encampment without having made real good faith offers of shelter to those people you're trying to remove. At some point, one would imagine some city somewhere will try to take that to the US Supreme Court, which would be a nightmare, because I don't think we'd get a good ruling out of that. But here in the western US, we are all governed by that decision - which is binding from the Ninth Circuit - which means you can't just sweep people without giving them a place to go. That doesn't justify sweeps, but that's the legal ruling that cities operate under. Now, what Burien appears to have tried to do was redefine a city park as a dog park - as private park - in order to get around having to actually offer shelter. Because they don't have an offer, they have nowhere to go - that's why encampments exist - they exist because people have nowhere else to go. And so the City Manager said this is the plan we're going to do. Well, King County Executive's Office slapped down Burien pretty hard and said - You can't do that - that violates the court ruling - and we're not going to provide police support. Burien, like many cities in King County, many smaller cities, doesn't have its own police force. They contract with the King County Sheriff's Office. And the King County Sheriff's Office, after 2020 charter reform, the Sheriff is now appointed by the Executive. So the Executive now has more direct control over the King County Sheriff's Office than it had before. And so what Dow Constantine's office is saying is - We're not going to have police there to help do your sweep. Without police, you're going to have a hard time actually getting people to move. The City of Burien is striking back. The City Manager is disagreeing with this. But interestingly, people like Hugo Garcia, who are on the City Council in Burien, are saying - This is not us. We didn't authorize this. This is the City Manager going out and doing this on his own. And so now you have really a fight over power in Burien and who actually controls these important levers of city government - when it comes to people's shelter - is in question here. So Burien has a lot to sort out. [00:15:28] Crystal Fincher: A lot to sort out. And a little context further with this is - where the encampment is now - arrived there because Burien did previously conduct a sweep at one location that was city-owned. And because sweeps don't do anything to solve homelessness - housing solves homelessness - in an entirely predictable turn of events, the people who were swept wound up in an adjacent city lot because there's nowhere else to go. There was no offer of housing, no shelter. Where do you think they're going to go? Obviously, they're just moving place to place. We know that's how this works - over and over again - it's been covered several times, just locally here. So that happened. And so the Council in a 4-3 - they kind of have a 4-3 moderate to conservative majority there - they decided to enter into a lease with a private entity, and who billed themselves as dog park caretakers, in an attempt to allow them to trespass the people who are on that property as private owner-operators, basically, in a way to get around the City's requirement to do that. Well, that was just blatantly an end-run attempt, which Dow Constantine - wisely and following the law - decided not to adhere to. But now this is an interesting situation. As you said, there are councilmembers who said - Wait, wait, wait, this is not happening. The response to the King County Executive's legal advisor is not coming from us. The City Manager decided to respond on their own. The lease with the C.A.R.E.S. Organization - Burien C.A.R.E.S. Organization - is not executed yet. We don't think it should be. We need to reconsider and talk about this. But it's a legitimate issue. And Burien - frankly, there are a number of cities skirting the requirement to provide housing. That's why we see the whole theater around - they were offered housing and they refused, even if they know that the housing is not adequate, even if they know the shelter is available - them trying to check that off as them basically - checking on their list - okay, we have technically done the thing that will not get this sweep called unconstitutional, hopefully. Even though when it has been brought to court, it's been successfully challenged before. So we'll see how this continues to unfold. But it's kind of a - the equivalent of a constitutional crisis, almost - in a city, like a charter crisis. Who does actually have the authority to do this? Can the city manager act, in his capacity, response to this? Can he act independently of the Council on this response? Who knows? They were talking about an emergency meeting. We'll see what results from that. But certainly a lot of people and organizations are paying attention to this. And it is - it's a conundrum. [00:18:24] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I think it is another example of the ways in which the regional approach to solving homelessness isn't working right now. The King County Regional Homelessness Authority lost its executive director last week and is spending a lot of money, but what is it showing for it? It's taking forever to get people into shelter. The idea behind the regional approach is - this is a regional problem - let's pool our resources and act quickly to cut through all the bureaucratic silos so we get people into shelter. It's what we all want. It's not happening. And I think - yet again, we're seeing another grand effort to solve homelessness not succeed because we haven't actually tackled the root of it. We're not funding enough supportive, permanently supportive, temporary shelter, whatever it is - it's not being done. The state isn't kicking in the money that's needed. It's hard to get the permitting. It's hard to find the zoning because we've been glacially slow to change zoning. We finally got some of that fixed here in the 2023 session, but - Ed Murray declaring a state of emergency over homelessness in 2015. I remember when I moved to Seattle, a little over 20 years ago, we were in the middle of the 10-year plan to end homelessness. We have these grand efforts that go nowhere. Meanwhile, people are in crisis. People living outside, whether it's in the cold of winter or the heat and smoke of summer, aren't getting their needs met. These are our neighbors who deserve shelter. And government just trying to pass the buck, just trying to appease a few cranky people who don't want to see a tent, but not giving people the help that they need and have needed for a long time. And we need to find actual solutions to get people housed and pay what it takes to do it. Otherwise, we're just going to keep seeing more stuff like this happen. [00:20:01] Crystal Fincher: We are. And we have to contend with the use of resources here. Burien's in a bind now. If they do buck this - and there's been some early talk - we don't need the Sheriff, we can stand up our own department. The reason why they haven't stood up their own department is because it's prohibitively expensive. And they're already spending a significant portion - I think almost half of their general budget - on policing currently. And so the money that we put into these sweeps, the money that we put into litigation, and the challenges of just working through this is all money that is being spent on things that we know are not going to do anything to make this problem better. At the most, you can make it disappear only in the sense that - yes, you sweep someone from one location, they're going to move to another one. Lots of people hope they just move to another one in another city so they don't have to deal with it, but they do. And now every city - look at housing prices, which are the biggest determinant of our levels of homelessness. Lots of people, employed people, families cannot afford housing. There is nowhere for them to go. So if we continue to waste our resources on the things that don't work, we don't have the resources for the things that do. And we're hearing excuses - Oh, we would love to do this. We would love to have more supportive housing. We would love to have more behavioral health supports. We would love to have more people to help shepherd them through this. Well, then stop spending the resources on the things that don't work, and start spending them on the things that do. That's not an excuse when you're making the decision to spend the money on the things that don't work and that are harmful - that should be a point of accountability right there. And instead they're using it to excuse and explain their actions - it doesn't fly. And I hope they do have a robust conversation about this. I know there are definitely councilmembers there who want that to happen, who want to focus on providing housing, and working collaboratively with the King County Executive to get that done. But the majority of the council, unfortunately, did not take that position at that time. I hope some come around and see the light. [00:22:04] Robert Cruickshank: I agree, and I think ultimately this is where the state needs to step in - you talk about how this is a problem everywhere. I took a train up to Vancouver, British Columbia, earlier this year and you could see under overpasses along the entire route, including in Canada, people living in tents, people trying to make - get themselves shelter under an overpass, whether it's rural Skagit County or the suburbs of Vancouver. This is a problem everywhere because we haven't built enough housing. We know that homelessness is primarily a housing crisis. When you don't build enough housing, when you don't have enough affordable housing, you get homelessness. There are the other reasons why an individual may wind up or stay in homelessness - people who have mental health needs, people have drug addictions - and a lot of that develops when you're out on the streets. Plenty of people fall into homelessness without being addicted to a single drug, without having any outward signs of mental illness. But once you're on the street, in what is a fundamentally traumatic situation where you are unsafe and do not have security or shelter, it becomes very easy to develop those other problems. And so housing is that essential piece of solving homelessness, solving addiction, solving all these other things that people need help with. And it's not being done. And asking cities to solve it themselves without giving them the financial support from the state government, or certainly not coming from the federal government - we're about to see massive spending cuts out of the stupid debt ceiling deal. Once again, it falls back on the State Legislature, and ultimately on our next governor, to figure out how they're going to solve it. Because when you leave it up to cities, you're going to get bad decisions. You're going to get things like we're seeing in Burien right now. It has to be solved at a higher level. [00:23:48] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely does. In another city development, there is an attempt to put a tenant's bill of rights on the ballot in the City of Tacoma. What do they want to do, and what would this mean for renters? [00:24:01] Robert Cruickshank: It's a really great thing. I think what you're seeing in Tacoma is a group coming together called Tacoma for All. And what they're trying to put together is something they call sometimes a tenant bill of rights. It's also been called a landlord fairness code. You do a number of great things such as requiring six months notice for all rent increases, relocation assistance for rent hikes over 5%, no school-year evictions of children and educators - that's a great thing to do because the last thing you want is for educators and families and students to be thrown out during the school year. It would ban deadly cold weather evictions, so if we're having a cold snap or a bunch of snow, you can't evict people out into the snow. It would cap excessive and unfair fees and deposits and ban rent hikes when there are code violations. Seattle has a lot of these things already, but Tacoma doesn't. And what a number of renters and advocates have seen in Tacoma is the need to bring those protections to Tacoma, especially because the state didn't do it - the state didn't act on a rent control bill that had been proposed earlier this year. So you're seeing a group of people come together with strong support from labor, from elected officials like Yasmin Trudeau and others, to make the Tacoma for All initiative a reality. They're getting some pushback from the City, obviously, which - the mayor doesn't really want to do this and offered a vague compromise solution but didn't provide details. And the organizers said - No, we're going to go ahead with our own initiative - which I think is the right thing to do. I believe there are three pieces to the stool of solving housing. You need more supply from the private sector. You need more supply from the public sector - things like social housing, public housing. And you also need renter and tenant protections. And Washington has started to add some more private supply, but we need more tenant and renter protections across the state. And so with the State Legislature failing, you're seeing people in Tacoma step up to act on their own, and I think it's a great thing to do. [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. They're in the middle of collecting signatures - early in the month, they had about half of them that they needed. They need to collect a total of 8,000 by June 15th to submit to the City, and they're actively signature gathering now. The Council could take action to put what they propose on the ballot - like you said, they're signaling that they're going to propose something, obviously. They're feeling the need to do something since there is something on the table right now, but don't know what it is. And it does not go as far - at least the indications based on what has been discussed in work groups so far - do not go as far as the Tacoma For All group's does. And it just doesn't seem like it's going to have the teeth. And so they're prepared to take this all the way, to try and collect all of the signatures - they're recruiting volunteers. And so it'll be great to see this get on the ballot and to have a full conversation about it. I do hope the City tries to take an approach that works because this is attempting to solve a real problem. And completely applaud Tacoma For All for stepping up to really address this problem. This is not a partisan issue. This is just a straight affordability issue. And it affects all of us, even homeowners who are happy with the way that their home price is appreciating - and it has quite a bit, I think home values have almost doubled in Tacoma over the past 10 years - but it's making sure that the teachers in our community, the pharmacists in our community, our transit drivers, everyone who is our neighbors, everyone who we rely on to make our communities thrive, really, rely on affordable housing. If your kid gets sick, do you want to be short a nurse because they couldn't afford to buy a million dollar home, an $800,000 home on an average salary? Lots of people are facing this and we have to contend with this. Displacement is already happening, especially on the Hilltop - it is an issue. It's not speculative. It's not in the future. It's happening now and it needs to stop. They can take action to help reduce the harm here. And I really hope they do. [00:28:04] Robert Cruickshank: Exactly. And I love that they're taking inspiration from what has happened in Seattle. A lot of these elements of Tacoma For All come from policies Kshama Sawant has championed. And Sawant, being the very clever strategist that she really is, fought hard for genuine rent control, has been denied it because the State Legislature won't do it. So she said - Okay, I'll go find other ways - any possible thing we can do under the rights that the City has, we're going to do it to protect renters. And it's worked. Not completely, but she can get these policies done and they provide some assistance to renters in Seattle. And Tacoma looking at that saying - Yeah, let's do that too. It's a good example of things we can do with stopgaps, but we still need the state to step in. California and Oregon have passed statewide rent stabilization laws capping annual rent increases. Washington needs to do the same. It is an urgent thing too. You mentioned being a homeowner - I'm a homeowner. My annual rent, so to speak, is capped. If you have a fixed term mortgage - 30 or fixed - that doesn't go up. It might go up a little bit because of property tax changes, but even those are capped - unfortunately, by Tim Eyman. So homeowners have essentially rent stabilization, but renters don't. And I think it's only fair that renters have those same protections too. [00:29:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now for the City of Seattle - bouncing back here - Seattle is looking to double down on the War on Drugs. What are they talking about, and how did we get here? [00:29:35] Robert Cruickshank: So this is Ann Davison and Sara Nelson and Alex Pedersen, the right wing of Seattle City government, trying to revive the War on Drugs. They believe that the answer to the fentanyl crisis, and in some ways the answer to visible homelessness downtown, is to criminalize. Let's go back to the War on Drugs - if you're using drugs, if you're a drug addict, the answer isn't treatment, it's jail. The irony here is that a lot of us progressives argue that what needs to happen is - these people need housing, they need treatment, give them a shelter, give them a room with a door that locks. Well, that's what Ann Davison wants to do - she just wants to put them in jail. Jail is a type of housing, but it's not the type of housing that's going to solve someone's addiction. In fact, it's going to make it worse, it's going to add more trauma, it's going to make it harder for that individual to escape the cycle of addiction and whatever other problems they're facing. But there is this desire among Seattle's right, which feels a little bit resurgent - over the last 10 years, the right wing in Seattle was on the back foot as we had a lot of really progressive policies come into place and they were wondering how do they strike back and now, they think they found their answer in really leveraging public concern about public drug use. But we know for an absolute fact that criminalizing the use of drugs does not solve drug problems, it does not end addiction - it's been conclusively demonstrated. Interestingly, the City Council, rather than put this to the usual committee process, is bringing it directly to a vote early next month. That could be read two ways - it could be read as either the City trying to do this quickly and put it into place before the public can react against it, or it's also possible that you have a majority in the Council that doesn't want to do this and wants to kill it quickly before it gets too close to the primary in August. Who knows? But it's an example of this absurd desire among certain people in Seattle to just go back to Reaganism - it's crack down on homelessness by jailing people for sleeping in a tent, crack down on drug abuse by jailing anyone smoking fentanyl. This is just stuff we thought we left behind, but it's an important reminder to those of us who are progressive that we're always going to have to deal with right wingers, even in our own city, even in a deep blue city like Seattle. People are going to keep trying to find ways to poke that electric fence to see where there's a weakness and where they can try to really roll back the progressive policies that they hate so much. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's - people who listen to the program regularly know how I feel about this whole thing. It is just really a shame. It is also as important as ever for you to contact your councilmembers, contact the mayor - let them know exactly how you feel about this. I think sometimes, especially in Seattle, it's easy to take for granted once progress has been made, that it's settled. Similar to - we thought Supreme Court law was settled, right? Everything is in flux. And there are people working actively to dismantle the progress that has been made. And counting on people being asleep - they know that they're in the minority. That's why they can't say what they really believe loudly and proudly all year long. And they do tend to strike in these ways that tend to minimize public engagement, support, time - trying to rush this through and let's just get it done. We see this done over and over again. And so I just hope that people understand that there really is a threat of this happening - that Seattle isn't above this, it's not beyond this. This is not something that we can take for granted. And I do encourage everyone listening to contact your City councilperson - contact all the Council people - and let them know where you stand on this, because there's going to be an upcoming vote in early June. And right now it looks like - it seems like - they're leaning towards criminalization and seems like they're leaning towards expanding the criminalization options even from where they were before. So please get engaged. [00:33:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's also important to - anytime you encounter a City Council candidate - to make it clear where you stand as well. Because these are - as the campaigns really start to kick into gear here after Memorial Day, as they sprint towards the August primary - we're going to have to tell these people running for the seats, especially where there isn't an incumbent. Quite a few districts like District 1, District 3, District 4, District 5 - let the people know that you are not a fan of criminalizing drugs. You do not want to go back to the Drug War. A lot of Seattle's state legislative representation voted against the gross misdemeanor provisions in the Blake fix that finally came out of the Legislature earlier this month. That was courageous of them - it's a good thing they did. We need to show similar leadership here in Seattle rather than just waltz back down the path of Reaganism. [00:34:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Also in Council action this week was a tree ordinance that was passed. How did this develop and what ended up passing? [00:34:42] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, this has been in gestation for a long time. I remember we were talking about tree ordinance back when Mike McGinn was mayor, but it finally came to pass this week. And what the ordinance does - I credit the Harrell administration for this, and I credit Dan Strauss as well for finding a good middle ground that isn't perfect, but a middle ground that tries to harmonize tree policy and housing policy. What's really been going on is a number of people who don't want new density in our city have seized on the idea of trees as the way they can block housing. Oh, we're going to cut down all these trees to build housing. Oh, isn't this terrible? The way we can stop the density that we don't want is to make it almost impossible to remove a tree. And in their mind, a healthy urban forest is threatened not by the climate crisis, but by development. Now, we know this is wrong. The City's own research shows very, very clearly that new development is not a major factor, it's a very tiny factor in the loss of trees in Seattle. The main source of tree loss is in natural areas and parks. And why is that happening? Because the climate crisis. We had, as everyone remembers, that awful heat wave in the summer of 2021. And you saw those cedars go brown afterwards. We then had 120 days without rain in 2022 - that further stressed the trees. And some of these are old, majestic trees planted over 100 years ago in our parks and natural areas that are struggling now to survive in the climate crisis. That's where we're losing trees. Where do we need to get trees, build more trees, plant more trees? In City-owned right-of-way, and especially in southeast Seattle. So the answer here should be rather than give in to what the NIMBYs want and make it almost impossible to build anything new - you've got to harmonize these things. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which produces those annual reports, has said numerous times that more urban density is a core element of solving the climate crisis, of reducing carbon emissions. And yet some of these NIMBYs want to use trees to undermine that. Now, we can't have one climate policy undermining another. We need to find ways to bring tree protections and housing construction together. And that's what the Harrell administration and Dan Strauss have tried to do. I know there are some housing advocates, who I respect, who are unhappy with some of the exact details of how this went down. I get that. At the same time, I and the Sierra Club believe it's a reasonable compromise that isn't going to hold back housing production. It'll help us have a healthier urban forest while avoiding blaming new density for loss of trees, right? This is a climate crisis issue. If we want to keep our great firs and cedars and other tall trees we love in the City, we've got to tackle the climate crisis. We have to build higher. We have to build denser. That's how we reduce the carbon emissions that is making everything so much hotter and putting these great trees under stress. [00:37:46] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I think we're seeing a part of a trend here, we're seeing a tactic as part of an overall strategy. And that is from NIMBYs and from the right to co-opt progressive language, to co-opt traditionally progressive causes - and use those to try and sabotage development. And so we've seen this manifest in Seattle with different things or to get their way in a public way - we saw it with bike lanes in West Seattle - they're hard to get, but oh all of a sudden now that it could potentially displace some people who are living in campers, we're all for implementing a bike lane and an accelerated delivery timeline right here, right? We see - we've seen ADA regulations used to - in lawsuits - used to stifle transit mobility improvement. And it's really critically important - and you basically said this - to not give in to the - well, no these are more important than disability access, or this is more important than making sure we do have adequate trees. They want to create the friction between these two groups who are fighting for resources and rights and access. And the key thing to do is to basically join together in solidarity and saying both of these are necessities for our community. We need clean air, and we need everyone to be able to access everything required to live, right? So how do we figure that out? Not we just don't do one, or we just don't do the other. We fight and discount what's needed for the true issue. If we actually get together with people who are being used to do this, we can figure out solutions better and cut out the kind of astroturf middleman, who's just using a different group to try and get their way. It's really cynical, it's really just shameful - but we're seeing this happen a lot. And I - some people's immediate reaction is - I really want this, so I'm going to dig my heels in and say that other thing is bad it doesn't matter. And that's a trap that they want you to fall into, and that's a trap that hurts us all moving forward. We have to work together and make sure that we get our needs met and sometimes it's hard to thread that needle perfectly. Sometimes it's going to leave a lot to be desired, but we really need to keep working to make sure that everyone is getting what they need to be supported in this community. Also an exciting development with Seattle's social housing board having their first meeting. What happened there? [00:40:23] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah they - after the passage of Initiative 135 earlier this year - it created a new board to oversee the social housing authority. And this board is not comprised in the usual way - like typically a City commission or City board is - the mayor gets to make a bunch of picks the City Council gets to make a bunch of picks and they can pretty much pick whoever they want to. In this case though, the initiative stated that the board members had to come from certain backgrounds - he had to pick someone with urban planning experience, he had to pick someone who understands Passivhaus design which is very environmentally friendly. But most importantly, you have to pick a number of people with lived experience as renters or as unhoused folks - and that is what happened with this board. And it's a majority of people, I believe, who are not homeowners. And the idea here is to have this board represent the people, or at least the type of people, who would actually live in a social housing project once we get it built. So they had their first meeting, came together, they elected their leadership. Councilmember Tammy Morales was there and has been really the driving figure in getting this done, and I think one of the few - unfortunately - people on City Council who's really been strongly behind this. I think other councilmembers have been much more hesitant. But social housing is a key part of the solution - there's a great article in the New York Times earlier this week about Vienna - and Vienna has a ton of social housing, and it works really well in having a mix of incomes together, living in the same building where everyone's pulling together to help build a great community. It also includes space for people who are very low incomes or who are formerly homeless, so I think it's really exciting to see this process get underway - a board that is working well together, at least at the start. It seems like Initiative 135 is getting off to a great start, but the bigger question obviously going to be - How do you fund the construction of social housing? The people who wrote the initiative were advised, and I think correctly, that they couldn't do both at the same time - they couldn't create the social housing authority and have a funding source. Well now, we need the City to step up - and this is another thing that we're going to have to see City Council candidates talk about - Initiative 135 passed by pretty healthy margin in the City, it passed in every single Council district. So Council candidates should be on board, but if you talk to some of these folks - they're not all on board. So one of the things that I hope becomes a major issue in the City Council elections this fall is - how are you going to make social housing a reality, how are you going to fund it here in Seattle - because the public clearly wants it and there's clearly a huge need for it. [00:43:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The public does want it - even at the forums that have happened so far - and we know that most people in the public are not tuned into elections yet but there are some who are - and shoring up this early support and making an early impression, especially in a crowded primary, makes a difference. And I will tell you, every forum that I've seen or been at - the public there has had questions about social housing. How are you going to secure funding, how are you going to make sure this implementation goes smoothly? They want to know about it, they want to know how they're going to support it. I fully anticipate this to be a significant issue throughout this entire campaign and beyond. The public voted for it, they want it, they're really curious about it, they're excited about it. And this is something that they feel could potentially put a dent in housing prices and start a blueprint - expand upon the blueprint - of what it looks like to implement this in our state and throughout the region, so really exciting. And with that, I will thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday May 26, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks @HacksWonks, and you can find me @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live week-in-review and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review. 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.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. They talk about the newly uncovered messages that reveal former Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan allegedly ordered the abandonment of SPD's East Precinct, where the “Blake fix” stands after its failed vote in the legislature, the remaining need to address renter protections after the legislature passed major legislation to address the housing supply and affordability crisis, the success of the King County Crisis Care Centers levy, and the failure of the Kent School District bond underscoring the need for bond reform and for putting school measures on primary and general election ballots. 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.   Heather Weiner Heather Weiner (she/her) is a political consultant with 30 years of experience on labor, environmental, LGBTQ, racial justice, and reproductive rights issues. She focuses on ballot initiatives, independent expenditures, legislative, union organizing and contract campaigns. She's a recovering lawyer.   Resources Teresa Mosqueda, Candidate for King County Council District 8 from Hacks & Wonks   ““Please Stop on the Teams Chat”: New Records Expose Mayor Durkan's Role and Others in Abandonment of East Precinct” by Glen Stellmacher from The Urbanist   “WA Legislature fails to pass new drug law; special session likely” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “No Clear Path Toward Criminalizing Drugs in Washington” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “5 big things Washington's Legislature passed in 2023” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Final state transportation budget boosts funding for highways, ferries, traffic safety and the Climate Commitment Act” from Washington State House Democrats   “Washington Legislature increases support for free school meals” by Griffin Reilly from The Columbian   “Washington State Rakes In Revenue From Capital Gains Tax” by Laura Mahoney from Bloomberg Tax   “Voters approve King County's crisis center levy” by Michelle Baruchman from The Seattle Times   “Voters turn down Kent School District bond measure” by Steve Hunter from The Kent Reporter   Find more stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I am a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is to leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chat with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she wants to bring to the County from serving on the Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on the major issues facing residents of the County. Today, we are continuing our Friday shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: political consultant and urban farmer - who now even has chicks - Heather Weiner. [00:01:26] Heather Weiner: Hi, Crystal - so nice to talk with you again. [00:01:29] Crystal Fincher: Nice to talk with you again. I guess I should clarify - chicks as in mini-chickens. [00:01:32] Heather Weiner: Well, I have had many chicks, but now I'm married. Yeah, I have four baby chicks in my office right now under a heat lamp - getting them settled and we'll move them out to the henhouse probably in about five or six weeks. So you may hear a little bit of baby chirping in the background here. [00:01:48] Crystal Fincher: A little bit of baby chirping. I did hear the chirps - they are adorable. I actually got a sneak peek and now I want some chicks. [00:01:57] Heather Weiner: Everybody does - you can't go back. [00:01:59] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes, yes. Okay, I guess we'll start out talking with the news that broke yesterday on a long-standing story - stemming from the abandonment of Seattle PD's East Precinct, which happened in the middle of the 2020 protests amid a lot of controversy - sustained abuses and excess physical abuse by police against protesters and residents of the City. And in the middle of that, the abandonment of the East Precinct - which was at first almost tried to, spun as protesters forced them out - lots of hyperbole on Fox News and conservative media, all that kind of stuff. But for quite a long time, they said they had no idea who made the call to abandon the precinct. [00:02:48] Heather Weiner: But you know that Spiderman meme - where the Spiderman is, all the three Spidermans are standing in that triangle pointing at each other? This was a live-action Spiderman meme where we just had all of these high-ranking officials, high-paid officials within Seattle City government and the department pointing at each other and saying - It's your fault. No, it's your fault. No, it's your fault. But look at this news from internal chats that are coming within the Seattle IT department - who know better than to delete their text messages and their chats - saying the order came directly from Durkan, at exactly the same moment that Chief Best, then-Chief Best, was telling reporters there's no order to evacuate the East Precinct building. So liars are lying. [00:03:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so it turns out Jenny Durkan ordered the Code Red and wow, there's been a lot of obfuscation about this. And even in these - in this records request and what was released - it is clear they are bending over backwards to avoid discussing this in a disclosable way, to avoid discussing this in a way that would be illuminated by issues like this. But they didn't get everyone in on the conspiracy in time. However, they did catch someone being like - Hey, hey, hey, hey, don't discuss this on the Teams chat. [00:04:01] Heather Weiner: Right. It literally says - Do not discuss this on the Teams chat - which was revealed in the public disclosure request. [00:04:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and - [00:04:08] Heather Weiner: I wonder why all those text messages between Best and Durkan were lost forever. [00:04:13] Crystal Fincher: Lost forever. [00:04:14] Heather Weiner: Oops, I dropped my phone in saltwater. [00:04:17] Crystal Fincher: And there's still an ongoing investigation into that. As a reminder, public employees can't delete records, not disclosable records. And this may be something for - we've talked about this before in the program - but for people outside of government, outside of politics, outside of that world may be like - Texts, they're deleted. I delete texts all the time. Everyone in the public sector knows that you don't do this. There are people in positions who handle these. You're constantly getting - Hey, this request came, do you have this document? Or where was this? We're responding to this. This is a regular course of business, and they clearly were trying to hide what was happening. Big controversy - texts from Carmen Best, from Mayor Durkan were deleted. Mayor Durkan is a former federal prosecutor who has been living in this world forever, who had to be retrained even on prior issues when she was with the City. And then those mysteriously deleted texts, which looks more and more like they were intentionally deleted in order to hide this information. [00:05:19] Heather Weiner: And now former Chief Best is now directing security at Microsoft, right? She got a nice hefty landing pad there for when she left. And so despite the fact that her veracity and her transparency are now deeply in question, she is getting paid - I'm going to say a lot of money - [00:05:38] Crystal Fincher: Oh, a ton of money. [00:05:39] Heather Weiner: -working across the water for Microsoft. I saw former Mayor Durkan at LAX a couple of weeks ago walking by and I have to say - [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: I was about to be like - in Seattle? I could just see her - [00:05:50] Heather Weiner: No, at LAX - she was walking at LAX. [00:05:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all. [00:05:53] Heather Weiner: I just kind of stopped and looked at her. Of course, she didn't recognize me - who would? But I just - [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: I would, Heather Weiner. [00:05:58] Heather Weiner: Ah, thank you - how many five foot tall - anyway, I'm not going to put myself down. So anyway, I did see her walking by and I did almost want to walk up to her and be like - What were you thinking, lady? But I didn't - nobody's happy transferring planes at LAX - even somebody who did that, I don't need to heckle them. It's also super interesting because there are so many lower-level employees, whether they're employees of the Seattle Police Department or Parks Department or wherever, who know that they will lose their jobs if they delete emails, text messages, anything that is subject to public disclosure requests. And so to have your highest ranking people doing that - you know who has not been mentioned in any of this is the current Chief of Police, who was an Assistant Chief at that time. How is, how, I'm always curious about why Diaz somehow was either not included in this chain, or hasn't ever been implicated in what's going on here. Was he just really - just not involved at all? That's crazy to me. [00:06:56] Crystal Fincher: I have no idea. Also haven't seen his name mentioned in this, but - [00:07:00] Heather Weiner: No, I know. I've asked reporters - Is Diaz literally nowhere here, or did he just do a spectacular job of cleaning out his records? [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:07:09] Heather Weiner: Don't know. [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: Don't know, but this is the saga that won't end. And to your point, this is really about accountability. This is about - do rules apply to everybody, and do people - do public servants have an obligation to the people? [00:07:22] Heather Weiner: You're starting to make a case now about what's happening in the State Legislature with transparency there, and where reporters and open government folks are really putting a lot of pressure on the State Legislature to open up their records. And legislators say - Look, I can't make decisions, I can't go through drafts, I can't do any of this - if I feel like all of it's going to be subject to public scrutiny when it's not final yet. It's legal - involving lawmaking, so therefore it is protected under legal exemptions. What do you think about that? [00:07:52] Crystal Fincher: I wonder why that's different than any of the other legislative bodies, like city councils across the state or county councils, who have more generous and open transparency policies. And again, this is happening on the public dime. There is a measure of accountability here, especially when so consistently through these records requests, we find out such egregious information. Just as a reminder - it wasn't any external investigation, it was a public records request that - in the City of Kent - uncovered that there was a Nazi assistant police chief. And that is a literal statement - literal Nazi, with Nazi symbols, and a Hitler mustache, and literally all of that - that only came to light because of public disclosure requests. And in this time where we have so many fewer reporters covering what's happening across the state and they only make it to the biggest things because they're stretched that thin, transparency becomes even more important. Because there may not be someone there to answer the questions, to cover how something came to be - this is our only record of how it came to be. And people should see who is influencing policy. [00:08:58] Heather Weiner: Right, and how the sausage was made. Listeners, you will be shocked to hear that good and bad politicians out there get around this by using their personal phones. Now, they're not supposed to use their personal phones for official taxpayer funded business, but they do. And so even if we did get a lot of those text message records about what was happening around the East Precinct, one can imagine that probably there was a lot of conversations going on - unrecorded conversations on the phone, in person, undocumented conversations, but also conversations on personal cell phones. Now again, I just want to point out - if any other lower-level employees were caught doing this, they would be fired, right? Cops would be sent to OPA. All kinds of things would happen. But when you're a higher-level political appointee, apparently, you get off scot-free. [00:09:41] Crystal Fincher: You do. [00:09:42] Heather Weiner: Speaking of cops - you want to talk about the Blake - what's happening with Blake, and what's happening there? [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, let's talk about what's happening with the Blake decision. So we just had the end of the legislative session - a lot of bills were passed before then, but some of the most contentious bills took 'til the very last day or two to get decided. [00:10:04] Heather Weiner: Last hour. Oh my - as usual - I just feel for everybody working three in the morning, four in the morning. It must be just absolutely exhausting. [00:10:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, when the Legislature does that - just the amount of work that support staff have to do to support the entire operation, to keep information moving under these incredibly tight deadlines. They're working so hard and so long. I think - so the Blake fix, in year's time? Time is an interesting thing for me these days. A few years back - yeah, our State - [00:10:35] Heather Weiner: Not yesterday, but also not 10 years ago. [00:10:37] Crystal Fincher: Yes. More than a year ago, less than 10 years ago - which anything in that zone consistently gets confused for me now. Yes. Our State Supreme Court invalidated - basically said the law about personal possession of substances, of drugs, was invalidated - took the law away. And so it instantly made possession of drugs legal. There was nothing illegal to do with the possession that didn't do with anything with paraphernalia, with selling or distribution, all those other peripheral things still remained in place. But for possession - [00:11:14] Heather Weiner: Personal use possession. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Yes. And so under a certain threshold, or thresholds that come into play sometimes in policy with this. So in year before last, our Legislature - this happened during the legislative session, actually. And so they said - Oh my goodness, we can't let this stand. Even though best practices, sound public policy says that our really expensive and damaging War on Drugs has failed and treating substance abuse issues like a public health crisis and problem is the way to make progress in actually dealing with addiction, actually getting people off of drugs and getting people healthier, and reducing all the impacts surrounding that by crime and different things. But our Legislature basically said - We are not comfortable with that, and so we're going to re-institute a penalty - a misdemeanor - add some diversion in there, fund some kind of diversion-root-cause-drug-court-type things across the state. But they put a sunset clause in that law and said basically - Summer 2023, this is going to sunset, basically expire and terminate on its own. And in the meantime, that'll give us time to figure out something else that we want to do, or stay on the course. But the concern about invalidating that law at the state level was that municipalities, localities, counties, and cities, and towns can make their own laws if they want to in the absence of a state law on that issue. So some have said - Well, it's going to be more confusing to have a patchwork of different drug possession laws across the state, which is not ideal. It's not ideal. But the question is - is that more harmful than what this proposed fix was, which wound up being a gross misdemeanor - which is different than a simple misdemeanor and can come with sometimes financial penalties and jail time that exceeds that of the lowest level felonies. And so from a - we have talked about on this show - but jail, carceral solutions, do not reduce recidivism any more than non-carceral solutions. Throwing someone in jail doesn't reduce their likelihood of committing a crime in the future. And certainly in the case of substance use disorder, it does not address any of the issues about that. And all it does is destabilize and usually throw people further into addiction, further away from being able to rebuild their lives and get healthy again. So this debate is taking place, while evidence and data and lots of people are saying that. But you also have people who really advocate for punitive punishment measures. And even though we have spent decades and billions, if not trillions, of dollars on this War on Drugs, domestically and internationally, it's as bad as it's ever been. [00:14:06] Heather Weiner: Yeah, and it's a war on people who have an illness. It is a disease. And it's a public health issue, not a crime issue. And so to put people in jail who have alcoholism - we've already been shown that does not work. It's the same thing with addictions to other substances. It just doesn't work. And in fact, you're right - it makes it worse. So now we see local folks - Reagan Dunn, three of our City Councilmembers here in Seattle - who are proposing instituting their own gross misdemeanor rules in their jurisdictions. And it's going to cost more in taxpayer dollars to house people in jail - who are going through withdrawal, who are going to have massive health problems, and then are going to get out and not have money and not have support - than it would to put them in housing. [00:14:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And to - [00:14:56] Heather Weiner: And if the real problem here is that we, as the public, don't want to see people suffering on the street - how is it that paying more for them to go into jail than to put them into supportive housing is going to solve the problem? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not a solution. It is painting over the parts of your house that are disintegrating, that are moldy and disintegrating, and they're trying to paint it over instead of dealing with the leak in the first place. Wow. That was a really stretched out analogy. Not sure that anybody should use that. All right, anyway. So it doesn't make any sense to me - you're right. It's political posturing, coming into election time and municipal election time. Yeah, it's going to be super interesting to see how this is used. And the local news media has been doing this, not just here in Washington state but around the country, has been using this fear around people who have a disease - and they are using that as a fear to other people, but also to cause political dissension in our country. And it is not as bad in Seattle as everybody is saying. Yes, we do have a problem, but it is not as bad as what the news is portraying. It is part of the fear mongering. [00:16:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I don't think there's anyone who really, who doesn't want to do more to address this problem or doesn't acknowledge that substance use disorder is a problem - that we don't want to be seeing this, that it can lead to other things. We all know and understand that. We just want to do something that actually fixes it instead of landing us in the same place we've been for the last 30, 40 years under this War on Drugs, where we just punitively punish people for that. And - [00:16:38] Heather Weiner: For a disease. [00:16:39] Crystal Fincher: For a disease and I - or, there are also people who just use substances who are not addicted and based on what we classify as an illegal drug or not - there are people who drink alcohol socially. [00:16:53] Heather Weiner: I'm one. [00:16:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a drug. [00:16:54] Heather Weiner: I'm one. I have been seen with - the fact that the mayor is now proposing open container rules in certain neighborhoods, where people can walk around with open containers - but they're not allowed to be seen with a different substance? Yeah, just the irony, the inconsistency - call Alanis Morissette. [00:17:10] Crystal Fincher: The irony and inconsistency and - look, drug laws, very punitive drug laws have been a major contributor to mass incarceration, to an incredibly disproportionate impact on Black and Brown people. And what we're seeing now. Yeah, I have some thoughts. So one - [00:17:32] Heather Weiner: Do you? [00:17:33] Crystal Fincher: I do. [00:17:33] Heather Weiner: Maybe you should start a podcast. [00:17:35] Crystal Fincher: This should not be a surprise to a lot of people. But this posturing and grandstanding, just - number one, there is talk of a special session. And they're trying to figure out if they can get to a place on this, where they can agree and do something that's actively being talked about. There may be a special session. This has been reported on. So because they're working on this and because people at the county level are talking about dealing with this - all this talk from mayors and city council members is just premature. It's putting the cart before the horse. And it's grandstanding. And it's so plain to see. Allow the people who are working on this to continue working on this. Notice they didn't have any issue with doing that over the past few years. They just recognize that - Ooh, maybe this is an issue we can capitalize on. But I would caution them that it didn't turn out too well for them last year when they tried to bombard, to flood the zone with all of the voter, direct voter contact, media talking about crime and drugs. And they're gonna try and crack down and make drugs illegal again, all that kind of stuff. [00:18:48] Heather Weiner: Look, let's go ahead and let's blame people who are actually symptoms of the larger problem. And the problem is number one, we don't have enough affordable housing. Number two, we have a ton of people who are suffering from trauma and for all different kinds of way - whether it's in the military, in their own households, in their own family. And one of the ways that the body responds to trauma is to try to find a way to not feel the trauma. And that's a lot of what substance use disorder is. Three, we - the Republicans and some Democrats 12 years ago - cut massive funding from mental health and addiction services. And now we don't have enough places for people to go, as we see where the hospitals are overloaded with people who are suffering from mental health disorders. And now the chickens have come to roost. Look, I brought it back to chickens. [00:19:33] Crystal Fincher: There you go. You have brought it back, we're full circle. [00:19:36] Heather Weiner: Brought it back to chickens, to the chickens. [00:19:39] Crystal Fincher: To the chickens. [00:19:40] Heather Weiner: So these are all symptoms of this massive problem. Inslee tried to do something where he wanted to float a massive bond to raise money for housing - that didn't pay out. Some Democrats at least tried to raise some money from a REET on luxury housing and massive buildings that would fund affordable housing - a tax on real estate sales. The real estate lobby killed, the realtor lobby killed that. We tried to get rental caps this year to make sure that landlords, corporate landlords are not egregiously raising rents and causing economic evictions and destabilizing communities - that didn't pass. So let's just crack down on people and put them in jail. Are the jails empty? Is that what's going on? Is there a massive demand? [00:20:20] Crystal Fincher: Oh, totally empty. We're totally not experiencing issues of overcrowding, suicides, deaths from illness, injuries, understaffing - none of that is a problem that they're actively having to spend millions of dollars to deal with and facing lawsuits. No, not a problem at all. But yes, that whole situation is there. So we'll see how this unfolds. But I also want to - some people have tried to characterize this as a Democrat versus Republican issue - on the drug - it is not. This is an issue where there are a variety of stances on the Democratic and Republican side, really. And Democrats control the Legislature and they came forward with a bill, after all the talk and compromise, that landed at gross misdemeanor. The sky-is-falling argument was - Well, we have to do this because otherwise they're going to really criminalize it locally. So this is good enough. I have noticed that no proposal from conservative or Republican mayors or city councils have gone further than the Democratic legislature did. So were they negotiating themselves down? Again? [00:21:21] Heather Weiner: Fair. [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: And is what we're actually going to wind up with worse than having that statewide? Would we rather have a significant recriminalization statewide, or have lower penalties and more treatment access across the board, or in more places in the state? That's something that they're going to have to deal with, but - [00:21:41] Heather Weiner: When do we think this special session might be called? It feels like there is a hard deadline, right? Of June. [00:21:47] Crystal Fincher: It feels like it, but I don't know. I have no inside information on those conversations or anything. [00:21:53] Heather Weiner: And when they have a special session, they can only address the issue that the special session has been called for. So there's no sneaking other things in there at the same time, which is good. Although there's a lot of things that were left unfinished. [00:22:04] Crystal Fincher: There is. And also legislators don't like special sessions often because it takes them away from campaigning - because they can't raise money while they're in session. [00:22:14] Heather Weiner: That's another reason why we need a full-time legislature and not a legislature where people have other jobs that they have to go do. They're paid so little, they have to have other jobs. And as a result, they just don't have time to do all the things that need to get done. And they don't have time to do it in a really thoughtful way, unfortunately - that things do get rushed. [00:22:30] Crystal Fincher: And that's why we have a disproportionate amount of wealthy and out-of-touch people in our legislators. [00:22:36] Heather Weiner: And white. Yes. And why we keep losing our legislators of color. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: Talking about some of the other things you touched on that we were able to see at the conclusion of the Legislature, of this legislative session - certainly, as we talked about last week, some significant movement on some housing bills. But as you mentioned, no relief for renters, which is a major component of keeping people in housing, preventing displacement, and keeping housing more affordable. [00:23:03] Heather Weiner: Yeah. 40% of Washingtonians are renters - 40%. That's a significant portion. And our rents are skyrocketing. There's articles in Crosscut about Walla Walla - retirees who are getting pushed out, they're having to do all kinds of crazy things in order to keep their housing. And a lot of this is because corporate landlords are using algorithms - kind of like what Airbnb does - to jack up prices in response to how the other corporate landlords are doing things. And so I wouldn't really call it collusion, but they are using these formulas to maximize the amount of profit that they make. And as a result, what we're seeing is massive community destabilization. Single parents with children have to move their kids from school district to school district. Retirees, our elders are leaving their neighbors - they don't know anybody around them, they don't know how to ask for help. Our veterans, who may already be facing a lot of challenges, are also being moved and destabilized. It's not good for communities. It's not good for Washington state. And when I see things like in today's news where they say - Half of people are thinking about moving out of Washington state - they don't really say why, but the reason is the rent is too high. It's time for the State Legislature to do something to provide relief for 40% of the state's residents. And I myself am a landlord - I have a small house that I rent out and I 100%, like many landlords, support rent caps and rent stabilization. [00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I didn't even know you were a landlord. [00:24:36] Heather Weiner: Well, landlady. I don't know. It's kind of gendered. [00:24:40] Crystal Fincher: And yeah - I could talk a lot about that. But there are, we are suffering certainly at the hands of big corporate landlords. And they love nothing more than to try and paint all of the landlords - it's we're just little ma and pa, just we just had an extra house, and we're just out of the kindness of our hearts, just being housing providers. Some lobbyists are calling them housing providers. They're not housing providers. They're housing dealers. [00:25:05] Heather Weiner: I know - it's like job creators, right? [00:25:07] Crystal Fincher: Which is fine, but let's call it what it is. [00:25:10] Heather Weiner: Look, the way that the law was drafted, that was supported by the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, the way that the law was drafted is for the first 10 years of a building's - that a building is, or a unit, is being rented out - there's no rental cap on there as it adjusts to the market rate, figures out what's going on. And then you could always increase the rent once somebody moves out. But if somebody is living in that unit, you can't raise the rent - according to this law, you couldn't raise the rent more than 7% based on inflation and essentially economically evict them. And there is nothing wrong with that. There were lots of landlords who came out - family, mom and pop landlords, like me - who came out and said - Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. That's what I would like to do. But it's the big corporate real estate lobby that once again came in and killed it. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - once again. And so I guess what I would say is - there was a big, broad coalition that was put together by the legislators who sponsored this legislation - by organizations, activists, Futurewise certainly was huge in helping to get this passed. I hope that coalition stands up as strongly over the next year - through the next session - for mitigations, for rent relief, for helping people stay in their homes. Because that is as critical to getting costs in line, to keeping people in the communities where they are and their houses where they are, and reducing homelessness. It is as critical - this isn't an either-or - this is we absolutely need both. And so I hope this coalition continues to show up for the communities that have showed up for them and work to get this passed. Also, just want to talk about a couple other things they were highlighting. The budget was worked on until the very end. Democrats are touting investments in ferries, some modest investments in traffic safety. We had the first allocation of funds from the Climate Commitment Act that came in - still need to dig more into that to see where it's going and if they are living up to their promises to make sure that they are centering communities that are most impacted by climate change and pollution. And also workforce investments, workforce equity investments across the board. They did increase the cap for special education, which does increase funding, but not nearly at the level that is needed. There was a bill that didn't make it through that started off as free lunch for everyone, which we've talked about a few times before on this show, which - was a huge supporter of and thinking that - Of course, that totally makes sense. How is this controversial? Unfortunately it was - there was a trimmed down bill that increased access, that increased the number of people that could get school lunch programs. Basically, I think it's in schools or districts that met a certain threshold - if a kid asked for a free lunch, then it could be given to them in those districts. I want to say that it was 50 - I'm just throwing out numbers, but I'll figure that out and put it in the resources and show notes. But it was a trimmed down bill. A lot of good things happened - like many sessions - a lot of good things happened. A lot of disappointing things happen, and we just move forward and we continue to work and we continue to push and we hopefully continue to hold our legislators accountable for the decisions that they're making. [00:28:29] Heather Weiner: Let's have - let's end on a good note, on a positive note. Here's some good news. So article just came out in Bloomberg Tax - I know you read that every morning, Crystal, I know you do - and the new capital gains tax that was passed about two years ago is now finally being collected. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that it was legal and it's now being collected for the first time. There were estimates by policy experts that it would be, probably in the first year, somewhere around $450, maybe $500 million raised from taxes on the sales of huge stock market gains. Doesn't apply to 99.8% of us. And they thought it would raise maybe $500 million. According to the Department of Revenue, $833 million raised for schools, childcare, preschool, and other education. Amazing amount of money. But here's what you got to think about is how rich are people that they are having stock market gains where a 7% tax on their stock market gains over a quarter of a million dollars is raising nearly a billion. That's a lot of money being moved between stocks over there in rich people land. I couldn't believe it. It blows my mind. [00:29:37] Crystal Fincher: It is - absolutely, and more there. So I also hope that the work of the wealth tax picks up next session because it's absolutely needed and we can see how much of an impact that it does make. Also, we had a special election this week. In King County, there were - depending on where you were at - everyone voted on the Crisis Care Centers Levy, which passed. And so we are going to be having five new regional crisis care centers in the County. There are also provisions for helping to boost the workforce, increase the staffing levels in an area that's already really stressed and really hurting for staff. And what was your take on this? [00:30:18] Heather Weiner: I think it's great, but also people are going to come into these crisis centers and where are they going to send them? There's not any housing. So I think it's a great idea. It's a good first step to get people through. But I'm concerned that you're still in crisis at the end of the day. [00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I feel similarly - a lot is going to be about the implementation. We absolutely need more resources. And if this is done well, and if this is done right, it'll be helpful. We have also heard a ton of stories about challenging care, especially when that care is involuntary - when someone is in a major crisis. And so I think it's going to be really paying attention to the implementation of this and making sure that they are following best practices, and that people are treated with dignity and respect, and really the focus is on their healing over everything else. We'll see how it turns out, but I deem it to be a helpful - these are absolutely resources that we need. And we can do this better than we have done it before. And we should - we owe it to everyone to do that, so we'll see. Also, Kent School District had a bond vote, also on this same ballot, that failed. School bonds raise for buildings, for capital expenditures - those races, elections carry a higher threshold to pass a bond. It's 60% as opposed to 50% - which is a big, big difference between 60% and 50%, when you just look at elections across the board. This one actually didn't even make 50%. And I, once again, am begging school boards, people in school districts to stop putting these ballot measures on special election ballots. Put it on the general election ballot. If you must, put it on the primary ballot. But stick to those, especially in a district like King County, when turnout is everything. When it comes to these school levies, school bonds - having them in higher turnout elections obviously is going to increase the support. In the same way that we know in Seattle - if it's a very high turnout election, that's going to be a more progressive election than a really low turnout election. So let's just stop doing this, please. Do you have any thoughts about special elections and school levies? [00:32:25] Heather Weiner: Look, the big thing is we keep going back to the people over and over again to pass what are essentially regressive taxes, whether it's for the school levies or for the crisis center. I want to point out that one of the major funders of the crisis center levy - which I supported - one of the major funders was John Stanton, who is on the wall of shame for his work to kill the capital gains tax, to hit up the taxpayers to pay for his stadium to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet he wants to put a regressive tax on the rest of us. The solution here is not to keep passing, or trying to pass, these little regressive taxes to patch the leaky roof. See, I'm back to that analogy. It is to pass wealth tax and other taxes on the incredibly super rich billionaires and ultra millionaires that we have in this state. [00:33:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 28th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner, that's W-E-I-N-E-R. You can follow me on Twitter at Hacks & Wonks - that's @HacksWonks. Or you can follow me on Twitter @finchfrii, or on Blue Sky, or basically any platform at finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical and Friday week-in-review shows 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 official hacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Chief Scott Thurmond joined the Birmingham Police Departmentin 1998. His career began in the Patrol Bureau at the North Precinct where he served the Titusville and Smithfield communities from 1999-2005 as a patrolman and Field Training Officer. In 2005, he was assigned to the Burglary Unit in the Investigative Bureau where he served the citizens of the East Precinct. Two years later, in 2007, Chief Thurmond was promoted to the rank of sergeant and assigned to the West Precinct Morning Shift in the Patrol Bureau. In 2008, Chief Thurmond was transferred to the Homicide Unit in the Investigative Bureau and worked there as a sergeant until 2013 when he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. Upon being promoted to Lieutenant, he was transferred to the South Precinct as the Day Shift Patrol Commander. Three years later, in 2015, Chief Thurmond returned to the Homicide Unit as the commander of that unit. In 2018, he became the Interim Commander of the newly formed Robbery/Homicide Division. Being promoted to the rank of Captain a year later, in 2019, Chief Thurmond served as the West Precinct Commander in the Patrol Bureau. In 2021, Chief Thurmond was assigned as the Executive Assistant to the Investigative Bureau Deputy Chief. On January 28, 2022, Chief Thurmond was appointed as the Acting Chief of Police for the Birmingham Police Department and was appointed as the Chief of Police on June 24, 2022, by Mayor Randall L. Woodfin.

The Monologue: King County continues to force people out of cars. The Interview: Seattle council candidate Isaiah Willoughby wants to represent district 2 -- but here's a problem: he committed arson against East Precinct during the BLM and Antifa riots.The Interview:  Mike Mansanarez (President of the King County Police Officers Guild) says the director for police oversight can't be objective anymore.LongForm: Sen. Mark Mullet (D-Issaquah) says his own Democrat caucus does not want to pass fixes on drug decriminalization and police pursuits. He says the mood is growing contentious in the Democrat party.Quick Hit: Court rules against employee fired for not attending LGBTQ training sessionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Seattle council candidate Isaiah Willoughby wants to represent district 2 -- but here's a problem: he committed arson against East Precinct during the BLM and Antifa riots.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Thursday, February 23rd, 2023. Rowdy Christian Merch Plug: If you’re a fan of CrossPolitic, or the Fight Laugh Feast Network, then surely, you know we have a merch store right? Rowdy Christian Merch is your one-stop-shop for everything CrossPolitc merchandise. We’ve got T-Shirts, hoodies, hats, but we’ve also got specialty items like backpacks, mugs, coffee, even airpod cases! Visit Rowdy Christian Merch at rowdychristian.com, and buy that next gift, or a little something for yourself. Again, that’s rowdychristian.com. https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/21/biden-admin-religious-student-groups-protections-campus/ Biden Admin Looking To Remove Religious Student Groups’ Protections On Campus The Department of Education (DOE) announced a proposal Tuesday rescinding a Trump-era policy that prohibited universities from receiving federal funding if they restricted religious student group activities. The 2020 policy, initially signed by former President Donald Trump as part of an executive order in 2019, was proposed to prevent universities from censoring the speech of religious students on campus, according to the Washington Post. The DEO’s recent announcement indicates that President Joe Biden is looking to end the policy, claiming the protections caused an “unduly burdensome role” for the department. “[T]he Department believes it is not necessary in order to protect the First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion given existing legal protections, it has caused confusion about schools’ nondiscrimination requirements, and it prescribed a novel and unduly burdensome role for the Department in investigating allegations regarding public institutions’ treatment of religious student organizations,” the announcement read. “We have not seen evidence that the regulation has provided meaningfully increased protection for religious student organizations beyond the robust First Amendment protections that already exist, much less that it has been necessary to ensure they are able to organize and operate on campus.” The announcement came from Nassar H. Paydar, Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education, who explained that since September 2021 the DOE had been looking into current policies regarding the First Amendment that “impose additional requirements on its higher education institutional grant recipients.” Paydar noted that during that time, the DOE determined that the 2020 policy had placed a burden on the higher education system and did not provide any “meaningfully increased protection for religious student organizations.” In 2020, Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told the Washington Post that the rule protects religious students from being “forced to choose between their faith and their education” and would also protect religious universities from being turned away for federal funding because of their religious affiliation. The public comment phase will begin on Wednesday, Feb. 22, and remain open for 30 days for anyone to comment and provide their thoughts on the proposal, according to the announcement. https://www.newsweek.com/alaska-republican-touts-benefits-children-being-abused-death-1782972 Alegislature in Alaska caused outrage after questioning whether the death of child abuse victims could be "a cost savings," because it would mean they don't need "government services" later in life. Republican David Eastman, who sits in the Alaska House of Representatives, made the comment on Monday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. The committee was meeting to discuss how children are impacted by physical or sexual abuse, as well as witnessing domestic violence within their family home. Lawmakers were shown a study indicating each incident of fatal child abuse costs society $1.5 million, a figure reached by assessing the impact of trauma and the child's loss of earnings over a lifetime. However, Eastman was unimpressed, and questioned whether fatal child abuse could be economically beneficial to wider society, an argument he claimed to have heard. Eastman said: "It can be argued, periodically, that it's actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment." The remark horrified Trevor Storrs, president of the Alaska Children's Trust (ACT), who hit back describing the loss of a child as "unmeasurable." Democratic Representative Cliff Groh, who used to work as a prosecutor covering child abuse allegations, said he was "disturbed" by Easterman's comment. Representative Sarah Vance, the Republican who claims the House Judiciary Committee, said Easterman, who doesn't serve on any committees, had been at the hearing "at my invitation." Vance later suggested Eastman had been trying to make an argument against abortion, which some consider to be "child abuse." Speaking with the Anchorage Daily News via text message, Eastman said: "I was pleased to hear ACT advocating against child abuse, but a child's value comes not from future productivity, but from the fact that every child is made in the image of God." https://www.foxnews.com/media/seattle-police-defunding-crime-ravages-locals-huge-crisis Seattle reverses course on defunding police as crime ravages locals: 'A huge crisis' Seattle residents Victoria Beach, Eli Hoshor and Jonathan Choe said police shortages have left their city in dire straits in the aftermath of officials' anti-law enforcement rhetoric. Homicides skyrocketed by 24% while motor vehicle thefts climbed by 30% in the city last year. Overall crime ticked up by 4%. Mayor Bruce Harrell pushed for increased police presence to curb the issue Tuesday, saying, "We need immediate action and innovation to respond to our public safety issues… Seattle saw a 4% rise in reported crime last year… We need more officers to address our staffing crisis." Still, some residents' outlook is less than optimistic. Piro reported data from Seattle's city's budget office showing funding for law enforcement increased for the first time since a major slash was made in 2020. Hoshor, a resident, says the uptick is not enough to reduce crime. "The crime is just getting worse and worse," he said. "There's a homeless encampment that's right next to my son's school that's been there for over a year, and it's doubled and tripled in size. Choe, a reporter from the area, slammed the "Defund the Police" movement for being behind the crime rise as well as the "woke" activist class who he said are perpetuating the problem. He added that seeing how "Defund the Police" supporters respond to Harrell's push for more police and the uptick in funding for the department should be "interesting." https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-seattle-forced-to-pay-3-6-million-in-2020-autonomous-zone-damages-to-business-owners?utm_campaign=64487 Seattle forced to pay $3.6 MILLION in 2020 CHAZ damages to business owners The city of Seattle has agreed to pay $3,650,000 in damages to business owners who brought suit after the deadly 2020 Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) damaged their business, property, and violated their constitutional rights. The group had originally been seeking $2.9 million. The city has until March 3 to pay the sum as part of a settlement revealed last week. According to court filings regarding the settlement, $600,000 will go toward attorney fees for the more than a dozen plaintiffs. The settlement came just weeks after a federal judge imposed sanctions against the city for deleting thousands of text messages between Seattle officials including former Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best, and Fire Chief Harold Scoggins during the armed occupation by Antifa and BLM rioters of 6 square blocks of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The CHAZ, also known as the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest or CHOP, was established by activists on June 8, 2020, after Seattle police were ordered by police leadership to abandon the department’s East Precinct during the riots that rocked the Emerald City in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minn. on May 25, 2020. Video of his death emerged, setting off months of riots in the midst of a pandemic. https://twitter.com/i/status/1270925505190146048 - Play Video Zone occupiers refused to allow police into the area. Rapes, robberies, and murders spiked 250 percent in the 6-block area during the occupation. The zone lasted 3 weeks before it was finally broken up by police on July 1, 2020, after two fatal shootings and rioters vandalized then Mayor Durkan's home. https://twitter.com/i/status/1271249933765656578 - Play Video According to court documents, business owners alleged that city officials’ "unprecedented decision to abandon and close off" the 16-block section of the neighborhood "subjected businesses, employees, and residents to extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties." It was revealed after the occupation that Seattle officials, including former Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best, and Fire Chief Harold Scoggins deleted thousands of text messages from their city-owned phones regarding the zone, including communications with the infamous “warlord” of the autonomous zone, Raz Simone. US District Judge Thomas Zilly previously sanctioned the city and thereby allowed the jury to view the missing evidence as a strike against the city in the case. Zilly Wrote, “City officials deleted thousands of text messages from their city-owned phones in complete disregard of their legal obligation to preserve relevant evidence. Further, the city significantly delayed disclosing … that thousands of text messages had been deleted” and could not be reproduced or recovered.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/npr-layoffs-10-percent-job-cuts-john-lansing-1235331693/ NPR to Cut Workforce by 10 Percent, as Advertising Slowdown Hits Public Media “Our financial outlook has darkened considerably over recent weeks,” Lansing wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday. “At a time when we are doing some of our most ambitious and essential work, the global economy remains uncertain. As a result, the ad industry has weakened and we are grappling with a sharp decline in our revenues from corporate sponsors. We had created a plan to address a $20M sponsorship revenue falloff for FY23 but we are now projecting at least a $30M shortfall. The cuts we have already made to our budget will not be enough.” So Lansing says that most of NPR’s open jobs will be eliminated, and that it will be reducing its existing workforce by 10 percent. More than 700 employees work at the public media firm. Lansing also suggested that the necessary job cuts will result in a more refined mission for NPR as an organization, writing that “some work will need to change or stop entirely,” and that NPR’s executive committee is figuring out where it needs to continue investing, and where it should pull back. Some of NPR’s most popular programs (on both terrestrial radio and in podcast form) include Fresh Air, Planet Money, Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me, and Up First. It also has a sizable news division that produces journalism that runs across its programming. Accountable2You Jesus is Lord. In public and in private, every area of life must be subject to his Lordship—and our use of technology is no exception. What captures our attention on the screen either glorifies or dishonors our Lord. That’s why Accountable2You is committed to promoting biblical accountability in our families and churches. Their monitoring and reporting software makes transparency easy on all of your devices, so you can say with the Psalmist, “I will not set anything worthless before my eyes.” Guard against temptation with Accountable2You, and live for God’s glory! Learn more and try it for free at Accountable2You.com/FLF https://www.boundingintosports.com/2023/02/former-nfl-player-eric-johnson-among-8-people-arrested-for-human-trafficking-gang-charges/ Former NFL Player Eric Johnson Among 8 People Arrested For Human Trafficking & Gang Charges Johnson, 46, played in The League from 2000-2005 with the Oakland Raiders, Atlanta Falcons, and Arizona Cardinals. He’s now part of an apparent trafficking ring that stands accused of multiple acts involving four adult women and one female minor. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr says the LOTTO Gang members – including Johnson – are facing charges of trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, violation of the street gang terrorism and prevention act, conspiracy to violate the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, aggravated assault and kidnapping. Eric Johnson, former Atlanta Falcon charged in human trafficking, racketeering case- Play Video While he’s certainly not a household name by any means, Eric Johnson is known for one significant moment in NFL history. He scored a touchdown in the Raiders’ 48-21 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl XXXVII. He blocked a punt and then returned it for 13 yards for the score.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Thursday, February 23rd, 2023. Rowdy Christian Merch Plug: If you’re a fan of CrossPolitic, or the Fight Laugh Feast Network, then surely, you know we have a merch store right? Rowdy Christian Merch is your one-stop-shop for everything CrossPolitc merchandise. We’ve got T-Shirts, hoodies, hats, but we’ve also got specialty items like backpacks, mugs, coffee, even airpod cases! Visit Rowdy Christian Merch at rowdychristian.com, and buy that next gift, or a little something for yourself. Again, that’s rowdychristian.com. https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/21/biden-admin-religious-student-groups-protections-campus/ Biden Admin Looking To Remove Religious Student Groups’ Protections On Campus The Department of Education (DOE) announced a proposal Tuesday rescinding a Trump-era policy that prohibited universities from receiving federal funding if they restricted religious student group activities. The 2020 policy, initially signed by former President Donald Trump as part of an executive order in 2019, was proposed to prevent universities from censoring the speech of religious students on campus, according to the Washington Post. The DEO’s recent announcement indicates that President Joe Biden is looking to end the policy, claiming the protections caused an “unduly burdensome role” for the department. “[T]he Department believes it is not necessary in order to protect the First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion given existing legal protections, it has caused confusion about schools’ nondiscrimination requirements, and it prescribed a novel and unduly burdensome role for the Department in investigating allegations regarding public institutions’ treatment of religious student organizations,” the announcement read. “We have not seen evidence that the regulation has provided meaningfully increased protection for religious student organizations beyond the robust First Amendment protections that already exist, much less that it has been necessary to ensure they are able to organize and operate on campus.” The announcement came from Nassar H. Paydar, Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education, who explained that since September 2021 the DOE had been looking into current policies regarding the First Amendment that “impose additional requirements on its higher education institutional grant recipients.” Paydar noted that during that time, the DOE determined that the 2020 policy had placed a burden on the higher education system and did not provide any “meaningfully increased protection for religious student organizations.” In 2020, Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told the Washington Post that the rule protects religious students from being “forced to choose between their faith and their education” and would also protect religious universities from being turned away for federal funding because of their religious affiliation. The public comment phase will begin on Wednesday, Feb. 22, and remain open for 30 days for anyone to comment and provide their thoughts on the proposal, according to the announcement. https://www.newsweek.com/alaska-republican-touts-benefits-children-being-abused-death-1782972 Alegislature in Alaska caused outrage after questioning whether the death of child abuse victims could be "a cost savings," because it would mean they don't need "government services" later in life. Republican David Eastman, who sits in the Alaska House of Representatives, made the comment on Monday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. The committee was meeting to discuss how children are impacted by physical or sexual abuse, as well as witnessing domestic violence within their family home. Lawmakers were shown a study indicating each incident of fatal child abuse costs society $1.5 million, a figure reached by assessing the impact of trauma and the child's loss of earnings over a lifetime. However, Eastman was unimpressed, and questioned whether fatal child abuse could be economically beneficial to wider society, an argument he claimed to have heard. Eastman said: "It can be argued, periodically, that it's actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment." The remark horrified Trevor Storrs, president of the Alaska Children's Trust (ACT), who hit back describing the loss of a child as "unmeasurable." Democratic Representative Cliff Groh, who used to work as a prosecutor covering child abuse allegations, said he was "disturbed" by Easterman's comment. Representative Sarah Vance, the Republican who claims the House Judiciary Committee, said Easterman, who doesn't serve on any committees, had been at the hearing "at my invitation." Vance later suggested Eastman had been trying to make an argument against abortion, which some consider to be "child abuse." Speaking with the Anchorage Daily News via text message, Eastman said: "I was pleased to hear ACT advocating against child abuse, but a child's value comes not from future productivity, but from the fact that every child is made in the image of God." https://www.foxnews.com/media/seattle-police-defunding-crime-ravages-locals-huge-crisis Seattle reverses course on defunding police as crime ravages locals: 'A huge crisis' Seattle residents Victoria Beach, Eli Hoshor and Jonathan Choe said police shortages have left their city in dire straits in the aftermath of officials' anti-law enforcement rhetoric. Homicides skyrocketed by 24% while motor vehicle thefts climbed by 30% in the city last year. Overall crime ticked up by 4%. Mayor Bruce Harrell pushed for increased police presence to curb the issue Tuesday, saying, "We need immediate action and innovation to respond to our public safety issues… Seattle saw a 4% rise in reported crime last year… We need more officers to address our staffing crisis." Still, some residents' outlook is less than optimistic. Piro reported data from Seattle's city's budget office showing funding for law enforcement increased for the first time since a major slash was made in 2020. Hoshor, a resident, says the uptick is not enough to reduce crime. "The crime is just getting worse and worse," he said. "There's a homeless encampment that's right next to my son's school that's been there for over a year, and it's doubled and tripled in size. Choe, a reporter from the area, slammed the "Defund the Police" movement for being behind the crime rise as well as the "woke" activist class who he said are perpetuating the problem. He added that seeing how "Defund the Police" supporters respond to Harrell's push for more police and the uptick in funding for the department should be "interesting." https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-seattle-forced-to-pay-3-6-million-in-2020-autonomous-zone-damages-to-business-owners?utm_campaign=64487 Seattle forced to pay $3.6 MILLION in 2020 CHAZ damages to business owners The city of Seattle has agreed to pay $3,650,000 in damages to business owners who brought suit after the deadly 2020 Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) damaged their business, property, and violated their constitutional rights. The group had originally been seeking $2.9 million. The city has until March 3 to pay the sum as part of a settlement revealed last week. According to court filings regarding the settlement, $600,000 will go toward attorney fees for the more than a dozen plaintiffs. The settlement came just weeks after a federal judge imposed sanctions against the city for deleting thousands of text messages between Seattle officials including former Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best, and Fire Chief Harold Scoggins during the armed occupation by Antifa and BLM rioters of 6 square blocks of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The CHAZ, also known as the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest or CHOP, was established by activists on June 8, 2020, after Seattle police were ordered by police leadership to abandon the department’s East Precinct during the riots that rocked the Emerald City in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minn. on May 25, 2020. Video of his death emerged, setting off months of riots in the midst of a pandemic. https://twitter.com/i/status/1270925505190146048 - Play Video Zone occupiers refused to allow police into the area. Rapes, robberies, and murders spiked 250 percent in the 6-block area during the occupation. The zone lasted 3 weeks before it was finally broken up by police on July 1, 2020, after two fatal shootings and rioters vandalized then Mayor Durkan's home. https://twitter.com/i/status/1271249933765656578 - Play Video According to court documents, business owners alleged that city officials’ "unprecedented decision to abandon and close off" the 16-block section of the neighborhood "subjected businesses, employees, and residents to extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties." It was revealed after the occupation that Seattle officials, including former Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best, and Fire Chief Harold Scoggins deleted thousands of text messages from their city-owned phones regarding the zone, including communications with the infamous “warlord” of the autonomous zone, Raz Simone. US District Judge Thomas Zilly previously sanctioned the city and thereby allowed the jury to view the missing evidence as a strike against the city in the case. Zilly Wrote, “City officials deleted thousands of text messages from their city-owned phones in complete disregard of their legal obligation to preserve relevant evidence. Further, the city significantly delayed disclosing … that thousands of text messages had been deleted” and could not be reproduced or recovered.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/npr-layoffs-10-percent-job-cuts-john-lansing-1235331693/ NPR to Cut Workforce by 10 Percent, as Advertising Slowdown Hits Public Media “Our financial outlook has darkened considerably over recent weeks,” Lansing wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday. “At a time when we are doing some of our most ambitious and essential work, the global economy remains uncertain. As a result, the ad industry has weakened and we are grappling with a sharp decline in our revenues from corporate sponsors. We had created a plan to address a $20M sponsorship revenue falloff for FY23 but we are now projecting at least a $30M shortfall. The cuts we have already made to our budget will not be enough.” So Lansing says that most of NPR’s open jobs will be eliminated, and that it will be reducing its existing workforce by 10 percent. More than 700 employees work at the public media firm. Lansing also suggested that the necessary job cuts will result in a more refined mission for NPR as an organization, writing that “some work will need to change or stop entirely,” and that NPR’s executive committee is figuring out where it needs to continue investing, and where it should pull back. Some of NPR’s most popular programs (on both terrestrial radio and in podcast form) include Fresh Air, Planet Money, Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me, and Up First. It also has a sizable news division that produces journalism that runs across its programming. Accountable2You Jesus is Lord. In public and in private, every area of life must be subject to his Lordship—and our use of technology is no exception. What captures our attention on the screen either glorifies or dishonors our Lord. That’s why Accountable2You is committed to promoting biblical accountability in our families and churches. Their monitoring and reporting software makes transparency easy on all of your devices, so you can say with the Psalmist, “I will not set anything worthless before my eyes.” Guard against temptation with Accountable2You, and live for God’s glory! Learn more and try it for free at Accountable2You.com/FLF https://www.boundingintosports.com/2023/02/former-nfl-player-eric-johnson-among-8-people-arrested-for-human-trafficking-gang-charges/ Former NFL Player Eric Johnson Among 8 People Arrested For Human Trafficking & Gang Charges Johnson, 46, played in The League from 2000-2005 with the Oakland Raiders, Atlanta Falcons, and Arizona Cardinals. He’s now part of an apparent trafficking ring that stands accused of multiple acts involving four adult women and one female minor. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr says the LOTTO Gang members – including Johnson – are facing charges of trafficking of persons for sexual servitude, violation of the street gang terrorism and prevention act, conspiracy to violate the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, aggravated assault and kidnapping. Eric Johnson, former Atlanta Falcon charged in human trafficking, racketeering case- Play Video While he’s certainly not a household name by any means, Eric Johnson is known for one significant moment in NFL history. He scored a touchdown in the Raiders’ 48-21 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl XXXVII. He blocked a punt and then returned it for 13 yards for the score.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by friend of the show and today's co-host: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm!  They look at WA traffic policy discussions, middle housing arguments, the Working Families Tax Credit, Shasti Conrad as the new WA Democrats Chair, King County and Seattle Council elections, and new Durkan/Best controversy news.  This week, Washington state lawmakers met to discuss ways the state can work to decrease traffic deaths, mostly focusing on education and traffic enforcement, as well as banning turning right on red at certain intersections. Lawmakers also spoke out against the legislature's middle housing bill. 46th LD Rep Gerry Pollet, and Seattle City Council Member Alex Pedersen have come out against the push to increase housing density. Also this week, lobbyist Cody Arledge wes barred from the Capitol campus after a judge found he was stalking State Rep. Lauren Davis of Shoreline. Despite this not being his first issue with stalking and threatening behavior, Arledge had some big clients, including the City of Seattle.  The Working Families Tax Credit went live this week! Please look at the resources below to find out if you're eligible and apply. Automatic tax programs like TurboTax might not automatically alert you of eligibility for the tax, so be on the lookout.  Washington State Democrats elected Shasti Conrad as their new chair last Saturday, following Tina Podlodowski's successful run in the role. Meanwhile, Seattle councilmember Tammy Morales announced that she will be running for re-election on the Seattle City Council, while councilmember Teresa Mosqueda announced her run for King County Council. This news continues to show that this year's elections will bring major change to our state and council leadership.  In other election news, King County voters have until February 14th to vote in the race for King County Conservation District board. Crystal and Doug break down what the board is and why it's an important decision. Voters in the county will also be voting this April on whether the county will implement a $1.25 billion levy to fund crisis care networks.  Finally, Crystal and Doug wrap up the show with a new update on the controversies surrounding Former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. New reporting from Carolyn Bick of The South Seattle Emerald shows that Durkan might have pushed the OPA to delay its investigations into Best, deepening the number of violations the former mayor performed.  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, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Resources “How the SPOG Contract Stands in the Way of Police Accountability with Shannon Cheng” hosted by Crystal Fincher at Hacks and Wonks    “State Road Safety Push Overlooks Design, Dwells on Enforcement” by Gregory Quetin from The Urbanist    “Pollet, Pedersen, and Blethen Assail State Housing Push” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist    “Prominent lobbyist barred from WA Capitol after ruling he stalked state representative” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Applications for the WA Working FAmilies Tax Credit are live. This is who is eligible” by Jared Gendron from The News Tribune    “How to sign up for WA's new Working Families Tax Credit” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “WA Democrats choose Shasti Conrad as new leader”  by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “Incumbent Tammy Morales seeks re-election in Seattle District 2” - by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “Mosqueda Announces Run for Vacant King County Council Seat” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist     “King County voters to decide on Crisis Care Centers Levy in April” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Meet the candidates for the little-known King Conservation District board” by Guy Oron form Real Change News   “Fmr. Mayor May Have Pushed OPA to Delay Investigations Into Fmr. Police Chief” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald  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 almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I had a conversation with Hacks & Wonks' very own Dr. Shannon Cheng, also of People Power Washington - Police Accountability. Shannon taught us about the intricacies of how the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract stands in the way of police accountability and what the City can do to try and create more accountability. Today, we're continuing our almost-live Friday show 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: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. [00:01:21] Doug Trumm: Hi Crystal - thanks for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here, Doug. We have a full week of news to review when it comes to politics and policy in Washington state. Wanted to start just following up on something that has - we've just gotten a drumbeat of news week after week, day after day - in a couple of very high profile recent pedestrian collisions, cars hitting pedestrians in the Seattle area. It's skyrocketed both in Seattle and in the region. This is a crisis. And there was a press conference this week about that. What happened? [00:01:56] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the state is taking a look at safety. They know that the statewide safety data is really bad. It's going up. The state also has a goal of trying to get to zero traffic deaths by 2030 and it's had that goal a long time and it's just not going anywhere quick. So the state lawmakers gathered, Governor Inslee was there, you had the two Transportation Chairs - Marko Liias in the Senate and Jake Fey in the House. And they had a lot of proposals - there's a lot of legislation proposed this session. But most of it is focused on enforcement and education, and most cities that have done Vision Zero really well have really focused on design in addition to those things. It's definitely some troubling signs and our contributor, Greg Quetin, had a piece on that - just talking about, Hey, we need more design focus. So I encourage folks to check that out for more. But there is some good stuff proposed, like banning right turn on red in busy areas - pedestrian heavy areas - is a good idea and would be very happy to see that pass. But some of these other bills - if we're just talking about giving state troopers bonuses and putting state troopers out on more roads, there's really diminishing returns on that. And might make sense to ramp up enforcement of drunk driving and things like that and lower the limit - that's a good idea. But I think if we're trying to get to zero, we have to start looking at design too. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Pedestrian fatalities have actually increased during these few recent years while this Vision Zero program has been in place. And like you talked about, there's stuff about education, there's stuff about enforcement. You did talk about the right turn on red - cars turning red into pedestrians, into bikes is a really big problem. So that's why the banning the right turn on red is a proposed solution and really looking at balancing - Okay, we're talking about a minute delay potentially for a driver and that can make the difference of saving someone's life or preventing someone from being maimed in a collision with a car. And so really looking at - hey, we have to balance - yes, people are trying to get around in cars on roads and freeways, but also we have a lot of people who are getting around on foot, on bike, who are waiting for transit, who are very vulnerable to cars - and they can inflict lethal damage. They're doing that with increasing frequency and something has to be done. Now, when you talk about design choices, what kinds of things are you talking about? [00:04:31] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I think the lowest hanging fruit - the state has pretty much full control over state routes, highways throughout communities. And those do - they have an important role to play as far as moving people between metro areas and cities, and moving freight and everything. But when they come through heavily populated areas, the state could easily slow traffic there by - either redesign the street to be narrower because people tend to go slower when there's narrower roads, doing things like bump outs at intersections so pedestrians have shorter crossing distances. There's things with a ton of data behind them to show that this decreases the likelihood of a high speed crash. And shorter pedestrian crossing distances is often something that will help with that - you're just exposed less time. It also sends a cue to a driver - Hey, oh, there's something in my field of vision here. I'm not just on this wide rainbow road, like in Mario Kart. I have obstacles here. There was Amber Weilert, a parent of a kid - a 13-year-old kid - who got killed in Pierce County on his bike. Very sad story. That was the best part of the press conference - is they let someone speak from her own experience. And she was nice enough to share her story, which is very tragic. But that road is a super wide road, and that probably contributed to her son being killed. So if we were to redesign that road to be narrower, maybe Michael Weilert would still be alive. [00:06:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we will continue to follow the progress on action taken as a result of this. We heard news that the City of Seattle recently received a grant for traffic safety improvements. We will see how those end up being implemented, but this is absolutely a problem that needs a solution. Also at the state level in our Legislature, there continues to be a housing push for middle housing, for some price mitigation, renter protection factors. But we saw Gerry Pollett - who is currently a state legislator in the 46th district, who is rumored to be considering running for city council - Alex Pedersen, and The Seattle Times oppose the housing push. What were they saying? [00:07:02] Doug Trumm: Same old, same old, Crystal. They're mad that someone's making money off of this that's not them, as homeowners. But The Seattle Times kicked the ball off there with this kind of screed about how this bill is a giveaway to developers, and it's not going to create affordable housing, it's not going to meet whatever - everything is wrong with it. You never can win with folks like that because they want all new development to fit in this perfectly narrow box, which Ray Dubicki did a good job of laying out in our coverage over this week that - what would it take for The Seattle Times to be happy with it? We do live in a capitalist society. We don't go to the grocery store and expect all the wholesalers to make no money doing what they're doing. The reality is until the socialist takeover, or whatever the communist takeover - it would really have to be - if you want housing to get developed, someone's going to be making money off it. So this constant whining about developers making money off of housing people, it just seems to me like a distraction and disingenuous. The Seattle Times is all too happy for people to make money off of their single family homes. They also made a ton of money when they sold their property to developers and built a skyscraper there, so they're not immune to this themselves. It was a lot of bad arguments and of course, Gerry Pollett and Alex Pedersen loved it. Alex Pedersen had a whole long tome in his newsletter about agreeing with it and developers being evil - hitting those points hard. I'm not exactly sure what they were expecting as far as affordable housing. Alex Pedersen did have this proposal that only - basically, low-income housing should be the only thing allowed to be built above the current zoning. But those kind of proposals - when you actually talk to affordable housing providers, they realize that, No, that's not really workable. You're not going to be able to build only nonprofit housing because nonprofit houses can scale up but they can't carry the load for the entire housing needs. You don't have to be terribly sophisticated to realize that you build the housing now and eventually, it becomes more affordable. If you build no market-rate housing, you're not helping working-class folks. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. There seems to be broad agreement and voter support. And looking at who voters have been supporting for various positions - for increased housing, for more middle housing, more housing for everyone. Certainly that is not the only thing that is needed to make sure that displacement stops, that people are not thrown out of housing in the short term, and that renters are treated fairly. But it's hard to find people these days, especially experts, who say that housing supply does not need to increase in order to address our affordability crisis. When you look at housing prices, when you look at rental prices - it is a crisis. The average person who's not a high wage worker in Seattle can't afford to live in Seattle, can't afford to live in many communities that used to be really accessible to a lot of people. Suburbs are skyrocketing in cost and even though the rate of increase is slowing down, it's actually still increasing. So we will see how that plays out. But Gerry Pollett certainly made news last session for his opposition and kind of being the person most responsible for the death of the middle housing bill - and seems like he would be excited to play that same role again, despite such widespread support in the community for a different path. [00:11:12] Doug Trumm: And he's just not being honest about what his position is, which is also frustrating. If you block something, at least own it - but he was trying to have it both ways. And then he does this Facebook post, which might have more to do with indicating he might want to run for city council than any serious policy discussion. [00:11:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see. We know that he is not on some of the committees that he did want to be on. And that may also hasten his desire to exit from the Legislature, but we'll stay tuned on the developments there. Also this week, there was news that came out about a prominent lobbyist being barred from the Capitol after he stalked State Representative Lauren Davis. What happened here? [00:11:54] Doug Trumm: This was a surprising case where this lobbyist thinks that he can just keep doing this. And he's in a prominent firm, so I don't know if that's part of what he thinks he can get away with. He already had a domestic abuse allegation from the 90s or early 2000s, so it wasn't like this was completely out of character for him - which makes his case harder to make that, Oh, he was just trying to do his job and that's why he kept hounding Representative Davis. And he just, it's just - we need to just put this stuff behind us - people can't get away with this kind of thing. And he can certainly still do his job without violating his - terms of his restraining order. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: So Lauren Davis did get a domestic violence protection order. This lobbyist, Cody Arledge - it looks like kind of the textbook intimidation, threatening, stalking, veiled threats. And a judge found that there was cause for risk and concern, and granted that protective order. He ended up - he also had a number of firearms that were confiscated by the police. He actually petitioned to get them back. There was an extreme risk protection order that prevented that from happening. And as you said, this is not his first instance with domestic violence. Davis and Arledge evidently had a relationship in 2021. But before that, he was in a relationship with a woman, requested that - she requested that they stop, he stopped contacting her. He continued to do so using various email addresses, cloaking his phone number. It just seems like this person does not take no for an answer. And then with Lauren Davis seemed to move it into something that would affect her work and sending veiled threat that was alleged to her office. And so it just looked like it was escalating behavior. And Cody Arledge of The Arledge Group is not able to be basically around the Capitol when Lauren Davis is there, has violated a protection order before - and so hopefully everybody remains safe and these measures are enough to keep Lauren Davis and other women who he may have had or will have relationships with safe. [00:14:35] Doug Trumm: And he has some big clients, including the City of Seattle. I wonder if this will end up impacting those, but - lobbyists are known for not always being the most upstanding citizens, but I think this is on another level and pretty unfortunate. Why is it always people like this who have a gun locker with 17 guns in it, you know? [00:14:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to paint all lobbyists with the same brush. Some are wonderful, doing wonderful work and advocacy for excellent organizations that we support. But certainly this is alarming. This is a lobbyist that does, like you said, has a lot of big Democratic and left-leaning clients. And we still have to hold everybody accountable no matter what. [00:15:21] Doug Trumm: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility. I hope he - I hope he follows it himself, although not all of his guns are in his gun lockers - some are just on top of his fridge. [00:15:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some were definitely insecurely and dangerously stored. So that has happened. Also this week - one thing that went live that we definitely want to mention is the Working Families Tax Credit for Washington state - this is a state, not a federal tax credit - is now live. And the application is live. We will link to how you can apply for that. But basically in a nutshell, families that have, or people that have children - their children living with them - are eligible for up to $1,200. There are some qualifications and income tiers that apply, but that is live now. And one thing that I definitely wanted to mention about this is that if you are using TurboTax - which is known and has been cited for deceptive practices before - will not call your attention to this, or let you know that you may be eligible for this up to $1,200 tax credit. So make sure that you separately seek out - if you have kids, take a look and see if you are eligible for this - because your tax preparation software, if you are using that or if you're doing it yourself, may not automatically flag that this is something that you're eligible for on a state level. [00:16:48] Doug Trumm: Yeah, get your money. [00:16:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some tax programs will. TurboTax is definitely one that won't. But $1,200 can make a big difference to a lot of people. And I hope everyone who is eligible does apply and get what they're due. In other news this week, Shasti Conrad, former Chair of the King County Democrats, was elected as the Washington Democrats Chair. Was there anything notable to you about this? [00:17:13] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I thought that was a great pick - had a chance to meet Shasti a few times. I think it signifies they are - as someone who's young, who's a woman of color - that's exactly where they should be going. And she has worked on a ton of great campaigns, pretty strong ties to progressives and the mainstream as well. But I think that's a great pick and there certainly has been angst in the past about how King County Democrats have been run, but I think she's someone who can come in and do a great job. [00:17:44] Crystal Fincher: I do appreciate the way Shasti steered the King County Democrats, especially after the problems and controversies that they had prior to her. And really did a lot of groundbreaking work in recruiting PCOs - getting more people active at the grassroots level at the party - and doing more to support candidates, recruit and support more diverse candidates in lots of different ways - younger candidates, working well with labor. She really seemed to understand building coalitions and increasing majorities and increasing Democratic representation around the county. Certainly, Seattle is a place where mostly Democrats get elected, but elsewhere in the county, there are a number of swing districts and certainly saw movement in that direction with those. Shasti is taking over after Tina Podlodowski decided to step down. After her largely successful term at the King County Democrats, I'm really looking to hear what Shasti is planning to do statewide. I know she has talked about plans for not just King County or Western Washington, but the entire state and making inroads with that. And I'm looking forward to Democrats showing up everywhere in Washington and being really competitive, particularly when we see what the opportunity is after very successful elections like the ones we just saw in 2022. In local news, we had one councilmember announce that they are running for reelection, another Seattle City Councilmember announced that they're running for office at the county level. Who's doing what? [00:19:27] Doug Trumm: I think it was Wednesday we got the news that Tammy Morales is running for council, which was only the second of the seven councilmembers up for reelection right now to announce, Hey, I'm actually sticking around for another term. The other was Andrew Lewis so far, which just leaves Dan Strauss as the person who hasn't officially announced their plans. But pretty much looks like Dan is going to run, but we'll wait for the official announcement for that. But yeah, there's four retirements - so Tammy Morales brought that up in her announcement - that I don't begrudge my colleagues for hanging it up. It's a tough job. It's gotten vitriolic lately with, especially I think related to the defund the police backlash where - the biggest example of that I think was Lisa Herbold getting a brick thrown through her window. These folks - they definitely pay a price for their public service. We know that people are drawn to it, as Morales mentioned - they are willing to overcome those obstacles, but it takes a toll on their families, I'm sure. So was excited to see that Tammy was going to run. And she had made that announcement in Beacon Hill at Plaza Maestas, and had some other progressive leaders with her, and had a pretty good announcement - not everyone always does a big splashy thing like that, but I thought it spoke to the strong connections she has to those organizations, which include a frequent partner of ours in Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. The nonprofits themselves don't endorse, but Clara Cantor has partnered with her in a number of events, a number of projects - so Tammy has been a leader on transportation for sure. And she's not chair of that committee. Unfortunately, we have a chair who's not much of a leader in transportation, but Tammy stepped up. Her district has been the epicenter of the traffic safety crisis we talked about statewide earlier. And she's really risen to the occasion and is demanding more to be done to make southeast Seattle safer to walk, roll, and bike through. [00:21:29] Crystal Fincher: She has been an effective progressive leader, both in being a partner to Teresa Mosqueda - who we're going to talk about more in just a moment - in things like passing the JumpStart Tax, worker protections, renter protections, investments, even trying to push and move forward allocating more money to affordable housing, to supportive services - just from soup to nuts, and has really been rooted in community. Talked a lot about her vision for more walkable neighborhoods, for mitigating environmental harm and other harms, and like you said, has been the most vocal councilmember on the absolute urgency of addressing our pedestrian and bike fatalities and making getting from one place to another in the City safer for everyone. So looking forward to seeing that campaign. There have been a number of different people who have filed for the various vacant positions. Five of the seven council positions are up this year - all of the districted positions, and the citywide positions will be up in two years. And we have heard from, like you said, all but two of the councilmembers up that they are stepping away or stepping down. You mentioned the brick through Lisa Herbold's window. Councilmember Sawant also had people making threats, potentially threats involving guns, with her at her house. It can be a very thankless job, but it can also create a lot of meaningful improvement and progress and opportunity for a lot of people in the City. And so I hope with this new council - with a lot of people coming in - if Tammy is re-elected, she will be one of the senior members of the council. And so that will be interesting to see how that dynamic translates and how this new council shapes up. And what Bruce Harrell does as the executive in the meantime. I think that this is also another good time to just reiterate the - a lot of times we talk about the council - more opportunity to talk about it a lot of times, because there are several, they're all running. They have public hearings and so they're more visible a lot of times than the person in the executive seat, but they set the direction and fund things. The mayor is responsible for enacting policy, for following through, for the implementation, for spending the money, using the money, actually implementing his version of the programs that fit within what the council has authorized funding for. [00:24:15] Doug Trumm: And the local press corps doesn't always do a good job of making that clear because at Morales's press conference, the first question was a gotcha style question on - Oh, defund the police. What are you doing for safety? Then what are you doing to fix the homeless encampments? And she certainly has the power of the purse on that one, as far as being one of nine votes on the budget. But when you get down to actual - what are the departments of the City doing? That's really up to the mayor. And it's very hard for the council to come in and override that kind of authority because all the agencies' heads are going to be answering to the mayor rather than them, so they're definitely not trying to be redirected by the council in that way. So that was interesting. But yeah, and then we were getting to Teresa Mosqueda, who announced that she's leaving the council - potentially - if she wins. But when you announce with 80, 90 endorsements, it's probably a good sign. That's what she did - including everyone from Dow Constantine to Pramila Jayapal, our Congressperson in part of Seattle anyway. And she's running for King County Council District 8, which is now vacated with McDermott retiring. And her list of endorsements was a lot. And four of her colleagues on the County Council, four of her colleagues on City Council, so it definitely looks like a high powered - I wonder who will try to step up. You never can say anyone's a sure thing for election. But if she is elected, that would mean that that county, or citywide seat, on council would - I think you would have a temporary replacement. I should have checked this before this. You'd have a temporary replacement for her seat. And then I think there'd have to be a special election because of the two year gap. But it would create an extra wrinkle in - what is the council makeup going to be? It also would take what would have been the senior-most member and - yeah, and turn someone like Tammy into the senior-most member because it would just take two terms, I think at that point, because the long running councilmembers are all leaving. [00:26:30] Crystal Fincher: That was an announcement. And the amount of support that - looking at these two announcements that we did have this week - came with a lot of support. And Teresa Mosqueda certainly coming out with I think it was 90ish endorsements from across the spectrum. [00:26:45] Doug Trumm: It keeps growing - yeah. [00:26:46] Crystal Fincher: Justifiably - I understand how that happens. She has a lot to run on. Really big consequential accomplishment in getting the JumpStart Tax through - that was something that was opposed initially by a lot of the business community. Even the mayor, Bruce Harrell, was not in favor of it - talked about doing that - [00:27:09] Doug Trumm: And still endorsed her, by the way. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely popular with residents of the City. And really saved the City from some really painful cuts with a budget that has taken a downturn, revenue taking a downturn. It was revenue from the JumpStart Tax that really was able to plug those holes, which the mayor utilized and seemed to come around and understand that - Yeah, this is a good positive thing. It is okay if businesses and those who are profiting from the public investments that have been made in the City do contribute back to address the challenges that we're having. And that shouldn't rest solely on each resident's back - that everyone has a role to play in this and that businesses can also contribute - and so that, certainly looking at that. Talking about behavioral health and public health being a big priority. Teresa has a long background in that and looking forward to tackling that at the county level - because the county is primarily responsible for that. And it's going to take some big action trying to move forward a housing levy, trying to - depending on if this upcoming behavioral health levy passes - how to implement that effectively. And implementation is a big thing. It's one thing to pass something, but it still takes skill and focus and expertise to implement it countywide in the way that it was intended. So will be interesting to see how this does, continue to proceed - like you said - with that kind of list of endorsements, backing even of people who had previously not been as supportive with people, like you said, including Mayor Harrell. It is going to be a tall task for a challenger, but we'll see if one steps up and decides to take her on - one or more. But certainly shaping up to be very interesting elections with so many open seats and such change possible there. One thing I do want to note - that I think was a good idea - that Teresa mentioned was looking at changing how these city council elections happen in the City. Right now, with all of the districted seats up in one year, and then two years later - on the other cycle - the two citywide seats up - it really creates the situation where you can have massive turnover. Which can be a challenge in terms of continuity of knowledge, implementation of things, and just more stability with the council. So maybe staggering that where a couple of the districted ones and one of the citywide seats being up in one year, and then two years down the line staggering the other ones - which I think would be a good idea, would bring about more stability, and we don't have this seeming lurching back and forth with policy. And again, like we talked about before, I don't want to overstate what the council is actually responsible for - the mayor is going to be responsible for implementing so much, but it will help to have more stability at council and maybe not be looking at a body that looks different except for one or two people. [00:30:29] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and if they can switch it to even years - even better. [00:30:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - and I definitely hope that happens. And in a few years we'll also be seeing ranked choice voting for those elections, so that will be another thing that we will be following through. [00:30:42] Doug Trumm: One last thing I'll sneak in on Mosqueda - I think she made a good case of - why run for county council. You mentioned that health care being a big one, behavioral health - setting up those crisis centers is huge. And she also mentioned transit, which is a huge thing for the county council to tackle - they run the King County Metro budget. And she put in a good word for round-the-clock transit service, better service between peaks - we honestly could use better service at all hours - but I think that was a very good point from her. And if the county council can focus on expanding transit service, I think that would be a huge win and a huge thing for her to be part of - along with it being a big year for that is because you have probably the strongest champion for transit on the council, Claudia Balducci, up for re-election and Girmay Zahilay up for re-election. And then in the - I think it's the 6th - you have Sarah Reyneveld running for the seat held by Jeanne Kohl-Welles, so you potentially could have four transit champions depending on how those folks run - so we'll be watching that very closely. [00:31:47] Crystal Fincher: We absolutely will be. Another thing we'll be paying attention to is what was just authorized by the King County Council - a decision to put crisis care centers, a levy for crisis care centers, on the ballot this April. What would this do? [00:32:04] Doug Trumm: I think it - I mean, it's huge investment - raise $1.25 billion, am I getting that right? Yeah - that's a lot of money. It would set up crisis centers in multiple parts of the county, and it would be a place for us to actually have folks who are having behavioral health crisis or mental health crisis to actually go - because so many times right now we're treating that with jail, or just moving people around to different - Here, have your crisis somewhere else, you know. That's not a way to actually solve this problem so I think that would be a important step for our county to take. Unfortunately, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility on health care, and on the mental health side of that especially, so that puts counties in the spot of having to raise the money themselves and I'm glad that King County is in the position to step up and do that. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this levy, if it passes, would fund 24/7 walk-in clinics, short-term observation stays of 23 hours, stabilization stays of up to 14 days, also would increase the pay of these health workers at these clinics - up to 20% more than comparable facilities - which is a major thing because there is a shortage of providers that we're also trying to address here. It's really important - as we talk about a lot of times and focus on undoing a lot of the harmful practices, like you mentioned - they say that they're trying - right now, one of the main ways to address this is through jail, which is not effective. It's actually destabilizing. And so it's important to undo the harm, but it is also just as critical to build the systems that help. We can't just undo the harmful things, we have to build the helpful things. This will do it - I would love to see this funded out of the general fund and just be a regular course of business, but if this is how it has to happen I think it's absolutely worth it. And poll after poll, election after election - we see voters say, We see this is a humongous need. We absolutely support more behavioral health, mental health interventions. And we can see, all over the place, the need for this - people in crisis - having these behavioral health crises where we know that calling the police or sending them in jail is not going to address the root cause. These people need more fundamental intervention and we should make that possible. So that will be on the ballot in April. We have talked about before Seattle's Initiative 135, which will be on the ballot for the election ending on Valentine's Day - you should have your ballots in hand for that. There is also another election that often goes unnoticed and that votes a bit differently - it's actually an online vote for the King Conservation District. What is at stake? What does the King Conservation District do? And how can people vote for this? [00:35:07] Doug Trumm: Yeah, this is a weird one as far as how you can vote for it, because you have to - you don't just get the ballot in the mail. You have to sign up or ask for the ballot to be mailed to you - what you get is just an announcement thing. So it's not terribly hard, but it's just an extra step that isn't there for other elections. I still haven't done it this cycle, so I gotta go and actually do that. But you just - you get the link, and you go online, and you vote there. And it is very much the type of thing where it is hard to tell - what do these folks actually do? You have to do your actual research on it. And conservation, obviously, is a big one since we just passed this big levy in this region - Conservation Futures - so these conservation commissioners obviously would have a say in how to do all that, I suppose. But yeah - maybe you should say, Crystal, because I feel like I don't even fully understand what they do. [00:36:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean it's - unfortunately, because of the way these elections are held - which is largely online, and we will put a link to this information - that is challenging. And Guy Oron actually had a great article about the King Conservation District Board and the candidates - information on the candidates running - but the King Conservation District is one of Washington's 45 local conservation districts. They assist cities and private landowners to advance conservation goals through programs like grant making, technical assistance education. Some recent programs that they've spearheaded have been assistance to small local farmers - especially those from marginalized backgrounds - coordinating volunteers to help with natural and ecosystem restoration, funding projects to mitigate the amount of pollution that enters the region's waterways - these are things that actually help all of us, and certainly Washington is known for its natural beauty - this is helping to protect and preserve that, which is very important as we see the continued pressure of sprawl and external development that is paving over so much of what we used to have - protecting what is left is absolutely critical. It's funded through a small property tax - it averages about $13 per parcel of land - and so it encompasses all of King County except for a handful of cities. So odds are you do this - we are electing its board of supervisors - they're unpaid, but they oversee what happens. And there are three candidates for this position - and we'll link a Q&A with them in the chat - but Chris Porter, April Brown, and - I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly - Csenka Favorini-Csorba are running there. And they each have various backgrounds, they're bringing different things to the table - but this is an elected body that has control of resources and directs how they're allocated - that impacts our environment. Like I said - mitigation of health impacts - we've talked before about how much air pollution, water pollution has impacted life expectancy in the region. Your life expectancy can vary up to seven years based on the zip code that you live in in King County. A lot to clean up, a lot to do - and so I hope people do engage with this. It does fly so under the radar because it's a different kind of election, but we'll link to it - ballots are due by Valentine's Day. This is a county-wide thing, so even though Seattle residents get a ballot in the mail, there is also - for everyone in the county, almost everyone in the county - an online voting process for this. There's potentially some talk about in the future moving this to the regular ballot, but for this election it's online. So I encourage you to get involved with that - we will link the article so you can get more familiar with the various candidates. And then also - last thing we will cover today is - these news stories about former mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best - we just continue to get a drip, drip, drip of those. And Carolyn Bick of the South Seattle Emerald and their Watchdragon investigative reporting reported that Jenny Durkan may have pushed OPA, an oversight arm that investigates incidents and officers, to delay investigations into the former police chief. How did that happen? [00:39:57] Doug Trumm: It took a lot of digging into emails for Carolyn Bick to get this story, but - it becomes pretty apparent in the emails that she completely leaned on OPA Director Andrew Myerberg to shut down this investigation. And he was raising concerns that - Oh, this is going to have - not just be wrong on its face, but also slow down other investigations that they were trying to do. And Mayor Durkan sometimes - through her attorney - was requiring him to slow walk that and make that go away. And yeah, that's exactly how the Office of Police Accountability should not be operating - I mean, it's supposed to be an independent arm of accountability - but it takes a ton of criticism. And this just unfortunately makes that criticism seem very warranted - supposedly there's three legs of the stool in the accountability for after the police supposedly reformed under the consent decree. And the OPA is supposed to be one of them, but it - to be honest - doesn't really hold up its end of the bargain so - yeah, it's just very disappointing to see. And they were getting in the way of another body too, so that makes it even worse because you have the Sentinel - is SER Sentinel, was it Event Review or something? I forget what the E is - [00:41:22] Crystal Fincher: Sentinel Event Review - yes. [00:41:24] Doug Trumm: Sentinel Event Review - yeah, they always have such odd names. Yeah, they were trying to investigate former police chief Carmen Best and in that - maybe they're flailing with desperation - the mayor's office had the OPA trying to try to squash that, and it's just not their role. I mean, they're supposed to be encouraging accountability and instead they're shielding the police chief. It's just not what you want to see. [00:41:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is alleged - based on a public disclosure request and documents that were obtained by Carolyn Bick in the South Seattle Emerald - that yeah, Durkan did slow walk this, advocated for completion of kind of a tangential investigation that could take years before moving on to an investigation of Carmen Best as an individual - some of this is related to the abandonment of the East Precinct. We've heard lots and lots about deleted texts that look like they were intentionally and illegally deleted - that is being investigated to see what happened there. But waiting for this one type of investigation - which this type of investigation explicitly says - Hey, this is not for investigating individual officers, this is for more systemic issues. And waiting for an investigation of former chief Best - maybe hoping that - hey, they'll both be out of office by the time they get back around to this and we can avoid any kind of accountability - looks like it's alleged to potentially be part of the motivation. We will continue to follow this. There are other investigations that have opened up. And to our local media's credit, you all continue to pay attention to this and look into this, because it is - this is a major issue for accountability - whether some people are above the law and others aren't. And especially when it's people who are tasked with upholding the law - we have a former police chief and a former mayor, who is also a former federal prosecutor - who by all accounts seem to be intimately familiar with the law, yet are alleged to have violated it in several different instances. So not surprising but disappointing - a continuation of that - I don't know. We'll see what happens with that. [00:43:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and Andrew Myerberg also failed up out of this one as well - becoming, getting a cabinet post in the Harrell administration, I think - which has now been, he's now been moved on or whatever from already, but he was like Director of Public Safety or some position like that for Mayor Harrell. And it was sort of - well, did he do such a good job at OPA that he deserved this position? It was sort of unclear. I mean, he did put up a fight in this email, but it looked like he ultimately caved and let the OPA kind of be this shield instead of this accountability mechanism. [00:44:22] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so with that - we will conclude the news this week. And we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 3rd, 2023. I cannot believe how time is flying - time just evaporates - maybe it's just because I'm so old. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm - that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii - that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast - 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. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week's Hacks & Wonks, Crystal is joined by friend of the show, defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy! They start catching up with the Seattle City Budget. The City Council revealed their proposed budget earlier this week, and in general it proposes putting back funding for programs that were originally given fewer resources under Mayor Harrell's proposal - most notably restoring the raises for frontline homeless service workers, which were cut in Harrell's budget. The Council's proposal also uses JumpStart funds as originally intended, cuts ghost cop positions, and eliminates funding for the controversial ShotSpotter program. After the horrific incident last week that involved a shooting at Seattle's Ingraham High School, students staged a walkout and protest on Monday to ask city leaders for resources to help prevent gun violence. The students are asking for anti-racism and de-escalation training for school security, assault weapon bans, and more school counselors and mental health resources. What they have made clear they don't want is more cops in schools, but despite that Mayor Harrell and some of his advisory boards are advocating for an increased police presence in schools. Housing updates this week start with positive news: Mayor Harrell is asking for affordable housing to be exempt from the much maligned design review process. Allowing affordable housing to skip design review will encourage developers to build affordable housing, and will help us battle our housing shortage faster than we could otherwise. In frustrating housing news, KING5 released some upsetting reporting outlining some overt racial housing discrimination against Black families in Seattle, including one story about family who received a significantly higher appraisal when they dressed their home to look like it was owned by a white family.  Carolyn Bick from the South Seattle Emerald reported on potential City and State records laws violations by the Office of Police Accountability. The OPA has been manually deleting emails, or allowing them to automatically be deleted, before the two-year mark prescribed by City and State laws. It's another example of a city office failing to hold itself accountable to basic records standards.  The Seattle Department of Transportation seemed to once again be more responsive to concerns about administrative liability than community concerns about pedestrian safety amid rising fatalities. When locals painted an unauthorized crosswalk at the intersection of E Olive Way and Harvard, SDOT workers removed the crosswalk within 24 hours. This is happening while many people and business owners, most notably Councilmember Sara Nelson, have been placing illegal “eco blocks” without removals or consequences.  Finally, the Chair of Washington State Democrats is being criticized for threats to withhold resources against Washington House candidates if they showed support for nonpartisan Secretary of State candidate Julie Anderson. This is a high-profile extension of a question that party groups–big and small–are dealing with: how do we handle Democrats' support of nonpartisan or third party candidates?  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 today's co-host, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, on Twitter at @NTKallday. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “City Council's ‘anti-austerity' budget package: Aiming JumpStart back where it belongs, preserving parking enforcement's move out of SPD, nuking ShotSpotter, and giving mayor his ‘Unified Care Team'” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Morales Hopes to Resurrect Social Housing Amendment That Didn't Make Balancing Package Cut” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link.   “Care, Not Cops” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Seattle proposal would free affordable projects from design review — and give all developers path to skip public meetings” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “After a low appraisal, Black Seattle family 'whitewashes' home, gets higher price” by PJ Randhawa from KING5   “Why housing discrimination is worse today than it was in the 1960s” by PJ Randhawa from KING5   “OPA May Have Broken City and State Records Laws By Not Retaining Emails” by Carolyn Bick from The South Seattle Emerald    “SDOT Decries Tactical Urbanism While Allowing Eco-Blocks All Over the City” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola    “Rent a Capitol Hill apartment from one of these companies? You ‘may have rights under antitrust laws to compensation' as lawsuit alleges price-fixing violations in Seattle” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog “Scoop: State Democratic Party chair under fire for alleged threats” by Melissa Santos from Axios   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 text 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, today's cohost: defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Hey. [00:00:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hey - thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back. Great to have you back. So we have a few things going on this week. We will start with the Seattle budget. The mayor introduced his budget a few weeks back - this is now the Council, and the President of the Council, being able to introduce their own budget and their take on things. What did you see here that was notable? [00:01:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think the things that were really notable were that JumpStart was headed back to where it was originally planned. That tax was created for affordable housing and things like that, and the mayor tried to take it a different direction that I don't think addresses the City's needs at all - so it was good to see that. Keeping - not giving SPD the money for those ghost cops - the officers that don't actually work there, that haven't actually worked there for a while - their salaries, SPD was allowed to keep for a long time, and so taking that away. And I think really most importantly - to me, given what I do - is taking out the money for ShotSpotter, which is something that the mayor has pushed really hard for, but has shown to not work and actually be detrimental to marginalized communities in other cities. And that was a million dollars, so it was great to see that taken out. [00:02:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that was definitely an improvement, I think, in a lot of people's minds. That was something that did seem to be oddly championed by the mayor and very few other people, regardless of what their political orientation or leaning is. It is just something that - a decade ago, people were wondering if it had some potential, and then it was implemented in a number of cities with a number of very well-documented problems. One thing that it does not seem to be able to accomplish is to reduce gun violence, which is its ultimate goal. But it did introduce a lot of other problems. It was expensive. It seemed to increase surveillance and harassment, particularly of Black and Brown communities, without intervening or interrupting any kind of violence. And that is just an inexpensive and ineffective use of funds. Given a budget shortfall, it seems like we should not be wasting money on things that have proven not to work and not to make anyone safer. I think another notable difference in this budget, between the mayor's budget, was he had proposed a reduction in salary for some of the frontline workers for homelessness services and outreach services there. Those are critical positions and crucial to being able to address homelessness, reduce homelessness. A lot has been covered over the years across the country about how important having comfortable, well-paid frontline workers is so that they're not living in poverty, they aren't in unstable positions - creating a lot of turnover and uncertainty with the workers on the frontline - so that they do have the capacity and ability to do that kind of frontline outreach work and getting people into services that meet their needs. And so there was definitely a repudiation of the idea of reducing their pay and making sure that their pay will continue to rise with the cost of living and the Consumer Price Index. So that was nice to see. A few other things, like you talked about, just making sure that the JumpStart funds, which it seems now everybody is acknowledging, have been very helpful. And even people who previously opposed it are now backing its use to backfill their own plans. But really just making sure that it is spent in a way consistent with its original charter, basically. And so more of a right-sizing and being more consistent with the spending that Seattle voters have backed, that these candidates were elected and reelected with mandates to go forward with - that we're seeing that there. Moving forward here, there was just an opportunity for public comment earlier this year. There is one more opportunity for councilmembers to introduce amendments to this budget before it's going to be ultimately passed. So I encourage everyone, if you have thoughts about the budget, we'll include some links just explaining it. There was a really good Capitol Hill Seattle story just breaking down the budget and what's happening there to make sure we go there. But a few notable other investments from there include $20 million each year for equitable development initiative projects that advance economic opportunity and prevent displacement. $20 million Green New Deal investments each year, including $4 million to create community climate resilience labs. $4.6 million for indigenous-led sustainability projects and $1.8 million for community-led environmental justice projects. $9 million for school-based health centers, which is a really big deal, including a new $3 million across the biennium for mental health services in response to the demand for more health providers from teachers and students - we'll talk a little bit more about the student walkout and strike and their demands later in the show. Also created a combined total of $1.5 million for abortion care in 2023, to ensure access to reproductive care for uninsured people in Seattle. And a $253 million investment into the Office of Housing for affordable housing - and that's over $50 million more than the last budget for building rental housing, more supportive services, first-time ownership opportunities. I know a lot of people are also hoping that Councilmember Tammy Morales' proviso makes it back into the budget to support social housing and securing City-owned property for rental housing that has a much better shot of being able to be affordable for regular people working in the City, especially those who don't have six-figure incomes and can't afford a million dollar home. This is going to be crucial to making sure that we have dedicated land and space and capacity to build permanent affordable housing. [00:07:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and I hope that makes it back in very - I really hope that makes it back in. The thing that I see with the Council's - what they're proposing to put back in, or the changes they're making from Harrell's budget - is most all of them address things that would enhance public safety. And when I hear about things like old technology that's been shown not to work, that gives more or giving more money to police or things like that, I think people think that that's about public safety, but it's not. Those are reactionary things, those are things that have been shown not to address the problems, we really do need to be looking at those upstream things like housing, helping marginalized communities, mental health - all of these things are things that are actually going to result in more safety for everyone. And so I'm happy to see that their proposals are addressing those things. And I hope that they make it into the final budget. [00:08:52] Crystal Fincher: I agree. And I also think that we saw - with just these past election results that we received - that residents of Seattle, really across the county, but especially in Seattle, once again, show through their votes for candidates who are talking about addressing root causes, the rejection of candidates for the Legislature for King County Prosecuting Attorney who were talking about punitive punishment-based approaches, lock-em-up approaches, which the city and the county continually have rejected. And I think voters are just at the point where they're saying, no, please listen - you have already increased funding for police, but we have these big gaps in all of these other areas that we need you to address and fill, and it's - just talking about police is doing the overall public safety conversation a disservice because it takes so many other things to make sure that we are building communities that are safer, and where fewer people get victimized, and where we are not creating conditions that cause disorder. And so I hope that they are listening. And I hope that that gives both the Budget Chair and councilmembers faith and strength and motivation to move forward with these kinds of investments in community - that center community and that center addressing the root causes of crime, preventing crime - which is the most important thing that we can do. I don't think anyone is looking around and saying - things are great, things are fine - but I think people are fed up with the inaction or bad action and ineffective action taken. So we will stay tuned and continue to report on that. [00:10:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Very helpful. [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: We just alluded to, but talked about this week - following last week's shooting of an Ingraham High School student by another student - extremely extremely tragic situation - that student wound up dying. This is a traumatic thing for the school community to go through, for the entire community to go through. And we saw students walk out to cause awareness and with a list of demands. What were they demanding? [00:11:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I'm not going to get it perfectly off the top of my head, but they want more resources for students. They want more mental health care. They want access to those things. They want things that are preventative. They're not asking for punitive retribution or more metal detectors or cops in schools or something like that. They're asking for things that are actually going to be preventative, that are going to encourage the wellbeing of all students. And they know that that's what's going to keep them safe. And from what I've seen from SPS - they seem responsive to those demands in some way. It remains to see what will be actually followed through on. But the response I've seen so far from SPS, just being the parent of an SPS student, is that they are listening to what these kids are actually saying and what the data actually shows will make these kids safer. So I find that to be hopeful. I hope you can verbalize what their list of demands were more succinctly than that, because I don't want to misrepresent what they're saying at all. But when I read through what they were asking for and saw what they were asking for, it was all stuff that was aimed at prevention - because that's what - they don't want to be shot. And that's very valid. And they shouldn't have to worry about those things. And the things that have been implemented for years, like more police in school, those lockdown drills and things like that - it's not working. It's just like we were talking about with the budget stuff, we need to get to those root causes. [00:13:04] Crystal Fincher: You're exactly right. And what these students want really does, to your point, cover the gamut of preventative measures. So there are a few different things. One, they want the district to increase anti-racist and de-escalation training for any security at Seattle Public Schools. They also demand that the state update safe storage laws and ban assault rifles. Students asked the Council to reroute $9 million from SPD to pay for counselors. They want one counselor - to be paid a living wage - but at least at a ratio of 1 for every 200 students. Right now, the district is averaging about 1 for every 350 students, so that is a significant increase in counselors. But I don't think there is anyone here who does not acknowledge the need for more mental health resources for students. And this is especially pronounced in the middle schools across the district. So that is a pretty substantial one. They did say that they don't want cops in schools. They don't want the introduction of more guns, more people with guns in schools - but they want the things that will prevent them. They want mental health resources and community-based resources, therapy resources, and intentional de-escalation and communication training, DBT therapy training - really for students there, so they can figure out how to use words to disarm and de-escalate conflicts instead of getting physically violent, encouraging gun violence, that type of thing. They really want to - they understand that there's a gap with many kids that they're trying to navigate through and this is a normal thing for students anyway. We need to equip them with the tools to work through conflict, to work through their emotions, even when they're very big. They recognize that and they're calling for that. So these are all things that are backed by data and evidence, that have shown to reduce conflict, to reduce violence of all kinds, definitely gun violence. And that are evidence-based, have worked in other areas - pretty reasonable. And so there are a few areas where this could come from. They're certainly asking the Legislature for action, but also with the City and the mental health money. I think Teresa Mosqueda said that she was allocating $2 million and saying that's a down payment on what the students are asking for. Another source that was talked about by some people online was the Families & Education Levy in the City of Seattle, which is tailor-made for things like this. And so that, I think, should be part of this conversation going forward. But we absolutely do need more mental health resources in the schools. And we heard that post - as students were returning back to school after schools were closed due to COVID, and as they were returning, there were certainly a lot of parents who wanted to reopen schools, get their students back in there, but also talked about the challenges that students were dealing with - with anxiety and a range of mental health needs. They seemed to acknowledge that students, in connection with violent events happening and needing to deal with that - we need to figure out a way to get this done. I think the student demands are entirely reasonable and the entire community needs to listen. Now, one dimension of the story that we have seen, there was a story - and I forget at this point who came out with it - but it was like the district is exploring basically putting armed police officers back in school. Upon reading the story, it was like no, actually the district, no one in the district was considering that. The students specifically said they didn't want that. School board members said that they were not currently examining that. But it does seem like the mayor and some of his advisory boards are advocating for armed police officers to return to schools. It seems like the people directly impacted are saying, no, please no, again, not anymore. But the mayor has a different viewpoint here. How do you see that? [00:17:57] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: First of all - yes, the student demands are very reasonable and it's, I don't know, I'm constantly impressed by youth - just how informed they are, the way they present their ideas, and just - they're deeply rooted in this. They are the ones that are impacted. We didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with COVID. I didn't have to deal with the Internet. I didn't have to deal with guns in schools. This is new territory for these kids and they are the ones that are able to tell us what they need and they do so so well. And it is backed by data and research. And I think the mayor has suggested or wants to do this cops-back-in-school thing, but kids know this isn't what has made us safe. We have seen very, very good - horrible, tragic examples of how school resource officers fail to keep kids safe. And I think a lot of people's eyes have been open to that. And while I see the suggestion, I acknowledge the suggestion, I don't think it's serious. I don't think you can keep talking about more cops, more cops - putting more cops here - and be serious about safety. We know that doesn't work. And I think that there's enough kids, there's enough parents, there's enough people, there's enough people on the Council that know these things that - if he wants to push forward that kind of agenda, I think the pushback is going to be really big. And we can't keep pretending that that's the solution - I think that a lot of people are ready to stop doing that and to be able to push back. And I love this walkout. I think it's so encouraging that these kids are really pushing for what they know to be true. And they're not just sitting there saying, there's nothing we can do about it. They know that there's something they can do about it. So I think that's very encouraging. And I would expect that any sort of really serious pushing forward of that idea of more cops in school, I would expect there to be really very large community and student backlash to those ideas. [00:20:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there would be pretty ferocious backlash to that. We will see how that proceeds and continue to keep you up to date on that. Now, something that Bruce Harrell announced this week, that actually seems like it's going to have a positive reception and that can move things in a positive direction - he's looking to exempt affordable housing from design review - from the much-maligned design review process. What's he proposing to do here? [00:20:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: He's proposing sort of a moratorium on affordable housing projects having to go through design review. So if people don't know - design review is a lengthy process where there's - I'm doing air quotes - "community input" on housing design, and it really drags out housing projects for so long. If you see an empty lot and there's a billboard up that says that they're going to build a nine-story building with mixed use - there'll be commercial space on the bottom - and then nothing happens for years and years and years. There's a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary ones is that really long design review process, which is shown not to be actually that democratic when it comes to the community. So exempting affordable housing from that is such a huge and awesome idea that I think someone said, why didn't we do this before when there was a homelessness crisis declared? Ed Murray could have done this when he declared that crisis, but instead that there's all these projects that are languishing and really upping the price for developers to even build these things. So I think there's - not only is it going to get affordable housing built more quickly if this is actually implemented, which I hope it is, but it's also going to make building affordable housing more attractive to developers because just having that land sit there and having those plans sit there for years and years - it makes it very expensive for developers to undertake projects. And when they do, they're going to want to get as much return on their investment as possible. And so you have to make up for those lost years of the land just sitting there. And so allowing this to go forward is going to provide more housing for the community, which we desperately, desperately need, but it's also going to encourage developers to build affordable housing over other types of housing. So I think this is fantastic and I really hope it goes through. [00:22:55] Crystal Fincher: I think it is fantastic. I think this is a good example of listening to the community. This is a win all the way across for developers who are trying to build projects more economically and more quickly, for just the community who is waiting for housing prices to be more affordable - and not just because interest rates are changing the equation for a lot of people, but to get more supply online quickly. And so this was done with Mayor Bruce Harrell and with Councilmembers Dan Strauss and Teresa Mosqueda. And it would begin a one-year interim period exempting affordable housing projects from design review and then use that trial year to conduct what Harrell says will be a full State Environmental Policy Act review of legislation to try and make this exemption permanent. And so it would permanently exempt, or they're hoping to permanently exempt, housing projects from design review - exempting housing projects that use the mandatory housing affordability program to produce their units on site for a two-year pilot and also allow other housing projects to choose whether to participate in full design review or administrative design review as a two-year pilot. So this is something that hopefully does get more affordable housing units online quickly, cut through the bureaucracy - so a positive development here and excited to see it. What I was not excited to see was a story on KING5 about one of the elements that is part of the wealth disparity, the wealth gap that we see. We've seen stories, sometimes from across the country, talking about whitewashing homes and homes owned by Black people getting lower appraisals than other homes for no other reason, seemingly, than that they're Black. And this happened with a Black family in Seattle who got an initial home appraisal - they had their family pictures in there, they had some African art up. The home was visibly owned by Black people. So with this, this family got an appraisal that was initially $670,000 - under the median home price in Seattle. They thought - well, that seems low, that seems out-of-spec for what we've seen others in this area. So they decided to take down their personal pictures. They put up pictures from a white family. They had a white friend stand in the house presented now as if it was owned by a white family. And instead of the $670,000 appraisal, they got a $929,000 appraisal. The only difference was that it was a home owned by a white person, that appeared to be owned by a white person, versus one that is owned by a Black person - right here in Seattle. What did you think of this? [00:26:09] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Personally, I was not surprised. I saw that this had happened in other areas. I think there was a famous example from a couple of years ago where the difference was half a million dollars. But I think that there's an idea that - in Seattle, we're so progressive, we're so liberal that this kind of thing doesn't happen here. And it does. And I think it's dangerous to think that it doesn't. I think that the Black community gets gaslighted a lot about these things when this is a really clear, very obvious example. But how many other times has this happened? Probably quite a bit. And it's really contributing to the wealth gap. And this is something that Black people have been saying for years has been happening. And it's just now starting to catch on. People are starting to catch on that this is a thing. And when I say people, I mean people who are not Black because they already know about this. But it's really starting to be something that's obvious, that's happening here, that's happening everywhere. And there's all of these little things that happen to maintain that wealth gap - because it's the appraisal value, it's also Black homeowners being targeted for mortgage takeovers by banks, by realty companies. This is not something that a lot of white homeowners deal with - I think in one of the articles, a parent had died. And so then they kept getting calls from different groups asking to buy the home for cash and asking to do some sort of weird backhand reverse mortgage and things like - there's a lot of predatory things out there aimed at Black people and Black homeowners that white homeowners don't deal with. And I'm glad to see KING5 do this story. It's awful that it's happening, but I think the public needs to know that this is something that's happening and that in progressive Seattle, we are not - by any stretch of the imagination - immune to things like this happening on a regular basis. [00:28:23] Crystal Fincher: We are not at all immune. It impacts us in so many ways. Just where we still deal with the legacy of redlining and where Black people in Black communities have been. And then as there is this new displacement happening - that kind of difference in home valuation can very much determine whether that family can afford to buy again in Seattle or be forced out of Seattle. This is just such a major problem and just another manifestation of it here. So yeah, unfortunately not something that I found surprising, but just still really infuriating all the same. And I just hope more people wake up to see what's happening and engage in how they can help make this community more inclusive and do the work that needs to be done because there is work that needs to be done. [00:29:15] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely. [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: Other news this week - the Office of Police Accountability may have broken records laws in what - how they've been operating. What happened here? [00:29:29] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So in this case, I believe Carolyn Bick from the Emerald had put in a public disclosure request for some emails. And what she got back from OPA was that they didn't retain it because they followed SPD's policy of record retention, which is different than the City's policy of record retention, which - they say they're part of SPD or they initially said they were a part of SPD, but they're not. They're not a law enforcement agency. They're a City agency. But I would like to point out one thing too - that the City's record retention policy is wild compared to other bigger entities. If you're a City employee, you're required to archive emails or communications that could be of public interest. So instead of automatically retaining everything and then deleting spam or needing this manual deletion, you have to manually save it. But what's in the public interest is huge. So there should be a default to be saving these things all the time. And of course, we've seen with other communications, like the mayor's texts or Carmen Best's texts, that absolutely those things should have been saved and they set them to delete instead. I think the argument here is about what is the record retention policy for OPA and it's just - it's just interesting that this is the Office of Police Accountability, but yet they're not accountable for their own record keeping. And then the City Attorney's Office said, we can't give you an answer to the question about, do they have SPD's retention policy or the City's retention policy? They said that calls for a legal opinion, so we can't give you one - which to me is just like, what do you do then? Isn't that your job - to make those determinations? So just another way that the Office of Police Accountability is - it's just an HR department for SPD. They just whitewash everything and put righteous complaints through a long bureaucratic process that they tell people to trust in, that ends at being a big old nothing - that even that process - that they can't keep correct records for. So it's shocking really just how much it is all the time that we're hearing about this stuff. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's what is notable to me. It's just yet another thing from a body that is supposed to hold other entities accountable - and seems to have challenges doing that - just seeming to skirt accountability itself and being a hub of so much controversy. Just really makes you evaluate - what is the purpose, what is happening, what is going on? Are we doing more harm than good here? And it just seems like we don't ever receive answers, that there are very alarming things that happen. And the answers are to - well, we'll reshuffle some staff and we won't really address the substance of what happened. We'll just call it a day, wrap it up, put a stamp on it, and close it out. We just won't talk about it anymore. It's just - what is happening, why are we doing this? And jeez, if this is just going to be a farce, can we just save the money and do something else? Why are we investing in something that continues to break rules, and to seemingly break accountability processes? Just really confusing there. [00:33:30] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, very much so. [00:33:32] Crystal Fincher: Also really confusing this week - SDOT once again very quickly erased a crosswalk - a crossswalk that a community put up at a dangerous intersection, that is clearly an intersection where people are designed to cross - indicated by the curb cut and the ADA-compliant rumble strip. But it was a dangerous place to cross. It was a place where community had brought up concerns that had seemingly not been listened to or addressed. They decided, as has happened before in the City, to put up their own crosswalk to increase the safety of people who need to cross the street. And there are people who need to cross the street more safely. But once again, seemingly - within 24 hours, I think - SDOT appeared and took action, not based off of calls for increased safety and taking action to make this intersection more safe, but came and removed the paint creating the crosswalk, saying for reasons of safety and liability, they can't stand by and let the community paint a crosswalk, even if it is painted to standards. But they immediately removed it. And the new head of SDOT said, hey, we are trying to move in a new direction, but we can't. We'll never be comfortable with people painting their own crosswalks for liability reasons. And then receiving pushback from the community saying, we ask you to take action to make this more safe. You don't. People get killed on the street. People get run into and hurt. Our street designs are nearly exclusively car-centric in most of the City. So hey, neighbors took action to make the road safer for their neighbors, for kids who need to cross the street, for elderly people, disabled people who need to cross the street. And it just seems that the action comes when people take their own actions - [00:35:50] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Sometimes [00:35:51] Crystal Fincher: - to make the street safer. That will get resources out to remove it, but we don't seem to be wanting to deploy the resources necessary to make these intersections safer. How did you see this? [00:36:05] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I applaud the effort of the community to make those streets safer. And I thought that the reasoning given - safety and liability - was thin. There's nothing about not having a crosswalk that makes it safer, obviously - that's what the community has been complaining about. And in terms of liability, it's always interesting to me that the liability that they're talking about is liability for a crosswalk that, "shouldn't be there," that they didn't sanction. But apparently there's no liability for people who are continually injured or killed in a place where the community has asked repeatedly for a crosswalk. And I think that it seems disingenuous to me. And yes, and it doesn't really mesh with the other things that they're talking about. So they can have someone come out and pressure wash off something that's supposed to be for community safety - like you said, for kids, for elders, for disabled people, for everyone - because we all walk if we're able. But the streets belong to everybody. But then they'll have someone come out and pressure wash this crosswalk off overnight. But at the same time, we have seen, for over a year, these ecoblocks, the big concrete blocks - that I think the most famous example of them is Councilmember Sara Nelson putting them around her business - so RVs, or people who are unfortunately having to live in their car, can't park near her business. Those are popping up all over the City now. And SDOT says, we're unwilling to pull people off safety projects to move those. But yet, they'll get someone out there overnight to erase something that's making public safety, but they won't do anything about these ecoblocks. And I think that's really another disingenuous argument, because there is more that they could be doing about that. There's ticketing. There's not just going and every day removing whatever's put there. There's a lot of things - there's fines, there's ticketing - that they could do to discourage this, and they're just not doing it. And to me, I think back to 2020 - when SPD built that ecoblock fort around the East Precinct and the West Precinct too. They built a little fort out of these City-owned ecoblocks around their precinct. And when there was things that ecoblocks were needed for, the City said, we don't have any more ecoblocks right now because they're being used for SPD's fort. And so now it seems like we have a glut of ecoblocks in the city - they're just everywhere. So I don't really understand where they're coming from. If they're not coming from SDOT, where are they coming from? And if they're not coming from SDOT and these are people buying ecoblocks and putting them there - on city streets - seems like it would be fairly advantageous for SDOT to go and pick them up. They're on public property. We didn't have enough of them before. Why not just collect them then? Or like I said, especially when they're on a private business, there's so much more the City could be doing about it. And obviously there's someone on the Council that does it. It's never been addressed. And it shakes, I think, people's faith and trust in City government and City agencies when they so clearly don't - their actions don't match up with what they're saying that they want to do. And so I expect more of these sort of crosswalks to pop up. And the community has been having these conversations with SDOT forever and nothing has happened. If this is what's moving the conversation forward, if this is what's creating safety - to me, that's the most important thing. People shouldn't be dying on the street. That's the most important thing. So whatever creates safety, whatever moves that conversation forward to protect people's lives, I think that's great that the community is doing that. I hope it pushes the conversation forward and really creates this infrastructure that we so desperately need. [00:40:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I think those ecoblocks - some people I've seen refer to them now as Nelson blocks since Councilmember Sara Nelson, despite seeming acknowledgement that they are illegal, continues to use and deploy them and exclude others from public space that they are entitled to be in. And that just does not seem to be a priority, like some other things in this community that seemingly have lower costs or impacts. But just, yeah, that the responses don't seem to make sense. The interventions don't seem to be consistent. And I would really like to hear a coherent and consistent approach to safety in Seattle. Or at least start by understanding and acknowledging that what is happening is unacceptable. And instead of running to defend - and I understand that there are concerns about liability, that is a fact - but we do need to expand the conversation to - let's be not just concerned about getting sued, let's be concerned about one of the residents in the City, that we're responsible for, being killed. Because that is happening. And what are we doing to mitigate against that risk? - is really the bottom-line question I think people want some better answers to. [00:42:12] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and they deserve them. [00:42:14] Crystal Fincher: They do. Another activity that maybe deserves - some Capitol Hill tenants are suing some landlords. What's happening here? [00:42:22] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So they are suing - there's, I don't know if people know this, but there are a few corporations, big housing corporations that own a lot of the housing in Capitol Hill and all around Seattle. And so many of them have started using an algorithm, through a company called RealPage, that collects all the information about whatever the company-owned property is, but then also all of the surrounding properties - to raise rents. So to tell landlords the maximum asking price that they can have for rent, based on what's going on around the city, around the neighborhood, from all this data from other places. And it's caused a lot of - and it's something that these big companies can hide behind for rental hikes too - they say, oh, a computer algorithm sets our rental prices and this is what it's set as. And RealPage CEOs have been very open about saying this is more than most landlords could ask for - I wouldn't feel comfortable as a human being asking for this rent, but it's set by a computer, so I can't do anything about it. And it's really caused rents around Seattle and Capitol Hill to skyrocket. There's many factors that go into skyrocketing rents, but this is absolutely one of them. And so the lawsuit is alleging illegal price fixing by these tenants, or by these landlords. And they're not the small mom-and-pop landlords that we're talking about. We're talking about the big housing conglomerates that own so much of our rental housing here in Seattle. And it alleges that it's basically illegal price fixing by having all of these groups that just continuously raise the rent - at the same time, along the same lines - and it's driving up prices everywhere. And I'm very happy to see this lawsuit personally. Rents are out of control in Seattle, and some of that is tied to supply, obviously. Obviously, there's no doubt about that. But what we don't need is businesses taking advantage of data aggregation to make rents go higher and higher and higher. And what I hear sometimes is - the market supports this. And I think that's a really misguided argument. People need housing. It's very, very dangerous to live on the street. Nobody's living on the street because that's a good time. No one's having an urban camping vacation out there in the middle of November. People don't want to live on the street. Housing - like food, like water - is something that we all need. So just because the market supports it doesn't mean it's affordable or good for the rest of the city. When people are paying 50% or 60% of their income to rent, that hurts everyone. That makes it - as food prices go up, as rent goes up, we have people that have to lean on social services. They have to go without things that are - really, it's a detriment to our entire community. So I'm very happy to see this lawsuit. Anything we can do to bring rents down and rebalance the - there's never going to be a full balance between landlord and tenant, obviously, but there needs to be some sort of rebalancing that's going on to make it so people can actually afford to live in this city. [00:46:01] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We still have areas in the state where people's rent can double. We still have areas just - where we are displacing people in the name of profit. And this is an essential need. This is something that people need to survive. We are seeing an explosion in homelessness because people cannot afford a place to live. Fundamental causes of homelessness are the inability to afford rent. People try and blame - people dealing with substance use disorder or people with mental illnesses - and those are issues and often become worse issues after someone is out on the streets because that is such a rough environment. But the biggest contributor is the inability to pay rent. And that's why we see other areas that have higher instances of people dealing with substance abuse, higher instances of people dealing with those issues - that don't have the degree of homelessness that we do in areas like Seattle, where things are just simply so unaffordable for so many. So we absolutely need to do that. To your point, we need more supply and action - to get more supply is great, but we aren't going to fully address this issue until we bring this landlord and renter situation into greater balance, until there are more rent controls, renter protections in place. That is also a necessary piece of this scenario. And taking this action is necessary - what we've seen has been predatory and has contributed to homelessness. And if we don't get a handle on this, we're not going to get more people housed anywhere around here. So I think this is a justified action. I think that - no, we actually need to stand up and say, you are not entitled to ever-escalating and increasing profits on the backs of people who are providing valuable services and who are valuable people in our communities. We just can't allow that to happen. It's not that - no one can make a profit, right? It's not that we're outlawing being able to be a landlord. But there are responsibilities that should come with that. This is not just a great area for profit and speculation. You're dealing with people in their housing, you're dealing with families in their housing. And there should be a greater amount of care and responsibility that we demand from that. So I am also happy to see this happening. [00:48:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah. I also think it's important to realize that when there are so many housing - when there are so many landlords and companies raising these rents - like you said, they are also causing homelessness. These rising prices cause homelessness. So what is actually happening is they are externalizing the cost of homelessness to the community while they make ever greater profits. And as I really like to point out - that this is to the detriment of everyone. So it is the community that is paying for them to make ever greater profits. And that's what we're really talking about. It's not just, people should be able to make money - of course they should be able to make money - but this is something that you can't ignore. This is not like an expensive handbag. People need shelter. And so when we are talking about those things, there will be a community cost if those things aren't brought back in line. And it's important to recognize that the market can't fix all of this. There has to be something else when it comes to things that people - that are basic human needs. And I like the idea that housing is a human right. We need it. We can't live without it. And I think that more and more people are getting behind the idea of that - that housing is a human right, that we all deserve the dignity of living in a home. But I also hope people realize that it is these profiteering landlords that are externalizing the cost of their profits to the community. So yeah, I welcome this too. It's hopeful. [00:50:45] Crystal Fincher: It is. And the last thing we'll cover today - there was a story by Melissa Santos in Axios talking about the State Democratic Party Chair under fire for being a staunch defender of Democrats Steve Hobbs, and really discouraging and going after folks who endorsed non-partisan Julie Anderson and her race against Democrat Steve Hobbs for Secretary of State. You have Joe Fitzgibbon, who chairs the House Democrats Campaign Committee, saying that Tina made threats about withholding resources from Washington House candidates because Democratic House Speaker Laurie Jinkins supported the non-partisan candidate instead of the Democrat. And then you have folks - Tina Podlodowski, certainly, but also others saying that - hey, this is what happens in the Democratic Party. Either you back Democrats or you're not. You're free to support who you want, but not within the Democratic Party. How did you see this? [00:51:58] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I thought this was a kind of a nothing, really. She's the Chair of the Democratic Party. Think whatever you want about Democrats - the job of the chair of the Democratic Party - there's many things to it, but pushing forward Democrat candidates, Democratic candidates, and a Democratic agenda is what she does. And I was really surprised - the headline of the article, which I know is not written by the journalist, said something about "alleged threats," which makes it sound so much more intense than it was - I think that it's - we really need to get serious about politics and about what we're doing. Republicans are on board with just voting for whoever has an R by their name, and that's something that Democrats haven't necessarily been doing. They've been trying to do that, but they haven't necessarily done it. But to think that the Chair of the Democratic Party is not going to try to push hard for Democratic candidates - I just thought was ridiculous, really. It just seemed like an absurd story. I have a limited - I had a limited experience with politics, but from what I experienced - this was nothing. This was really not much compared to what actually goes on in politics. To me, this just seems like she's trying to get Democratic candidates in there, which is what she's doing, that's what she's supposed to be doing. So I thought it was a kind of a weird story - the way it was framed, the choice of using the word "threat" without really talking about, until much later in the story, about what those "threats" really were - which were not direct, and which were about using Democratic Party funds and resources. And those are things that she's responsible for. I just really thought it was a kind of a nothing of a story, really. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think what made it a story was that you had a House leader making these accusations directly, and that's something that we don't really see that often. And I think just the - I think it is largely to be expected that a Democratic Party Chair is not going to be happy with the endorsement of a Democrat. I think what caused more of the question is not just saying, hey, Joe Fitzgibbon or Laurie Jinkins, you took this action, and therefore I'm not happy with this - with you - and maybe not supporting you, but the extension to Democratic candidates overall across the state, potentially, because of that. Which Tina Podlodowski and her team said wasn't serious and was par for the course, after being confronted with the existence of them, after I think initially saying that nothing was said. But then, I think this is interesting - not necessarily for this instance - although I do think there's a healthy conversation to be had about is holding the support of unrelated candidates fair play or not. But also just because it does talk about - in this instance, we're talking about a nonpartisan - some of these issues become very simple if we're talking about Republicans. They become a little more complicated when we talk about nonpartisans, when we talk about - especially in the Seattle area - folks from the DSA or People's Party, who may not label themselves as Democrats, but may be aligned on values. And so, is the Democratic Party a party of a label where just the - vote blue, no matter who - if they have a D by their name, great. Or is it a party of principles underneath that label, and you're more searching for someone who adheres to those principles, which may be someone who doesn't necessarily identify as a Democrat. I think that this conversation has been happening within local party organizations for a while, and different LPOs [Local Party Organizations] have come up with different stances themselves. Some are fine with endorsing folks outside of the party if they align on values, and others are very not fine with that. I think we see where Tina Podlodowski and the State Party is on that. But it is, it's not a straightforward equation. Because you do have these resources for the - it is the Democratic Party - doesn't prevent anyone from aligning with another party in doing that. Although that's a flip remark - if you're a Democrat or if you're a Republican, that alignment comes with significant resources that are available or not available with that. So I think, especially with those resources at stake, especially with candidates who may not be affiliated, I understand where people paused and said, wait, what is going on here? But I do think there's a bigger conversation to be had just within the party about - is it about a label? Is it not? Usually that's a much simpler equation when you get to a general election in a partisan race, but we had a situation with a nonpartisan running. And in Seattle - in city council races and other local races, we have situations where non-Democrats run, who are in the same place or further to the left of Democrats. So it just really depends here. But I think there is further exploration and conversation that needs to happen about this, even on the local level. [00:58:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I think that's - those are all really good points. And I guess, when I was running, I saw people in the LDs going hard for Nikkita Oliver, who didn't identify as a Democrat. And a lot of non-endorsements of Sara Nelson, for instance, who was a Democrat. And to me, it seemed like there was robust conversation in the LDs and they did not all agree. And they did not all do the same thing. And I - yeah, I think there is room for conversation about that. To me, it just - I get a little bit - it seems very - what am I trying to think of? What am I trying to think of when something's pot-kettle-type thing - like the right does this stuff constantly. And there's a total double standard when it comes to liberals, Democrats, progressives, the left. And I ran in a race where my opponent was not nonpartisan, but presented themselves that way. And it's hard to know, as a voter, what you're truly looking at. And so I wish - yeah, I think there - I definitely agree there needs to be a more robust conversation. At the same time, I think the Chair of the Democratic Party should probably be - whoever the Democratic Party has endorsed would be like someone that they would be pushing forward. But yeah, it does get really murky. And you're right, it comes with a lot of resources and access to voter databases and things like that - that has been shared with some groups and not others. There is - it isn't a straightforward situation, like it is with the right, where it's just - he's the nominee, so that's who we vote for - which is also breaking down on the right, it seems like, because they seem like they maybe took that too far. But there's a lot of nuanced conversation that needs to take place. [01:00:28] Crystal Fincher: And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 18, 2022. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co host today is defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. You can find Nicole on Twitter @NTKallday - that's NTK-A-L-L-D-A-Y. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. Please leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [01:01:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Thanks for having me - this was great.

Today's episode is a recording of a live forum between Seattle Municipal Court Judge candidates - Judge Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi for Position 3, Nyjat Rose-Akins and Judge Damon Shadid for Position 7. The forum was live streamed by Hacks & Wonks on October 12, 2022 and moderated by Crystal Fincher.   Resources Find links to the YouTube video and transcript here   Campaign Website - Judge Adam Eisenberg   Campaign Website - Pooja Vaddadi   Campaign Website - Nyjat Rose-Akins   Campaign Website - Judge Damon Shadid   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more here   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote at the Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hello everyone. This is Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode is a recording of our City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge forum which was originally streamed live on October 12. You can find video from the event as well as a full text transcript on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:34] Crystal Fincher: Greetings, everyone. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of this candidate forum tonight. Welcome to this Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Candidate Forum for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7. For those who need a refresher, the Seattle Municipal Court handles all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, civil infractions, and other offenses authorized under the Seattle municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington statutes. Misdemeanors are crimes where the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Gross Misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, including offenses such as driving under the influence, domestic violence, theft, and trespass. Infractions are acts that are prohibited by law but are not legally defined as a crime, like parking tickets and traffic or non-traffic infractions. And Civil Offenses are filed with the court when the City of Seattle seeks enforcement of its fire code, housing, and other city ordinance violations. The majority of the Seattle Municipal Court Judges' time is dedicated to jury trials and pretrial hearings. They also hear sentencings, arraignments, reviews, non-jury, or 'bench' trials, and can perform marriage ceremonies. Seattle Municipal Court has seven judges who are elected to four-year terms. Every other year, the judges select one judge to act as the Presiding Judge for a two-year term. The Presiding Judge's responsibilities including: overseeing the magistrates, lead the management and administration of the court's business, recommend policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, allocate resources that maximize the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, and determine judicial assignments. We're excited to be able to live stream this forum on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this forum for rebroadcast and later viewing. We invite our audience to ask questions of our candidates. If you're watching a live stream online, then you can ask questions by commenting on the live stream. You can also text your questions to 206-395-6248, and that number will scroll at the bottom of the screen. The candidates running for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Position 3 with us right now are - in alphabetical order - Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi. And for Position 7 we have - again, in alphabetical order - Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. A few reminders before we jump into the forum. I want to remind you to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th - that's this coming Wednesday. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at MyVote.wa.gov. I want to mention that tonight's answers will be timed. Each candidate will have one minute to introduce themselves initially, and 90 seconds to answer each subsequent question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up with questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Time will be indicated by the colored dot labeled "timer" on the screen. The dot will initially appear as green, when there are 30 seconds left it will turn yellow, and when there are 10 seconds left it will turn red. You will be muted when time is up. Now we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Adam Eisenberg. Then Pooja Vaddadi. Next Nyjat Rose-Akins. Finally Damon Shadid. So starting with our first candidate. [00:04:13] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Good evening. Municipal courts present a unique opportunity for restorative justice and diversion. For many of the people who come before me, this is their first stop in the legal system - I want it to be their last. I grew up with an abusive father and I know that treatment is critical to healing survivors, families, and abusers. That's why I helped create the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, a community-based program that serves as an alternative to jail. DVIP provides individualized treatment to break cycles of abuse and trauma. I'm proud to be the only LGBTQ+ member of the Seattle Municipal Court bench. Before being appointed in 2017, I had 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, civil defense attorney, magistrate and commissioner. I believe my diverse background is why I've been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the King County Bar and four minority bar associations. It's also why I've been elected Presiding Judge by my peers and why I have the support of Supreme Court Justices Yu, González and Whitener, local district Democrats, the unions that represent our court clerks and many more. Thank you. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And next. [00:05:17] Pooja Vaddadi: Okay, sorry - thank you. My name is Pooja Vaddadi and I'm running for judge in Seattle to serve the community that raised me and bring about a positive change in the culture of Seattle Municipal Court. I'm a career public defender and my platform is centered on a recommitment to fairness, compassion, and restorative justice. At this time, I've been endorsed by every Democratic organization in Seattle and King County that has endorsed in this race, as well as the Washington Young Democrats, the Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion and the National Women's Political Caucus. Aside from three legislative districts, these endorsements are exclusive. I always planned to run for judge, but I wish that I didn't have to run right now. Practice at Seattle Municipal Court showed me a toxic and biased judiciary acting against the interest of public safety and undermining the institution of the court. I'm running now because it is urgent that we change direction. This campaign is about the people of Seattle. As a public defender, I came to understand the specific challenges that prevent misdemeanor defendants from interacting productively with the criminal justice system. I'm running to bring the court back in touch with the law and with the circumstances of those it serves. [00:06:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:06:21] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Nyjat Rose-Akins and I'm running for Position 7 on the Seattle Municipal Court bench. I love Seattle. I became a U.S. citizen here, but I've seen the breakdown in collaboration across the city. I'm running to help repair that breakdown to improve the community's confidence in the court and to return to an individualized approach to judicial decision-making. I'm running because I've spent the last 12 years working with victims and managing relationships - the community relationships with police. In my 12 years at the City Attorney's Office, I've partnered with businesses, government officials, community members, and law enforcement. I've seen firsthand that issues affecting communities are rarely resolved in silos. Real change takes collaboration from all those involved, a willingness to listen, and the ability to have the courage to say when things are not working. I am running for Seattle Municipal Court to make it better. Thank you. [00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid. [00:07:22] Judge Damon Shadid: My name is Judge Damon Shadid. I've been a judge at Seattle Municipal Court for the past eight years. For the past four years, I've been presiding over the majority of Seattle Municipal Court's therapeutic courts - including Community Court which I helped found, Mental Health Court which I helped expand, and the Consolidated Calendar which I was able to create in partnership with other criminal legal system organizations. All of these programs have one thing in common. Accountability is best sought through rehabilitation, not through holding people in jail. Without rehabilitation, we are not going to make our community safer - and that's what all of my programs do. It is an individualized approach to find out what people's barriers are and to help them connect with the vital social services that will help them exit the criminal legal system. I'm proud to be endorsed by the Progressive Voters Guide, by The Seattle Times, by nine Supreme Court Justices, by many labor organizations, as well as community leaders, including - [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you, I believe that's your time. Our first question will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins, then follow up with Damon Shadid. What is your evaluation of the Community Court system? What is working and what's not working? [00:08:46] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you for that question. My evaluation of the Community Court system that is run out of Seattle Municipal Court is that it is not working. I have been partnering with members in the community as well as businesses and really trying to understand what is happening in that court. As a prosecutor - when I initially started at the City Attorney's Office in 2010 - I worked in Community Court. So I understand how the program is supposed to work. And currently I do not believe it's working because right now it seems as if it's a very indiscriminate approach to low-level crime, meaning it seems as if all types of crimes can come in regardless of what that individual may be doing in the community and whether or not that individual continues to commit crime even after being in Community Court. For instance, an individual - me reviewing the docket in the court, the court dockets - I've seen individuals with six, seven, eight crimes all at one time in Community Court. That shows me that that is not working. And low-level crime should be something very small. However, I'm seeing crimes where individuals are stealing thousands of dollars, $970 from businesses and Home Depot and Target. So my issue with it is that it doesn't seem to be working and we continue to just recycle people in and out without any real solution. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid. [00:10:22] Judge Damon Shadid: It's interesting. My opponent has never appeared in Community Court, which I founded - she was in a prior iteration of Community Court. But let me give you some numbers to show you how Community Court is working. 80% of the graduates of Community Court have no further criminal law violations - 80%. That's over two years that we ran the numbers and the graduates are not coming back in the criminal legal system - that is results that work. Let me tell you something else - now, Community Court was created in a collaboration with the City Attorney's Office and with the Public Defender's Office. We meet every two weeks, we tweak the program, we make it better. And in all of these meetings - my opponent has never come to the meeting, has never offered any sort of critique of the court, but instead has come from the outside where she's only reviewed dockets, but never actually been in the court, never been in the meetings. If she had been in the meeting, she would know that they work. She would know that we're collaborating and she would know that what we are trying to do is bring accountability through rehabilitation and it is working. Of the people who come to court, 90% of those people enter Community Court. Of those 90%, 75% graduate. And of those graduates, 90% don't re-offend in the next two years. Those are real numbers. Those work and we should keep going with Community Court, make it better, and expand it. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:11:54] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I believe a lot of Community Court is working. I've had a lot of clients that cycled in and out of Community Court and have been met with very many resources through that court. What I've noticed that hasn't been working is that a lot of roadblocks have been set up by the City Attorney's Office and a majority of the judges have more or less gone along with what the City Attorney proposes - and that is to exclude everybody off the High Utilizer Initiative list. That list is made up of people who have severe mental illnesses and people who are homeless and struggling with desperation and poverty. And I believe those people are the people that would benefit the most from a court like Community Court. Certain people on that list are also part of the Trueblood class and should just not be capable of being prosecuted because of the severity of their mental illness as well. And so Community Court obviously would not be the right place for them. But again, prosecution or keeping them off of any kind of diversion list is not going to help people who just cannot be prosecuted because of a mental illness. I believe that the Community Court can work better if the City Attorney, the Public Defenders and the Judges - again - decide to work together and come to a policy that works for everybody on the same page. I don't think it's working right now because people are butting heads in the court and in the Public Defenders and the City Attorney. People need to be on the same side and that's the side of public safety and helping prevent poverty and homelessness. Thank you. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Adam Eisenberg. [00:13:27] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Yes. So the thing that's most important to understand about Community Court is it's a triage court. It's meant to get people in the court system and out of the court system as quickly as possible, hook them up with social services, give them - if we can get them to housing, get them to housing - and move them on. The reality is some folks don't fit in Community Court. And while I don't necessarily agree that coming up with a list of 109 people or 110 or whatever is the best solution, the reality is that we need to figure out a way of addressing the folks who commit very low-level crimes, but don't succeed in Community Court. That's what this group is about. The group that doesn't succeed that keeps coming back. So while there's a great success rate as Judge Shadid talks about, how do we address the folks that don't fit? There is a dispute between the prosecutors and the public defenders - the prosecutor has discretion, judges have discretion as well. And I think over time we'll see that those folks will try to figure out more services that we can provide them with. But the reality is not everybody fits in Community Court and that group is the group we have to figure how to target. Thank you. [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat asked for some rebuttal time. [00:14:36] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I just wanted to address the 80% of people who go into Community Court graduate. That number is very skewed because when you do review the court docket, there are also a number of people who fail to appear or don't even show up for court. So I believe that is a skewed number based on the fact that there are multiple Community Court offers, but a number of people who do not show up for court. Additionally, the City Attorney tried to negotiate and opt some people out because they felt they - [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: That is time there and just another reminder - rebuttal is a 30-second period. Does anyone else want any rebuttal time, or are we good? We will move on to the next question. And we'll start with Judge Shadid. We have seen news of overcrowding in jails, asks from various jail employees - including corrections officers and public defenders - saying that they don't currently have the staffing to safely man the jails, asking to reduce the population. Should that be taken into account by judges when imposing sentences? [00:15:51] Judge Damon Shadid: Well the short answer is "No, but..." And there's a big but there - and that is that the criminal legal system should be steering away from incarceration because we know incarceration doesn't help people... the criminal legal system. And as a deterrent, it is very, very controversial of whether or not a jail deterrent is actually effective. What we need to do is be expanding programs for diversion, expanding programs for rehabilitation - that's what I've spent my career doing. That's why I created the new Community Court. That's why I brought together a Consolidated Calendar where people who are already working in the community with case workers can come on one-stop shopping to a court and can resolve their cases many times without the need of jail. That's why I've expanded Mental Health Court - so that we can create release plans for the most dangerous, most vulnerable in our community - people who need close supervision, and so we can release them with very close supervision with the aid of a court clinician. This is the direction the court should be going. Accountability should come from rehabilitation, from a person's willingness to engage with the social safety net services. I am proud to say that Seattle Municipal Court has not been booking people in jail up to the level of beds that we have available. We consistently come under that and we have lowered that number every year. And one of the big reasons, of course, is because of our diversion programs and I'm very proud of that fact. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up is Nyjat. [00:17:26] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, there has been a lot of issues with King County Jail, and as Judge Shadid stated, the court is not in charge of the jail and can't necessarily tell the jail what to do. I do think the court does have to factor that in when people are trying to be admitted into the jail and the jail is closed. So I think those are definitely some considerations that should be made when you are looking to maybe sentence someone to jail or determine whether bail is warranted. But I think that is done on a case-by-case basis. [00:18:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:18:08] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. I think the reality is judges are very much aware of the crowding in the jail. The job that we have is to decide - in this particular case, is this person a safety threat to the community? And that's really what drives most of the decisions to whether someone is going to be in jail or not. Is there substantial likelihood they're going to commit a violent crime? Are they going to interfere with the administration of justice? And then to a lesser extent, whether they're going to show up to court or if they've failed to show up multiple times. We are very much aware of the limitations of the jail. And there's also issues with staffing in general - because of COVID, they're not able to staff as well. So it's very challenging. We are booking fewer people - we've been doing that ever since COVID started. So I think that that shows that judges are very much aware of it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to - in this particular case, is this person a danger to the community or not? That's the primary driver of why someone's held in jail. And the judge has to make a decision based on that. Thank you. [00:19:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Pooja. [00:19:09] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I do agree with Judge Shadid. The court should be steering away from incarceration. And so while over-crowding for sentencing should not necessarily be taken into consideration, I do think that sentencing needs to be, that culture around sentencing needs to change dramatically. Studies have shown that public safety is not improved with increased rates of incarceration. In fact, a lot like what Judge Shadid was saying as well, studies have shown that diversion programs really do help to promote public safety. With the increased rate of incarceration, with the increased rate of jail sentences between 15 to 60 days - all it does to the individual is destabilize them. Their mental health deteriorates significantly when in jail. They're faced with the overcrowding problem. They're faced with dealing with individuals that they'd never encounter in the system. And they're also cut off from all resources. I've had clients that have had a lot of problems getting their mental health meds or any other kind of medical assistance while in jail. And all it does is cut them off from the resources that can help them re-enter society more effectively, that can help them not reoffend in the future. We should focus more on diversion programs. We should teach individuals who do touch the criminal justice system to reincorporate with society a little bit better. That is what improves public safety. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And for this next question, we will start with Adam Eisenberg. What factors do you consider in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants? Should it strictly be based on whether or not someone is dangerous to society or a safety risk, therefore kind of making bail irrelevant, or does bail have a role to play in your court? How do you evaluate that? [00:21:06] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So judges are guided by Criminal Rule 3.2, which does provide that the least restrictive means is what's appropriate. And in order to set bail, you have to decide that there's a substantial likelihood someone's going to commit a violent crime if they're released, substantial likelihood that they will interfere with the administration of justice or witnesses - which could be violate no-contact orders, or continue to drink and drive after they've been charged with a DUI, or fail to appear. That is the legal requirement that we have. We're also supposed to consider whether the person has the ability to pay or not. The bail system was created over 100 years ago in our state through statutes that seem very out-of-date and don't really apply to the modern world, because clearly people who have financial means are able to bail out easier than those who don't. Although there is the Northwest Bail Fund, which actually is able to bail people out who aren't able to afford it up to a certain level. As a judge, those factors are the factors that are the ones that I'm guided by. In looking at a particular case, is this person a danger to the community? That is the primary concern that I have. The bail system is not a perfect system. California is experimenting with a no bail or bail, so you either decide to hold someone or you release them and there's not an option to bail them out. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but I'm guided by the rules and I apply it in a case-by-case basis. Thank you. [00:22:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up will be Pooja. I'll just repeat the question. What factors are considered in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants and what do you believe should be the primary consideration? [00:22:46] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. So that's correct - the setting of bail is determined by CrRLJ 3.2. It is what needs to be considered when determining whether a person should be released or not, or what the terms of that release are. It does need to be the least restrictive means. What I believe that a lot of judges do frequently forget though, is that the presumption of all pretrial release is actually release. Bail is not at all presumed. What this means is that unless the prosecutor can meet a very high burden in proving that that person is either a danger to the community, at risk of interfering with the administration of justice, or a risk for failure to appear - that person needs to be released from jail. The problem with bail right now is that the danger seems to be - the level of whether that person is a risk to community safety seems to be driven by how much that person can afford. The bail system, as everybody knows, is not perfect. In fact, it is incredibly flawed and it seems to incarcerate more people who simply are poor rather than anybody else. The bail and the setting of bail is also guided by the constitution and it never should be excessive. A judge needs to consider whether the setting of bail is going to do more harm than good. I've seen a client that was bound for diversion and dismissal made homeless by a capricious application of unnecessary bail in this court and I do think that the individual needs to be taken into consideration with this. Thank you. [00:24:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon? [00:24:23] Judge Damon Shadid: The plain fact of the matter is that all cash bail discriminates against poor people. That is just a fact. There's no getting around it. If you set bail on somebody, a rich person can afford to pay to get out, but a poor person can't. And that's why judges need more tools when it comes to release. That's the whole point of the Community Court, the Mental Health Court, and the Consolidated Calendar - is to give us more tools to allow people to be released on structured release programs that help them connect with services - even predisposition - so that they're safer in the community. Now, I've also started a larger project called the Jail Release Toolkit that I plan to start in Seattle and provide - and that's to try to give judges more options for structured release plans that conform with Rule 3.2, to allow us to follow the laws. Now, it also can't be ignored that the Supreme Court, when COVID started, very much told the judges that we need to only hold people in jail pretrial if they are a substantial risk of committing a violent crime. And so we've been following that, and we've learned really important things from that - and that is we don't have to hold as many people in jail pretrial as maybe we thought we did. And I think a lot of judges have learned from that as well, and so we're really in a great place right now where I believe judges are open to alternative structured releases that can make the community safer instead of just using jail. [00:25:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat? [00:25:57] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, so the presumption of release is where I start when reviewing a person's case. However, as everyone has said, the court is bound by looking at Rule 3.2. And other than whether or not someone is likely to commit a dangerous offense, you also will have to look at whether or not someone is actually going to come back to court. And if someone has a very high failure-to-appear rate, you have to maybe consider - if I release this person, will this person come back to court? For misdemeanor cases, the point of having alternatives and other types of programs is that these cases need to be addressed relatively quickly, and we can get the services to the people who need it. So in addition to maybe looking at someone's failure-to-appear history, maybe some other examples of things that can be done is maybe electronic home monitoring and/or day reporting, because the point is to make sure that people do not lose contact with the court. And how can we increase contact with people who are committing crimes in our community? [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And we will start this with Pooja. If you observed a party in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation? [00:27:22] Pooja Vaddadi: So a judge cannot get in between a client and their attorney. It's not my position to do that. All I can do is preside over the law. Now I'll have to rule, however - everything presents in there - and hopefully one of the attorneys speaks up in objection to the way that the representation is going on, but I can't let my personal bias get in there. Just because I think I might do the job differently doesn't mean that I would do it better than the attorney that's doing it right then and there. I should never be the one, as the judge, to substitute my own judgment for how an attorney is handling their case. They have the personal experience with their client. They have the personal experience with their particular case - the victim of the crime, the police officer, whatever it is that they're dealing with - they have that experience to know how to handle that case. Now if I do think that somebody is being unethical or anything like that, that might be a different situation where a judge might have the ability to rule on a particular ethical violation - something that is bound by the law. But again, I would never replace my own judgment nor question the authority of an attorney when they're dealing with their own case - that undermines the credibility of every attorney in that courtroom and it undermines people's confidence in the court. Thank you. [00:28:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Adam? [00:28:40] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Well, I think that generally what Ms. Vaddadi has said is correct - the judges are not to interfere. However, there are certain circumstances - one day when I was a prosecutor actually, the defense attorney was drunk in the middle of a trial and her own attorney - the client is like, Your Honor, my attorney is drunk. And then the judge said, Judge Eisenberg - or sorry, Adam Eisenberg, I was his prosecutor - do you notice that she's drunk? Well, I'm sitting fairly close by and it put me in an awkward position, but the bottom line is that case resulted in a mistrial. And so there are circumstances where - and they're very rare, honestly - most attorneys that appear in front of us do a really good job. They may make tactical decisions that you might go, Why did you make that tactical decision - after the fact. But that's the area where the judge absolutely cannot invade. If you make a tactical decision to enter, submit evidence or not submit evidence - that's totally within the discretion of the attorney and the judge has to back away. If you have a situation where an attorney is obviously drunk in court or otherwise incapacitated in a way that's severe, you have to take some action. The nicest thing to do is reach out to the supervisor, ask the supervisor to come down, talk to the attorney, see if they can gauge what the situation is. In the case of the drunk attorney, that resulted in a mistrial. So that's an extreme case, I've only seen that once in the 30 years I've worked in the court system, but those things do happen. Thank you. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [00:30:14] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, I think if I see someone in the courtroom that is treating their client badly and I'm on the bench - and it seems as if it's more than just a tactical decision, maybe it just seems as if it is just treating someone inhumanely - I would likely take a sidebar or maybe take a recess and take both prosecutor and the defense attorney into chambers and just basically explain what I'm seeing because judges can't have ex parte contact. So I would probably make a note of it to the attorney - that this behavior is not appropriate - especially again, if it's outside of trial tactics and it's just behavior that's just inhumane or treating their client disrespectfully, I would likely address it in chambers. [00:31:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon? [00:31:22] Judge Damon Shadid: We are very lucky in Seattle Municipal Court to have a very high level of representation both from the private bar, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney's Office. I never stop being impressed with the level of representation that we have, but that doesn't mean that sometimes there doesn't come an attorney who comes and is doing a poor job representing their client. And what we have to avoid here is we have to avoid - one, the client not getting a fair shake. And number two, a setup for ineffective assistance of counsel so that all the work that went into that trial, all the jurors, all the court staff, and everyone else who spent days trying to go through this trial only to have it overturned because there was ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I certainly wouldn't take them into my chambers - I think that would be unethical. It needs to be on the record - everything you say needs to be on the record so the public can hear it. I would very much try not to embarrass the attorney in front of their client, and that's when a sidebar may be appropriate as long as it's recorded. But if the attorney doesn't seem to be catching on, then the case has to be continued so that they can get prepared. Or, as Judge Eisenberg said, sometimes it will rise to the level of a mistrial. So while I would normally keep hands off as much as I can, I'm not going to let a defendant and my court be misrepresented by an attorney. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. I now have a question submitted from the audience during this forum, and it's a two-part question really. One, do you consider any types of crimes to be victimless? And for those that aren't, how will you work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? And we will be starting with Nyjat. [00:33:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I apologize. I didn't hear the last part. Do you consider any types of crimes victimless? And I didn't hear the last part of the question? [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: Sure. How does each candidate work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? [00:33:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: So do I think any crime is victimless? No, I do not. I think some cases are definitely going to be more impactful to victims. But I believe when people are committing crimes, even low-level crimes - if it's a crime that continues to be done every day, it is impacting the community. The community is the victim if people are calling the police or observing this behavior. So even though all crimes are not going to be created equal, some crimes are definitely going to be more severe than others and impact more people. But I think for - to make sure that victims are being listened to, I think the main thing is to make sure that they have a seat at the table, they understand the process, they understand what the court is doing. What I've realized over the last number of years is that a lot of people really don't understand how the court functions or how it works. So I think the prosecutor's office - they have victims advocates that - I think it's good for them to talk with the victims to make sure that they understand the system and what and how things are happening. And even make sure that they come to court to see the process. [00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid? [00:35:13] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure, there are some victimless crimes - failure to transfer title, driving with license suspended in the third degree - I have trouble figuring out who would be a victim there. But I, in general, agree with my opponent that it's a matter of impacting - how does it impact the community? How does it impact the individual? Now in Washington, we have a Victims Bill of Rights. It used to only apply to felonies, but now it applies to misdemeanors as well. But I've always followed it, even before it applied to misdemeanors. If a victim comes into my court and wants to speak at any level of the prosecution, I will allow them to speak because it's difficult to come into court. It takes a lot of bravery to speak to the judge and to face the person who may have abused you. And so that person should be given a high amount of respect. But on the flip side of that, that person should be given a lot of respect if they, for instance, do not want to continue with prosecution. So you have to listen to both sides of it. As far as community crimes like that, there's a reason why we call it Community Court. And the way that we have people give back to the community is through things like community service work, or things like that that are going to actually give back to the community that's been taken from. So yes, victims will be listened to at all stages of the proceedings, and I have tried to do that. [00:36:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi? [00:36:44] Pooja Vaddadi: By definition and in general, no crime is going to be completely victimless and especially not in a strictly criminal court. I do agree with Judge Shadid - there are certain crimes like driving while license suspended or any licensing-type situation that is a failure to pay fines - I find it hard to believe also that there would be a real victim attached to that. But property crimes, thefts, whatever - the ordinary administration of justice is the tool by which we address these wrongs. However, the temptation for any judge is to substitute their outrage for the narrow bounds of sentencing permitted under the laws - and it's a challenge that we must rise to be impartial. It's essential not to misapply the law or you do risk revictimizing everyone through a second trial. That includes oversentencing, because you as a judge may think that a certain crime is particularly outrageous, but the worst thing that can happen is for that case to come back to court for a second time for a retrial or a resentencing where the victim has to, again, readdress the court to get any kind of recourse. That's traumatizing for anybody involved in the system. I do think it's important to listen to victims as well, especially when the court is trying to help that individual. Sometimes there are victims that come into court that wish to have the no contact order lifted so that their partner can support their lifestyle and their children. And I've seen this court deny administratively those requests to rescind the no contact order. And I would like to prevent that. Thank you. [00:38:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:38:24] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Yes, as everyone has mentioned, there are a few categories of crimes that perhaps are victimless, but most of the crimes that appear in front of us have some sort of victim. I'm most involved in the domestic violence cases. And one of the things that's unique about the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, which is the diversion program that I've described in my opening that is an alternative to jail for domestic violence offenders, is an individualized approach and a multidisciplinary team that includes victim advocates. So the voices of victims, not necessarily the victim of the particular crime, but victims - community victims or community advocates who are very familiar with the survivors of domestic violence are able to provide input into how to manage the intervention. The goal, of course, is to make it safer for the victims. We take victims very seriously - I know all my colleagues do when they come to court and wish to explain what they experienced. Sometimes they have to do it through the trial, sometimes they have to do it at sentencing. But I think even low-level crimes - if the victim wants to come to court and present, certainly the Revised Code of Washington provides for that - for them to be able to explain. And I think the court has to hear and consider their opinion, their concerns along with the other evidence that they've heard when they make a decision. So victims' voices are very, very important in our court. Thank you. [00:39:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And thank you to the audience for that question. This next question will start with Judge Shadid. We've had several high profile incidents in Seattle where police officers' accounts of events may have differed from video evidence and other things turned up in subsequent investigations. Do judges have any responsibility or role in interrogating the honesty of police and law enforcement in the court? [00:40:12] Judge Damon Shadid: Well, that is a very difficult question because it depends on what stage of the proceedings that you're in - whether or not you're in a pretrial, a motion, or a trial - and what would be appropriate in each case. What I will say is this - if a police officer breaks the law by perjuring themselves in court, that police officer should be subject to the laws just like any other person who comes into the court and they should be prosecuted. I've never actually seen a police officer prosecuted for perjury, but I have seen police officers lie on the stand in my eight years. And that's pretty shocking to me - police officers not only should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but they should be held to a higher standard. And they should not be coming in to lie in order to get somebody convicted. They need to be able to prove their case just based upon the truth. What I will say is that - at least the prior administration of the City Attorney's Office regularly dismissed cases when they saw a discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and contravening evidence. I think that's the right move. But unless it meets a very high standard, a judge is not able to dismiss the case themselves, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to do so. If there is a motion to dismiss, then the defense attorney would have to make their proof based upon the rules, particularly 8.3. [00:41:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:41:49] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Sorry. I agree with my opponent that everyone has a role when it comes to the court, and the court cannot necessarily just summarily dismiss a case that has been brought by the prosecution. I will say that the court can - there are many points in a case - for instance, if there is information about an officer, for instance, they call it Brady information - so it's information that the prosecution has to turn over and if they do not turn that over, then the court can entertain motions to dismiss because that is a huge violation. So if an officer has been found to have lied on the stand or any other behavior that has been deemed under Brady that needs to be disclosed to defense. So those are some ways that the court can, I guess, intervene when there is an issue with an officer specifically. But yeah, so that is the main thing - I would say that as I myself have actually prosecuted a police officer - because I truly believe that we all should be held to the same standard. [00:43:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Eisenberg. [00:43:19] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So you asked the question, can judges interrogate? Well, it's not really our role to necessarily interrogate. However, in certain hearings, we do have the opportunity, as the fact finder of the hearing, to ask questions. I can give you an example of a stage where I did find there was not probable cause for arrest and it was based on how the officer behaved. The officer saw the defendant driving late at night at a high rate of speed - that was pretty clear. He pulled him over and he asked him to step out of the car and he said - I smell some alcohol, I would like you to do some field sobriety tests. The defendant was very polite - I don't want to do any field sobriety tests because I know what happens next. If I do field sobriety tests, you take me to jail. And the officer's like, No, I'm not going to do that, but I just need to know. And what happened was 15 minutes of the officer trying to cajole the defendant to take field sobriety tests and the defendant clearly didn't want to. The defendant was Black, the officer was not. There was some question as to whether this was racially biased or not - it wasn't 100% clear, but it was very suspicious. And at the end of the probable cause hearing, I determined there wasn't probable cause for the arrest - the officer did not have enough information and the case was dismissed. Unfortunately, the officer left the courtroom before he could hear my ruling, but it was a very troubling situation. And that's a circumstance where a judge can see what an officer is doing because my job is to determine whether there's probable cause. And at that point, I could say the officer was inappropriate in what he did. [00:44:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:44:50] Pooja Vaddadi: And so I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said already. It's not necessarily a judge's role to take it upon themselves to litigate a case where an officer maybe is lying or engaging in any misconduct. But I have seen, as a public defender, police officers engaging in racially biased policing, which in my opinion is bad and sometimes in a lot of cases worse than perjury in court. The judge is a gatekeeper for evidence and has the power to address Brady issues or entertain motions to dismiss under circumstances that Ms. Rose-Akins actually described. And they should. There must be some distance between judges and the police so that they don't enjoy a special relationship and show any kind of bias towards any officers that are in that court. I've taken a case to trial actually in which a white officer investigated a scene for 40 minutes before releasing one person and then pretty much deciding that he smelled alcohol on my client's breath. The officer in that situation was a white man. My client was a Black driver. Such a case would raise a suspicion for me, although there is not much I can do in that situation unless the defense attorney does raise a type of motion. And then we are then faced with the ability for me to make a decision on whether that officer should testify or whether there needs to be some other kind of hearing to exclude that kind of testimony. Judges are bound by the law and that is how they need to operate. But we shouldn't let people with a lot of authority just get away with blatant disregard for the law. [00:46:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. This next question, we're going to start with Adam Eisenberg. What do your endorsements say about you and what do you think your opponent's endorsements say about them? [00:46:41] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Well, I've been endorsed by The Seattle Times, eight of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Bobbe Bridge, judges across the state who I've worked with on committees on statewide issues related to domestic violence, related to how do we have a jury trial in the middle of COVID - which I was assigned to be on the task force for that - on various rules that I have been engaged with. And I've also been endorsed by the union that supports our court clerks, I've been endorsed by public defenders, prosecutors, defense attorneys - male, female - and I've been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the bar associations I listed. I think that says that I try to do the best job I can and it seems like the legal community recognizes that. My opponent has been endorsed by a lot of the - I've been endorsed by some of the legislative districts, she's been endorsed by all of them. And she's been endorsed by, I believe, a lot of the progressive diversity groups. I don't really have a thought on what that says, but I'm very proud of the endorsements that I've gotten, including The Seattle Times - and including former Governor Christine Gregoire and many, many other Seattle City Councilmembers and County Councilmembers. So I feel like I have a pretty diverse background of support. Thank you. [00:48:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:48:11] Pooja Vaddadi: I believe that my endorsements, which are all of the Democratic organizational endorsements - I believe that they say that people are looking for a change in Seattle - they're dissatisfied with the way that the judiciary has been operating, they're dissatisfied with the way that the City is being policed right now. What they see is an increase in crime and a decrease in the amount of services that are there for the people of Seattle - there has been an increase of homeless people on the streets, there has been an increase of encampments. And the judiciary and the leadership in Seattle has been doing nothing about that. And people are ready for a change - people are ready for the type of perspective that I bring there. My campaign is staffed by dozens of defense attorneys who are actually afraid to publicly endorse, or who aren't permitted by their leadership to endorse. My opponent's endorsements do tell me that there are two versions of him. There's the version of my opponent that his personal friends see - I'm sure he is a great friend. But there is a version of my opponent that I know there. And unfortunately, a lot of people are not able to speak publicly about some of the behavior that they've seen on the court. And I have their support and their volunteer, I have their support in private. But I do have the support of a lot of organizations that are looking to make a change in Seattle right now and I plan on doing that. [00:49:44] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Shadid. [00:49:48] Judge Damon Shadid: I am proud to be endorsed by every civil Democratic organization and every one of those are sole endorsements. I'm proud to have the endorsement of eight current and former Supreme Court Justices, and community leaders, elected officials like Larry Gossett - who is my personal hero - Girmay Zahilay, Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, Senator Rebecca Saldaña, City Councilperson Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Debora Juarez. I'm very proud - I've also got community leaders, including the president of the statewide NAACP endorsing me, 75 judges - elected judges across the spectrum. And I've actually gotten The Seattle Times and the Progressive Voters guide to agree that they should endorse me solely, which I don't know how many of us can brag that. So I'm very, very pleased with my endorsements - I think it's great. My opponent's been working hard. She's gotten some endorsements from judges and from former Mayor Durkan - who was a former prosecutor - as well as former Governor Gregoire, another former prosecutor. Her support definitely comes from the prosecution - that is clear - and she's been a career prosecutor all her life and so that makes a lot of sense to me. You go to the people that you know and who you've worked with in the past. But my support comes from across the spectrum - it's not single-focused. [00:51:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:51:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I think my endorsements say that I'm not a politician. My endorsements say that I decided to run for this office because I believe that I am qualified. I'm endorsed by people who know my work and know what I have done and what I've done for the City for the last 12 years. I've been basically behind the scenes for the last 12 years, and this is my first time saying - I am going to put myself out there and be in the forefront because I know that I can make Seattle Municipal Court better based on all the work that I've done over the last 12 years collaborating and partnering with communities and with government officials. So I believe that's what my endorsements say about me. In regards to my opponent, I believe - he's been a sitting judge for the last eight years, so he has made those relationships. And usually, in all honesty, judicial candidates have difficulty because judges do not like to endorse against a sitting judge. So I think the fact that I've been able to get some endorsements from judges and retired judges - and mainly some Seattle Municipal Court judges, retired Seattle Municipal Court judges - I think that shows that I am more than capable of fulfilling this position. [00:52:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Now, we also asked each candidate to submit a question to ask their opponent. We will cover some of those questions right now. We will begin with a question from Judge Adam Eisenberg to Pooja Vaddadi - and I will read it verbatim. Candidates for judicial positions usually get vetted by the King County Bar Association and the minority bar associations. It's a rigorous process in which each bar association reaches out to more than 30 attorneys familiar with your work on the bench, and conducts individual interviews with the candidates. I've gone through the vetting process and have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" for Seattle Municipal Court by a number of associations. Why have you chosen not to be vetted? [00:53:43] Pooja Vaddadi: So the answer to this question comes in two parts. I'm running a lot earlier than I meant to because it's urgent to bring change in the leadership in SMC. The court has been failing the people of Seattle. I saw that when I was a public defender in that court and I'm still seeing it right now. I enjoyed my career as a public defender and I was not planning on doing this quite this soon in my career, but here we are and I'm needed. Second, from what I've seen, judicial ratings seem to measure nothing more than tenure. Tenure and how often you've pro temmed in the court or tenure on how long you've been on a bench. They obviously don't look at practitioner surveys, they don't look at staff reviews and complaints, overturns on appeal for constitutional violations, or courtroom demeanor. I don't know if these bar associations have sat in my opponent's courtroom for a lengthy period of time. I don't think that I would have had a fair shake in front of these judicial ratings because they would have held my lack of tenure against me. I know I can do this job and I know I will be good at it. Thank you. [00:55:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question for Judge Adam Eisenberg from Pooja - verbatim. There's nothing more stressful than representing a client who is innocent and falsely accused; or when an innocent defendant insists on pleading guilty to get out of jail or to avoid a penalty for going to trial. Can you tell me about a time that these have happened in your courtroom and how you were personally impacted?? [00:55:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: If someone's entered a guilty plea in front of me, I have to read the facts - and if there's a basis to support the plea, I have to accept the plea - so I'm not really sure there's - I understand the perspective of being a defense attorney and having a client who's doing something perhaps that you don't agree with or wish they would make a different choice. But people do make these choices to plead guilty for a variety of reasons and I don't often have - I very seldom have any understanding of why they're doing it specifically and their attorneys don't share that information with me. When someone enters a guilty plea, I try to give - if it involves a jail sentence, I try to give an appropriate sentence. If it's a guilty plea, the vast majority of times I agree with whatever the sentence is because it was a negotiated plea between the defense and the prosecution. If the defendant has agreed to a negotiated plea, I have no basis to disregard that. The perspective of a defense attorney isn't the same as the perspective on the bench when you hear someone entering a guilty plea. That's what I would say. Thank you. [00:57:07] Crystal Fincher: Pooja has asked for a rebuttal to that. [00:57:13] Pooja Vaddadi: Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to unmute. I just want to tell a brief story. I had a client in Snohomish County that was held on a DUI. It was a second lifetime DUI and he was held on a substantial amount of bail, a decision that a judge made. There was no blood test results yet and so we did not know what his Blood Alcohol Content was or if he had any drugs in his system. The prosecutor offered him a sentence that would have taken - and trial would have taken a lot longer to go. The point is - I'm running out of time - the point is he did have to plead guilty - [00:57:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Eisenberg has also asked for a rebuttal. [00:57:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry about this situation that happened with her defendant that she represented in Snohomish County, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me or my court. [00:58:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question from Nyjat Rose-Akins to Damon Shadid. How does the court monitor a participant's connection with meaningful services if multiple cases are dismissed within 14 days of entering into Community Court? [00:58:28] Judge Damon Shadid: Each individual who comes into Community Court is vetted by a judge for their appropriateness to enter the court. They have certain - we call them connections - that the person has to make in order to graduate from the court. There are different levels of connections - 2 weeks, 30 days, and 45 days that the person goes through. But here's what's really important to remember. This is a predisposition court. We connect people with services and then it's the City Attorney who moves to dismiss the case. This is what the City Attorney has agreed to. The City Attorney has never sought to change when they dismiss the case and it is their discretion to do so. We monitor to make sure they've made their connections, to make sure they've done a life skills class, to make sure they've done community service. We individually structure the program to make sure that we're addressing their specific barriers. But this is really important - it takes multiple connections to services for them to take. And so this criticism that - Oh, you're not holding them there long enough - well, how long do you expect someone to keep coming to court for a trespass or for a theft of socks? The actual rehabilitation has to match the crime has been committed and that's what we're trying to do. If a person's not willing to make those connections, they are prosecuted in mainstream court to the full extent of the law. [00:59:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I now have a question for Nyjat Rose-Akins from Damon Shadid. When I ran for Judge 8 years ago, I ran with specific plans for expanding and revitalizing Seattle's Therapeutic Courts. Over the past 8 years, I've delivered on those promises. I've not seen or heard any specific policy proposals that you would enact if you became a judge. Please give specific details of a policy proposal you would enact if elected. [01:00:28] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. So - when elected, I plan to revamp Community Court - reset the standards of accountability and requirements, review individual case history to determine if they are currently a good fit, limit the number of cases that can be addressed at one time, review the types of cases that are eligible, and redefine what is considered low-level crime. With doing that, I'd like to incorporate more probation and social services support to track and assist with program progress and participant needs. Also collaborate with more social service providers to bring them to the court to create a one-stop shop for individuals. I also want to collaborate more with nonprofits, other government agencies to create a pipeline - a proper pipeline for housing, mental health treatment, and job placement. I also would like to work more with probation services and resources, renew day reporting options - which would allow maybe Zoom options for people to check in with probation and not always have to come into court. And also maybe get more funding - not maybe, really try to get more funding - on electronic home monitoring for indigent defendants. So those are a few of the things I plan to do once elected. Thank you. [01:01:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid has asked for a rebuttal. [01:02:00] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure. So the one policy proposal my opponent has is to reform the court that I created, which is very interesting because she works for the City Attorney's Office and she has never come to a meeting [garbled] in court. She's never bothered to actually get to know what the court is. Instead, she's read a few dockets and she thinks she has an opinion on it. But why hasn't her boss ever asked for these changes? They haven't. So if she had been in the court for the past eight years, she'd know that we're already doing these things and that her policy is not policy. [01:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat, you have rebuttal time. [01:02:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the City Attorney's Office has never asked to make some changes to Community Court. I believe the City Attorney's Office requested trying to opt some people out because they had way too many cases and my opponent said no. And that is why there was an issue with the high utilizers. Aditionally, revamping Community - we had 90 seconds to speak - I brought up one specific thing in regards to Community - [01:03:19] Crystal Fincher: I will allow a second round of rebuttals for both of you since we are in this conversation here. Judge Shadid. [01:03:26] Judge Damon Shadid: Community Court took two years to negotiate. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that all changes to Community Court have to come through negotiation. Her boss came to me with a requested change, which I disagreed with. That is how you negotiate. That requested change then went to the full bench and the bench voted to adopt the change. That's what negotiation is and that's how you create programs. [01:04:00] Crystal Fincher: And Nyjat. [01:04:01] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, thank you. I also had the opportunity to review Community Court outside of Seattle. I went to Auburn Community Court and that program is a model structure for what a community court should be - where individuals actually engage with resources - it's a one-stop shop where they can come in and actually get the services they need and actually check-in with the court, check-in with their defense attorney, and check-in with the prosecution on a weekly and sometimes bi-week, bi-monthly basis based on the type of court. [01:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, these probably will be quick questions, but we'll see - two short ones - and we will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins. Have you ever been disciplined by the bar association or state commission on judicial conduct? [01:04:53] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Have not. No, I have not. [01:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon Shadid? [01:05:00] Judge Damon Shadid: No. [01:05:02] Crystal Fincher: And Pooja? [01:05:05] Pooja Vaddadi: No. [01:05:07] Crystal Fincher: And Judge Eisenberg? [01:05:09] Judge Adam Eisenberg: No. [01:05:10] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question - are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll have to find it necessary to disqualify or recuse yourself? We will start with Damon Shadid. [01:05:28] Judge Damon Shadid: There have been times when I've had to recuse myself. I was a public defender for quite some time before and I've had clients come into my courtroom who I represented in the past and I certainly recused myself from those cases. There have been times when I've made mistakes and I've agreed to recuse myself from a case. It happens to the best of us. It's very important to me that there is not only the fact of an impartial judge, but the appearance of one as well. And so if I even suspect that somebody is perceiving me as not being impartial, I'll recuse myself most of the time, unless I think that the attorney is forum shopping. So yes, a judge should be ready to recuse themselves whenever they feel that it's in the best interests of both the community and the defendant. [01:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [01:06:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, I think the fairness is very, very important in court, so I would likely - I have not had to recuse myself as I've been pro temming in court, but I believe I would likely recuse myself from friends and/or people that I have worked closely with in the City Attorney's Office or even in City government. [01:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg? [01:06:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: There have been some cases where I've had to recuse myself because I either knew some of the parties, or there was an incident with my neighbor that was reported to the police and I was actually a witness. So I made sure, right out of the gate, that when the case came to our court - because I suspected it would, based on the charge - I went and talked to the Presiding Judge and said, I can't have anything to do with this case because I saw the police arrive last night at the house. So those things happen - obviously, that happens very, very rarely. But otherwise, recusal is normal when you know parties or you have information about the case that you shouldn't have had, you heard - because of a neighbor talking or whatever. But there's not a particular type of case that I recuse myself from. It's really a - it's a case-by-case cir

4PM - Hanna Scott: Office of Inspector General drops their report on the abandonment of the East Precinct // Yes, your dog really can sniff that you're upset // Dinner therapy: Key to a stress-free home may be regular family meals // Bandit Busted For Finger Gun Bank HeistSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rachel Belle on local restaurants still struggling in the post-pandemic market // Feliks Banel on the Mariners' 1977 honor student ticket program // Hanna Scott on the latest OIG reports on SPD's East Precinct problems in 2020 // Dose of Kindness -- hospital hair salon in a NICU // Gee Scott on Bruce Irvin's return to the Seahawks/ the Mariners' loss // Gee Scott on Bruce Irvin's return to the Seahawks/ the Mariners' loss // Mike Salk on the Mariners' heartbreaking loss // Feliks Banel and Ted Buehner on the 1962 Columbus Day stormSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ep. 34 Seattle PD SWAT Sgt. Drew Hancock, (retired 2021), discusses his 28-year career with the department working foot patrol, mountain bikes, undercover VICE and Narcotics, and SWAT as a sergeant/supervisor for ten years. In this role, he helped manage the Unit's response to the 2020 riots that famously shut down a several-block area of the city and temporarily shuttered the department's East Precinct. He talks about the scope and intensity of those days and compares this experience to working the World Trade Organization (WTO) riots in 1999 for which Seattle also made national news.  I met Drew 12 years ago just as he was starting as SWAT sergeant. It's great to reconnect to look back at all of it and to hear the stories of the people he helped, the camaraderie, the good times and the tough times. And I finally get to ask him what SWAT really does because I realized I did not know!  We also talk about Drew's new role as Director of Practice Development - Law Enforcement for Creative Planning, a nationally recognized wealth advisory firm dedicated to helping clients achieve their long-term financial goals. Drew and his wife started as clients seven years ago and for the past two years, Drew has been proactively talking with fellow officers about their needs and what the company's financial planners can do for them. With his firsthand knowledge of LE's pay structure and Creative Planning's approach, Drew can answer officers' questions about what the company can do for them and arrange a free, no obligation consultation with a financial planner.  As Drew says, the company “gives you a much better approach and trajectory for your own personal financial success, instead of just leaving it up to the state or the city or the pension board to control your money. It's a very personal approach to a holistic wealth management. I think it's one reason I was able to retire early.”  Drew welcomes having a conversation with LE from around the country. You can reach him at drew.hancock@creativeplanning.com or connect with him on LinkedIn. On a personal note to you my listeners, it is meaningful to me to air this episode at this time since it was two years ago that I launched the podcast. Initially, it was in response to the 2020 riots to give LE a platform to discuss the impact of the extreme verbal, physical and emotional attacks you undeservedly suffered and to showcase the profession as it really is, not as it was made out to be.  My first episode was with a Seattle PD Wellness Sergeant conducted on the day that Carmen Best, the department's first Black female Chief resigned. Since then, I have interviewed law enforcement from around the country. My goal is to tell the real stories of LE, the ones that don't make the news. It's also my way of telling law enforcement through dark days and good, that there are civilians like myself who support you and who see the profession for what it really is. Thank you for what you do and your families and loved ones who share you with us. Facebook: On Being a Police Officer Twitter: @AbbyEllsworth13 Instagram: on_being_a_police_officer Abby@Ellsworthproductions.com ©Abby Ellsworth. All booking, interviews, editing, production done by Abby Ellsworth. Music courtesy of freesound.org.

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Pastor Carey Anderson about his campaign for State Representative in the 30th Legislative District - why he decided to run, how the last legislative session went and his thoughts on addressing issues such as housing affordability and zoning, homelessness, public safety, LGBTQ+ rights, and climate change. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find more information about Pastor Carey at https://www.electpastorcarey.com/   Resources Campaign Website - Pastor Carey Anderson: https://www.electpastorcarey.com/   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. Well, I am just delighted today to welcome to the program, a candidate for State Representative in the 30th Legislative District down in Federal Way, Pastor Carey Anderson. Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:00:53] Pastor Carey Anderson: Crystal, it's an honor to be with you, and let me just say right off the bat - thank you for inviting me to be a part of this wonderful, wonderful podcast. I'm just elated to be invited today, and I appreciate the work that you do. [00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. I appreciate the work that you do, my South King County brethren and leader of so many, and just appreciate the time that you've taken to join here. So I guess I wanna start off asking - you've done so much, you've accomplished so much. What is it that made you think - you know what, it is time for me to run for office? [00:01:33] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, that's an excellent question. Let me say to our audience - the 30th district is a new district, and I'm running to bring proven new leadership to the new 30th District. The realignment of the boundaries from the 2020 Census shows that Federal Way is a BIPOC-majority city now, the 30th District is growing. I live in Federal Way, I'm the pastor of First AME Church in Auburn and Seattle - Seattle is the mother church. And about 19 years ago, we saw the trend of gentrification and so we started a satellite in the south portion of King County. So, First AME Church is the oldest Black church in the state - 1886 - and so, we see it as a part of our mission to always speak truth to power. So I am running to bring proven new leadership to the new 30th District. And if I could just take a moment - when we're talking about the crime, we're talking about the homeless, we're talking about the issues of housing, we're talking about funding of our schools, we're talking about public safety. Well, these are things that I have been doing in my entire ministry - 44 years in ministry, 38 years as a senior pastor, 18 years as the pastor of First AME Church - matter of fact, in its 100+ years of existence, I'm the longest serving pastor. My boots have been on the ground, fighting all of those things and addressing all of those things. And I want to do it in this open seat - no one has ever served the new 30th District before. And it is time for proven new leadership for the new 30th District. And I'm sure we'll get into some of the specifics a little later. [00:03:34] Crystal Fincher: Well, and looking at this new 30th District - you're running for the seat that is being vacated by Representative Jesse Johnson, who has done a lot of work in the community, certainly made his imprint on the Legislature in the time that he was there. Some of that, including police accountability legislation and other legislation that we saw passed in 2020, and then rolled back in 2022, along with a number of other things. We're dealing with a - how we're gonna treat revenue - are we gonna raise more progressive revenue, or move - continue to move - in a regressive direction. Action on the transportation package, stagnation on affordable housing and the middle housing bill there - as you evaluate this past legislative session, what did you think about it? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? [00:04:40] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, first of all, let me commend the work and applaud the work of Representative Jesse Johnson. When he was first running for City Council, we supported him. When he went into the State Legislature, First AME supported him. He came and presented at our church and at both campuses, matter of fact, and we supported him wholeheartedly. I was disappointed to see him leave the seat because we need that type of leadership. And certainly with the police accountability reforms that he pushed through the Legislature - it was a herculean job, but the job is not complete. And so when we talk about fighting crime, let's just stay right there for a moment. I applaud the work of our police force and law enforcement. However, I don't believe that we should put the entire burden of fighting crime on the police. There are other matters and other variables that go along with property crimes and low-level offenders such as drug abuse, mental health, and some of those types of things that cause an environment for crime. And I am trained as a substance abuse counselor, I am trained - I'm the only candidate trained in mental health. I did it, I've been doing it for some 30+ years. And so these are some of the other things that we must address because when we talk about crime and we talk about housing, it's not enough just to find affordable housing and place people in affordable housing. But many times, if they have mental health issues, if they have, if they're suffering from addiction, we need wraparound services. And so this is going to take critical thinking, it's going to take people that have been in the field to know what to say, how to say it, and drum up the support to build collegiality - to really change our community and change the 30th LD. So these are some of the things that I hope to bring to the State Legislature, as a legislator. [00:07:00] Crystal Fincher: You talked just a little bit, just now - obviously issues of addiction, in addition to homelessness. Housing affordability is such an important issue and one that a lot of people are struggling with - the cost of rents have been skyrocketing, cost of daycare skyrocketing - so much is making things really hard for people just to survive. They can be working one, two jobs - it's still not enough. Minimum wage is not sufficient for allowing people to live independently and to afford an average rent. What should be done to make housing more affordable in the 30th District? [00:07:47] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, thank you for that question - it's really a challenging question, but I do want our audience to know, I've been involved in affordable housing for many, many years, even in my first church in Nevada - we built housing, affordable housing for seniors. First AME Church has been involved in the housing arena through our nonprofit since 1969. And we had three apartment complexes in Seattle, and we formed about five or six years ago - the FAME - Equity Alliance of Western Washington, which is another housing corporation that I serve as the chair of the board. And we just broke ground in January of this year on a $36 million, 119-unit complex - the Elizabeth Thomas Holmes - in South King County. So we're moving down this way - it's an issue that's very personal to me, I've been involved in it. I know that we have to find more housing for struggling families, and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund has money in it. We got to move it quickly and quicker than we have been moving it so that we can build a housing inventory for persons that are really trying to build a home for their loved ones, their children, their families, for sustaining the family unit. And these are things that I've been involved in, engaged in - and you would not imagine, Crystal, how many people come to First AME Church asking for rental assistance, needing food - which we try to provide on a regular basis, since the pandemic in particular. And we do that because we understand the need - I see it on a regular, regular basis. We even have a home, a parsonage - that we rent it out, bringing it out for, since my time, is 18 years at First Family Church. And so during the pandemic, those families that were living in the home could not pay their rent. And so we elected a moral decision to let them stay and not evict them. Matter of fact, we were - they were part of the persons that came for food every Friday in our Friday drive-by - I'm not talking about shooting, I'm talking about groceries. And so we would feed them, give them groceries - I'm not talking about meat, cheese and milk. I'm talking about more than that - meats, vegetables, wholesome grains - so that the family could be fed a nutritional meal. And also we provided vaccinations for COVID-19, as well as boosters. We continue to do that, and so we boosted and vaccinated over 6,000 people - and fed them as well. So we elected to eat the rent so that these families could stay in their home and not be put out on the street. And the Lord makes a way, somehow. So, we're involved in it and engaged in housing - I will continue to do that as a State legislator. [00:11:14] Crystal Fincher: One of the big issues this past legislative session was the missing middle housing bill. And you're absolutely right - we need to designate more housing as affordable housing, find affordable housing. One of the big problems is just that there just is not the supply of housing at all - of all different types and at all levels. Here in the state, we have not been building to keep up with the increase in population and the trends in the flow in population. And so allowing more density, more inclusive zoning was put on the table and all of the data shows that's a necessary ingredient of increasing affordability, of helping to stem the skyrocketing costs of rent and housing. Would you have voted for that missing middle housing bill? [00:12:16] Pastor Carey Anderson: Yes, I would. And let me say this - we have to have more deep-dive conversations for this issue of affordability and housing. And the conversation should center, not so much on - do we wanna build a threeplex or a fourplex in a single-family neighborhood - or what do we really value? If we as a state, if we as people value sheltering and allowing people the opportunity to live a decent life like you are living, then we're gonna have to have those types of conversations. But I believe that there are ways in which we can build housing in single-story homes and two-story homes that are aesthetically beautiful. It would not really disrupt the aesthetic beauty of the community and the neighborhood. These are discussions that I believe would prove to be very valuable instead of just a NIMBY attitude, because today they're homeless, today they're in need - but you miss a couple of paychecks yourself, you get laid off of your job, let another pandemic come and affect and impact your family - you may be the one next in line. And so we have to be very careful at the rocks we throw and the fingers we point because it could easily - you could be up today and you can be down tomorrow. So it's a collective effort - it's going to take collective and courageous conversations so that we could truly address the problem of affordability and density and providing the needed housing inventory for families to live sustained lives. [00:14:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Absolutely well said. We talked about public safety earlier - certainly talked about policing, have talked about the need to intervene in a lot of different ways. Safety is a really big conversation, and right now there are a lot of people in our communities fearing for their safety. Hate crimes are near all-time highs, we're seeing hate and bias-motivated crimes, we're seeing harassment and targeting of the LGBTQ community and others for their ethnic heritage, for their religion. What do you say to people who right now are scared and worried, and who are looking at the two parties going in very different directions, and worried that they can't count on the Supreme Court for safety or rights anymore, and increasingly they're relying on local leadership to make sure that people are safe and respected and protected in communities. What do you see as your responsibility in that area, and how will you lead to make sure that everyone in our communities feel safe? [00:15:36] Pastor Carey Anderson: Thank you. Excellent question, Crystal. Public safety is a major issue today, and I believe that we have made some major strides, but there's still a long way to go. And as I had said earlier, I believe that - I don't believe that we should put the entire burden on fighting crime left to law enforcement. When George Floyd was murdered and the unrest happened in Seattle in particular - but across the country - the East Precinct in Seattle was overtaken by the protestors. The East Precinct in Seattle is two blocks from First AME Church. I led the charge in convening the mayor and her staff, the Chief of Police at the time and her command staff, and the leaders of CHOP to come to First AME Church - there was about 75 of us in total. We did so with the sole purpose of learning how to talk, learning how to listen to one another. You have to understand - lives had been lost, bloodshed had been spilled on the pavements and on the streets of our cities behind the George Floyd murder. But out of the conversations - without news media, without the news outlets, without reporters - we were able to come and de-escalate the tension. And out of that, we were able to encourage Mayor Durkan, who was serving at the time, to put money into the BIPOC community - $30 million. She formed a task force that I was privileged to be a founding member of - the Equities Community Initiative Task Force - where we put together teams to talk about what are the central and acentric needs of our BIPOC community. Housing was one, entrepreneurship, looking at closing the wealth gap between Black and Brown people against the dominant culture. And so if we were able to do that there, I believe through our State Legislature, we can form ways of bridging some of these issues. Let me say this, Crystal - every first responder doesn't need to have a gun and a badge. Some of the things that we're dealing with now, we need to put funding into training more officers, law enforcement sensitivity training, cultural sensitivity training. I'm an endangered species as an African American male, even at my age - I'm not 25 - but I'm still an endangered species when pulled over by law enforcement. And so we've got to find ways of how to communicate better, how to empower faith groups, how to empower addiction counselors, how to empower and utilize mental health professionals and social workers to become our first responders. There was a time, a couple of summers ago, when the City SPD, Seattle Police Department, used the United Black Christian Clergy of Western Washington, which I'm a member of, and they would call us in dire situations with street violence amongst gangs. And we were able to find family members, we were able to find gatekeepers to try and de-escalate some of the violence as opposed to law enforcement just going in and pointing a gun and wearing a badge. I think that we must work collectively in this issue, if we're going to really bring about public safety, [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. And then also talking about people's basic rights and people remaining safe regardless of who they are, what their background is, what their gender or sexuality is. [00:19:52] Pastor Carey Anderson: And can I say this - when you talk about the LGBTQIA+, we have to understand - they are a part of our community, just like we are a part. There's a collective we, and the Pride Parade in Seattle was right at the Central and the Capitol Hill area - where is First AME Church, right in the Capitol Hill area. We have always been, and there were even members of the 30th LD Dems, who said I was a homophobe. I said, how dare you? If you even Google Pastor Carey Anderson, you will find out that we are a welcoming church, a welcoming faith group. I am certainly not a homophobe - if anybody is, it's you - because we have always had our doors open for any and everybody. And we'll continue to do that - that's who we are, that's our value. God is a God of love. And so we must precipitate that type of love no matter who you are, and whose you are, because we're all children of God. I have walked with our Jewish brothers and sisters when Temple De Hirsch - our sister congregation right across the street from First AME Church, within walking distance - when they were defaced, their building was defaced, there were bomb threats. I stood with the Jewish brothers and sisters - Rabbi Weiner is a brother of mine from a different mother, we eat together, we worship together. And the Muslim community - we are tight with them - when they were going through threats, bomb threats, defacing of their temples and their mosques, we were right there with them standing by their side. And when Mother Emanuel AME Church back in 2015 lost nine people inclusive of the pastor - this is an AME church. First AME Church was the hub for the Seattle Pacific Northwest area, and we held prayer vigils, we led a 3000-person march through the City, and we engaged peace talks, and with celebratory singing. But we have to stop the killing, and this is what it's about. This is who we must become, and this is what I want to do, as the next voice in Olympia for the 30th District. I'm not talking about what I'm going to do, I'm talking about what I've done and what I continue to do. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: And I guess my question - especially, you've been doing work - in your capacity as a State legislator, particularly at this time where there are so many attacks on people because of their identity. And as we see rhetoric ratcheting up - the type of rhetoric that we know leads to violence - what more can be done to protect our LGBTQ community legislatively, to help protect people's rights, to help keep people safe, to help people just feel loved and seen in our community. What can be done in your role as a legislator? [00:23:26] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, first of all, we need to enforce our equal protections under the laws even more. And we've got to not just put it out there in writing, but we must practice it indeed. We must have an open-door policy, we must train the legislators in terms of what a community looks like from people that are other than you. They look different, they have different values and culture, but they're still a part of this community. So I can love you no matter who you are. Although you may not have the same value that I have - just because you're a person, I am obligated to love you, and to stand in your shoes, and to understand your pain, understand your wants, and understand your desires and your hopes. This is what we must do if we're gonna represent all of the people that we are elected to serve. [00:24:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We also are facing a climate crisis. We are at a point where climate change is happening, we are experiencing extreme heat, extreme cold events, flooding. Marginalized people in our community, lower-income people, BIPOC communities are being hurt worst and first by this climate crisis. And we have work to do to keep it from getting worse, we have work to do to mitigate the impacts that it's currently having. So I guess in - as you're looking at running, as you're looking at legislating, what action would you take to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution? [00:25:19] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, first of all, when the dominant culture sniffs, has the sniffles, those who are in poverty, those who are living beneath the poverty line, catch the flu. And so we've got to, first of all, realize the disparities, the health disparities. I'm so thankful for the Governor's supplemental budget, that calls for $64 billion, over $64 billion, of priority areas. One of those areas is climate. And so I would be supportive of the Governor's supplemental budget for 2022. Also, when we look at that, one of the other priorities is that of poverty. One in five persons are living in poverty. There are 1.7 million people in this state that are living in poverty. So when we're talking about climate change and gas emissions and things of that nature - trying to be a 2035 clean air environment, which is a very ambitious goal to meet, but we gotta start somewhere. But when we look at the disparities, 1.7 million are living in poverty. And then when you go a little deeper, you find out over half, or nearly half, are people of color. So we are the ones that are the most impacted, as you have so eloquently said. So as a State legislator, I would be in support of the Governor's supplemental plan and would be pushing for the implementation of it. I'm not gonna be Black when necessary and BIPOC when convenient. I am who I am, and these are priorities and we've got to speak truth to power. We've got to have these courageous conversations and that's what I'd be willing to do, as your State legislator. [00:27:16] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - also in this, transportation is the sector most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions in our state. We just passed, as a state, a transportation package that had record investments in transit and mobility - which we all desperately need - but also continue to widen highways and invest billions in doing that. And especially with the impacts, as you just talked about, in the BIPOC community - just people who are in close proximity to roads and highways - the pollution that comes from those are disproportionately causing asthma, heart disease, lung disease in our communities. We now have tons of data showing that widening highways doesn't reduce traffic, it increases traffic and increases emissions. Would you be supportive in future highway packages of highway expansion, or do you think we should cap it at where it's at and focus on investing more in transit and mobility solutions for people who walk, bike and ride. [00:28:43] Pastor Carey Anderson: Yes, excellent question. I think we need to take a serious look at a moratorium on expansion for our highways and really look at some of the measures to bring public transportation and make that more accessible. Here in the 30th District, the transportation - Sound Transit - is moving this way. And a lot of people, though we may live in the Federal Way, 30th District area, we are working in Seattle - let's be clear about it. And so, once that is really completed - that project - that will help ease some of the traffic flow and the emissions that are going out, because I'd rather spend a minimal amount of time and read a book while I'm traveling quickly and swiftly to my job in Seattle, than being stuck in traffic and then having the propensity to get into an accident or having someone hit me or falling asleep while we're in a dead zone deadlock and gridlock and those kinds of things. So I know that a lot of the transit money has already been bonded out. So it's gonna be a difficult thing to look at, but I'd certainly be in favor of a moratorium. [00:30:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that makes sense. And as you are considering your race, your opponent, just the dynamics of what is happening in Federal Way today and what residents are going through and what they want. Why are you the person who they should choose to represent them? [00:30:33] Pastor Carey Anderson: Russell Wilson used to say this when he was with the Seahawks - why not me? So, when we look at public safety, when we look at safe neighborhoods, funding our schools, affordable housing, quality healthcare for seniors, clean environment, and issues surrounding equity for all - I'm the only candidate who has been a K-12 public school teacher. And I'm for state funding - I'm the only candidate who has championed $400 million of state funding for immediate reinvestment into our communities. We've got a $200 million allocation that's gonna drop next month. And the RFPs are soon to be online. And so I was one, along with four others, who helped champion that $400 million state funding for immediate reinvestment into our communities. I'm the only candidate who has been using our church as a clinic for patients, for COVID vaccinations and boosters, and feeding people - to the tune of feeding, we've done nearly 15,000. For boosting and vaccinating people, over 6,000. And we continue to do that through partnerships. I'm the only candidate that provides jobs through affordable housing - our affordable housing projects and my church-based nonprofit organizations. And as I had said earlier, our project just broke ground in January 2022, providing 119 units of affordable housing at a cost of over $36 million. No one else has done that, no one else has been involved in leading the community. I'm just talking about - I'm not talking about Emmett Till, but I am talking about Trayvon Martin, I am talking about Michael Brown, I am talking about the mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. I am talking about George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery. First AME Church, through this pastor and the leadership that I provided for this community - I was the one out in the street, I was the one organizing these marches along with my colleagues, I was the one that's speaking truth to power, I was the one that convened the mayor, the chief of police who has endorsed me. WEA has endorsed me, the Retired Public Employees Council has endorsed me, and we're still getting endorsements as we speak - because my boots are on the ground. You don't have to wait for Day One to start pushing the button - what are you gonna do? I'm gonna continue to do what I've always done. And so this is my pledge, this is who I am as a person - and preaching and politics have never been separated in my book. And from the historical tradition of the African Methodist Episcopal Church - we were the first to seek public office in state and federal levels in our denomination and have led the charge and led the way. The Reverend Raphael Warnock is standing on the shoulders of historical path and I'm standing on those same shoulders. [00:33:48] Crystal Fincher: We're at an interesting time in our country and there certainly is a lot going on. You're coming to this race as a pastor. Your faith has informed how you have walked through life and how you have chosen to serve others in the community. We also see examples of some people who may be opposing you in this race, and some churches that are much more exclusive, that talk much more pointedly about who is and who is not welcome, who is and who is not moral or just or right in our society, allowed in our society. And we're having lots of conversations about what is the appropriate delineation between church and state. As someone whose faith is important to them, who you are walking into this role as a pastor, what role does faith play in how you serve, and I guess, through this candidacy. And what would you say to people who look around at other examples of religious leadership that they don't feel loved or included by - that you, as a pastor, would be the right choice. What would you say to folks who are thinking that? [00:35:17] Pastor Carey Anderson: Well, you've asked a series of questions, actually. I would like to start by saying - we sang a song when I was coming up in California and They'll Know We Are Christians by Our Love. And so my faith is rooted and grounded in love - love for neighbor, and love for self, and love for a community. And so, this is what informs my walk, it informs my talk. I want to be able to stand in the shoes of other people. It's not until you stand in their shoes that you understand their pain, and once you understand their pain, then you can begin to have discussions on how to mitigate the pain, how to address the pain, and how to walk with them through the pain. And so this is what I endeavor to do. The Bible says in the New Testament - we walk by faith and not by sight. So faith is what leads me, every morning, to get up. And it doesn't matter to me if you're Muslim, Jewish, atheist, or whoever you may be. You are a person, you are valued, and you are loved. What is it that we can do to help your walk? What is it that we can do to inform your viability, sustainability for you and your family and your loved ones? That's what we should be about. [00:36:57] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Pastor Carey. If people wanna find out more about your campaign or get involved, where can they go to find out more information? [00:37:06] Pastor Carey Anderson: Google me and go to my, our website - Pastor Carey Anderson or Reverend Dr. Carey Anderson. But our campaign website is electpastorcarey.com and you can go there, and we're still getting lots of hits and the phone number is there 253-296-6370. Well, you're welcome to join us, you're welcome to wave with us, you're welcome to walk with us, you're welcome to phonebank, textbank with us, and to follow us as we follow our call and commitment. So, these are simple ways, but it means so much - reaching people one at a time, one neighborhood at a time, one household at a time, one person at a time. And that's what we're about. [00:38:05] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for spending time with us today, Pastor Carey Anderson. Thank you so much - we'll continue to follow you on your journey. [00:38:14] Pastor Carey Anderson: Thank you for having me, Crystal. It has certainly been an honor, and it's certainly been a joy to see the work that you and your team are doing. And I am not going to turn this off. I'm gonna keep you in my heart and I'm gonna keep the work that you do in my soul. So thank you so much. God bless you and God keep you. [00:38:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. 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 our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

The city of Seattle has settled with the father of the 19-year-old man killed near the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) paying him $500,000.Horace Anderson, the father of Lorenzo Anderson, who was killed, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city, saying that when the police left the East Precinct during the BLM protests in 2020, they were negligent in their duties of ensuring public safety, and responsible for the death of his son.LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3KBUDSK

THE THESIS: Seattle is spiritually dead, most of its citizens hate God. Now, the body of Seattle is being murdered. THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES:  Proverbs 6:31 31 Yet if [the thief] is caught, he must pay sevenfold,     though it costs him all the wealth of his house. Matthew 5:11-13 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. THE NEWS & COMMENT: Four teens arrested after gunfire erupts in Tacoma neighborhood Officers arrested a man Thursday morning in Capitol Hill after he stole a car with an infant in the back seat, rolled the car over in a collision, and then fled the scene: Burglar caught by Woodinville seven-year-old in family living room A man allegedly terrorized a Seattle school, grabbing two students according to the custodian, yet BLM-supporting Principal Ric Baileykaze refused to cooperate with police, according to the SPD."Principal R. Baileykaze... would not speak to me." -officer Resignation Letter (This resignation Letter was sent out to SPD Chief Adrian Diaz and CC'd to all SPD employees. Some words have been altered to avoid waking Facebook's pernicious nanny bots.) Chief Diaz and Whomever it May Concern: Recently I was advised that my employer, the Seattle Police Department was unable to find a reasonable accommodation for my religious exemption from the kØhѵiɗ ѵ@ɔɔinϵ mandate that took effect October 2021. For clarification, the reasonable accommodation I requested was that I be permitted to receive the ѵ@ɔɔinάɫiѳn upon such time that my daughter is weaned from breastfeeding. Such gall! After I was already informed in November that I would not be granted an accommodation, then a day later advised that was sent to me in error. It is clear despite the Department's responsibility to consider each request individually, in good faith, with care and diligence, there was never any intent to grant any accommodation to anyone. This was demonstrated time and again by the Department's actions and proven by notes we were never supposed to see that were attached to some of the documents. Over the many months of this “interactive process” I was contacted by SPD HR three times, including the once in error, and not from a lack of trying on my part. Several emails and inquiries from both myself and SPOG were ignored. There was no interaction, nor any process. The decision was predetermined. Any delays were merely for crafting the decision in the most liability-reducing manner possible. Any appeal on my part entertained merely to build a legally defensible façade that accommodations were actually being dutifully considered as required by federal law. From the outset requestors were expressly forbidden from making arguments with reason or science. Previous kØhѵiɗ infϵkshuns such as I had, given the superior protection imparted, were preemptively struck down as exemption from the mandate. The only possible explanation for this is that reason or science, aptly applied, could defeat the rationality of the mandate. This is the conduct of cowards. I no longer wish to serve such cowards. The brass at SPD and the officials within the city government regard themselves as the betters of their employees, superiority granted and confirmed by their positions. But these are positions not gained by merit or effort, but by nepotism and chicanery. Leaders aren't promoted for their leadership skills, but rather their fitness as sycophants. In reality they aren't fit to do the officers' laundry. In reality they are being propped up by the labors of their betters and they feel no shame using officers' bodies as ladder rungs to their next position. I had the honor and privilege to serve with true heroes. People who willingly stand between violence and innocence daily. People who as a routine matter of survival must wear body armor, drive cars with bullet-resistant panels, and carry bullet-resistant shields to calls for service. People who are routinely called to hold the most violent to account for their crimes and address situations no one else wants to, and would scarcely be able to, and are expected to perform with superhuman ability. They are not permitted basic human error, or fatigue, or feeling. They do this under the scrutinizing eyes of no less than six oversight entities who all desperately want nothing more than to find officers making mistakes but fail so miserably that they must go out of their way to suspend officers for using no-no words. City Hall has been operating under the illusion that those who stand between violence and innocence are unnecessary, exemplars of a racist system even. Now those officers I described are all but gone, and the innocent remain, will the violent magically disappear? Or, Or, facing little consequence, will they simply revel in their newfound access to victims? In spite of the wonderful people I worked with who routinely stuck their necks out for me, my career at SPD was punctuated with abuse at the hands of so called leaders. From being photographed while dressing in the locker room, to being chastised for using sick time when I suffered complications following a surgery and nearly died, to being denied a transfer for my choice of dress while off duty (I was described as a distraction whilst wearing fairly standard exercise clothes). Instead, I was forced to transfer elsewhere against my will. I was put in unsafe situations as a young undercover and railroaded by those running an operation because they didn't want to admit they had screwed up, so they lied, and they expected me to lie for them. I didn't. I was later again chastised for my hairstyle, a ponytail, also while off duty. Other (male and transgender) officers who were knowingly and flagrantly violating the grooming policy every day were given a pass. I was attacked and drug through the administrative mud for having a ponytail off duty because supervisors thought they could leverage it against me. And those who did so lied about their malicious disrespectful conduct. I was once accused of being unprofessional for mentioning to a colleague that I felt like a target was painted on my back. The accuser in this instance was another SPD employee who was actively monitoring my communications and activity, exactly as one might expect if a target was painted on my back. The entire episode was proof that there was indeed a target on my back. I was punished and ordered to officially acknowledge that I didn't feel this way, I refused. This is Orwellian thought police in action. I was stalked for years by another employee who used police systems to track me. Not only did the department do nothing about it, but they in fact also knowingly allowed this person to continue to stalk me with their systems for two years. I was told derisively and flippantly I should get an anti-harassment order by department admin, because they weren't going to do anything, and clearly doubted that I could or would. So I did. Even still, despite having a valid, legal, court-ordered anti-harassment order that I brought to the attention of the chain of command, the department did nothing and allowed this person to violate the order. During this ordeal OPA even fed my stalker confidential information about me. Legal counsel have told me that this conduct is certainly illegal, but simply not worth the cost of bringing suit because it didn't cost me any tangible monetary value. Every step of the way the SPD leadership lied. They lied naturally, repeatedly, and shamelessly to cover their own self-interests. They lied with the comforting knowledge that their subordinates would suffer for it in their stead. They don't care. They routinely issue orders to officers based on political expediency, not law or prudence, certainly not public safety. When questions inevitably arise about the poor decision making, they lie and profess they never made any such order, forcing the officers to take the blame. Some notable examples include orders to use blast balls and other crowd control devices during the summer of 2020 riots, and orders to allow Antifa to assault Back the Blue demonstrators at Green Lake Park. So pervasive is this incompetence and festering cowardice, no one seems to know who ordered the surrender of the East Precinct, nor the orders to stand idly while the resulting utopia project rapidly and predictably fell into chaos and cost lives. To be clear, they know exactly who made those orders, this is why they unlawfully deleted all their communication from this time. They're cowards. The total lack of competent leadership during this time will forever be a disgraceful blemish upon our history. The officers performed admirably, with no direction, no leadership, and no support. And at every chance the brass was afforded, they used the officers as so much fodder then tossed them aside when their utility waned. Seattle and Seattle PD are now the laughing stock of the world. Not one of SPD's brass were concerned about anything but self-aggrandizement, political optics, and liability control. Only how something looks, never how something is, and most certainly not public safety. Not one of them ever had any interest in my performance as a competent and effective police officer, nor were any of them ever concerned the least bit about my welfare. But my ponytail is a severe transgression. My off-duty clothing choices threatening to the cohesion of the entire department. My very thoughts and feelings considered a security threat. These are not isolated incidents. This is business as usual at SPD. SPD cultivates and even enforces an attitude of caution over reason, “de-escalation” over intervention, prioritizing “optics” over reality, how something appears rather than how it works, a wait-and-see approach that puts people at risk. This is ultimately just desperate justification for their own cowardice. Just as they order officers not to pursue armed robbers and would-be drive-by murderers who even fired on officers, these are exactly the sort of people who would order officers not to make entry into a school when a psychopath is actively murdering children. I pray that day never comes, but if it does, I truly hope the officers who remain have the courage to disregard such orders, but the officers who do are now few, and far between. Sometimes it seems SPD doesn't want courageous officers, but rather those who simply follow orders without question. The last day I wore the uniform of a Seattle Police Officer, when it was determined my presence was too great a risk due to not being ѵ@ɔɔin8ed, I was unceremoniously ordered to vacate by a man who was entrusted with the command of a police precinct and has numerous arrests for DUI and one for domestic violence, and clearly suffers from an inferiority complex. How appropriate. Since then, he has been arrested once more for DUI, and probably thinks no one knows. We all know. Also since then, SPD suffered the highest rates of kØhѵiɗ infection since the ҏ@ԯdԑӎic began. Very nearly every kØhѵiɗ infection at SPD happened after the mandate took full effect, meaning very nearly everyone at SPD who suffered a kØhѵiɗ infection, was fully ѵ@ɔɔin8ed against it. That makes for the crappiest ѵ@ɔɔinϵ ever. So crappy in fact that mandates have been rescinded all over the country. There is now established case law supporting iꝳꝳunity following infekshun can and perhaps should be accepted in lieu of requiring ѵ@ɔɔinάɫiѳn. Even Portland has rescinded their ѵ@ɔɔinϵ mandate. But not Seattle, never Seattle.  It's clear that this mandate is not about science, and certainly not public safety. As we all know Seattle leadership cares little if anything about public safety. This mandate was only ever about conforming to ideology. Well, I won't. I've therefore been on unpaid leave for eight months. And despite promising to receive the ѵ@ɔɔinϵ just after my child is no longer breastfeeding, which could be a matter of weeks, SPD sent me a new letter stating again that no accommodation was available, and my choices are either get ѵ@ɔɔin8ed now or resign. SPD also sent out letters dated May 9, 2022, advising those of us who have not been ѵ@ɔɔin8ed that our benefits will be getting terminated as of October 31, 2021. That is, retroactively. This strikes me as radically illegal. Not to mention unethical and childishly petty. And a contract violation. If there's one thing Seattle knows, it's that they can violate contracts with impunity because it will take years to find resolution. Despite all of Seattle's posturing and threatening they have yet to fire a single officer who was denied an exemption from the mandate. They simply placed everyone on unpaid leave. Just as with everything else they do, Seattle's leadership is so craven and risk averse they don't even have the minerals to stand by their policies and terminate the unѵ@ɔɔin8ed as they threatened nearly a year ago. They know it will be considerably liability-inducing. They know they did not follow the law in the denials. So instead, they try to make life as uncomfortable as possible for these people such that they, like me and so many before me, simply resign. With pride and dedication I served the people of Seattle for eight years. Everyday risking my life for theirs. Enduring repeat abuse and garbage leadership for the sake of doing right and being there for my colleagues. For eight years I was a good cop. But Seattle doesn't want good cops. I hope those leaders and competent supervisors at SPD don't take offense to this. If the manner I described SPD's leadership rings true for you and you're feeling inexplicably defensive, well, if the shoe fits, Cinderella. This is obviously not the case for every supervisor at SPD. I've had many great ones, they're unfortunately terribly outnumbered and hamstrung in their ability to do good. They face harsh scrutiny for protecting their officers and are often transferred to positions with few or no subordinates to care for, many have preceded me in leaving. Among the superior leaders at SPD one can count Chief Wilske, Chief Green, Lt Curtis, Lt Geoghegan, Lt Nguyen, Lt Aagard, Sgt Sauer, Sgt Hadley, Sgt Jones, Sgt Waltz, Sgt Janes, and Sgt Patterson. Some were demoted as a result of their devotion to public safety and their officers, and some are no longer with SPD. After serving alongside some of the most respectable, selfless, professional law enforcers and people of the utmost integrity, the conduct of the administrative staff and officials of the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department is nothing short of egregious dereliction, utter incompetence, and malicious persecution. The routine treatment of the officers at the hands of their supervisors is disgusting and appalling. Now the majority of those good officers are gone. Run out by systemic mistreatment and persecution. The people of Seattle suffer for it. That I as a veteran female officer, a Christian, breastfeeding mother, am being forced out by corrupt, indelibly arrogant, and chauvinistic administrators for the nature of my convictions, being stronger and ethically superior to their own, seems a fitting end to my career. I therefore tender my resignation, effective immediately. Ofc. M. Reynolds #7745 South Precinct Patrol See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Remember the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone that was set up by activists and “protesters” in June of 2020? The real start of the CHAZ happened on June 8 when police rather suddenly pulled out of the East Precinct police station and boarded up the windows and doors. That gave the mob the sense that they were now in charge of the area and they quickly tagged buildings up and down the street with “ACAB” the abbreviation for “all cops are bastards.” And a little more than a day later a dispute broke out over tagging which led to the first police action by CHAZ's self-appointed leader/warlord Raz Simone.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, newly re-elected to citywide Position 8, joins Crystal with thoughts and next steps on the SPD ruse scandal, a run-down of ambitious plans for the broadly-supported JumpStart economic stimulus, and discussion of the urgent need to shore up our childcare infrastructure. The show closes with a call to action for electeds everywhere to not hesitate and take the bold, progressive action voters want. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda at @CMTMosqueda   Resources “Seattle council questions watchdog about police lies, investigation into faked radio chatter” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-officials-face-questions-about-police-lies-investigation-into-faked-radio-chatter/   “As negotiations with city loom, Seattle's police union has had an outsized influence on police accountability measures” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/as-negotiations-with-city-loom-seattles-police-union-has-had-an-outsized-influence-on-police-accountability-measures/   “​​Council Passes Mosqueda's JumpStart Seattle Progressive Revenue Plan to Address COVID Response, Essential City Services, Affordable Housing” from Council Connection: https://council.seattle.gov/2020/07/06/council-passes-mosquedas-jumpstart-seattle-progressive-revenue-plan-to-address-covid-response-essential-city-services-affordable-housing/   “Councilmember Mosqueda Moves Forward with Transparency and Accountability Measures for JumpStart Seattle” from Council Connection: https://council.seattle.gov/2021/07/19/councilmember-mosqueda-moves-forward-with-transparency-and-accountability-measures-for-jumpstart-seattle/   “Durkan Budget Would Gut JumpStart Spending Plan, Increase Funding for Encampment Response” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/09/28/durkan-budget-would-gut-jumpstart-spending-plan-increase-funding-for-encampment-response/   “NPI's July 2021 survey of Seattle voters found deep support for JumpStart revenue plan” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/09/npis-july-2021-survey-of-seattle-voters-found-deep-support-for-jumpstart-revenue-plan.html   Seattle City Council - Seattle Rescue Plan: https://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/seattle-rescue-plan   “Child care was already dysfunctional. COVID-19 could break it completely” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/focus/2020/09/child-care-was-already-dysfunctional-covid-19-could-break-it-completely   “DEEL Awards Nearly $3M to Child Care Workers in Appreciation of Their Service to Seattle Families Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Sage Leibenson from Seattle Department of Early Education and Learning: https://education.seattle.gov/deel-awards-nearly-3m-to-child-care-workers-in-appreciation-of-their-service-to-seattle-families-throughout-the-covid-19-pandemic/   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. Well today, I'm thrilled to be welcoming Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda - Position 8, the citywide position. Just got new committee assignments, so she is the Chair of Finance and Housing - lot going on there - Vice-Chair of Public Assets and Homelessness. She is a member on the Governance, Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee, Land Use Committee, and Public Safety and Human Services Committee. And we are just thrilled to have you. Welcome to the program. [00:01:08] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I'm so excited to be here. Thank you for the invitation. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I just want to start off real quick since we're in the middle of it right now - it's in the news - and talking about what is happening with SPD. The ruse issue, which certainly seemed to escalate and inflame tensions while protestors were protesting downtown, was near the beginning of CHOP and CHAZ, City resources were deployed thinking that it was real - what do you think about that? And what do you think should happen next? [00:01:47] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: It erodes public trust. I think that it's a real problem that we have misinformation that's intentionally being used and - apparently - allowed for in policy. We had a hearing that Councilmember Herbold led through her committee on Public Safety where a lot of questions were asked, and I think the main question is - are we going to allow for this type of "ruse" to continue? I think if you'll remember at the time there was almost daily press conferences being held with the mayor and then the chief - Chief Best. I remember that this issue was talked about out in those press conferences and it just wasn't accurate. It was misleading, not only the folks who were calling for action and for accountability, but it misled the broader community. And I think that it has the effect of potentially eroding public trust when a real threat is there. So I think there's a lot more policy changes that need to be put into place. I just finished compiling a list of questions as well that we're sending over to Councilmember Herbold that she's going to send over to the chief and the new mayoral administration, because there was also a lot of conversation about how the East Precinct was under attack and at the time, that was the justification for why the East Precinct was abandoned. I'm not sure that that was accurate. I'm not sure if that was a ruse or not. And if there's federal threats that were being assumed or spouted out in press conferences, I want to see what those details were because we need to be able to grow trust with the community, we need to be able to make sure folks know that there's not misinformation being spread. And if it's allowed for or sanctioned in public policy, then that public policy needs to change. [00:03:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - certainly seems to be the case. Certainly just a continuation of eroding trust. What can be done - I guess there's an issue about the texts also happening at that time, which are still missing. What can be done to get that information or to compel that information? Are there options there? [00:03:59] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, I'm going to be working with Councilmember Herbold as the Chair of Public Safety - I think she has some follow-up questions that she's going to be asking as well. I think that number one, text messages shouldn't go missing and for four to five months of text messages to be missing - from a handful of people in the previous administration - I'm surprised that that hasn't gotten more attention, frankly. And I think that it's really problematic. Problematic both again, from the policy standpoint, we want to know that good public policies are being adhered to and from public trust. I do think that we shouldn't have policies that allow for a "ruse" to be used, and we should change that. And I know Councilmember Herbold - this isn't the last time that she's going to be talking about it. And I'm very much interested in making sure that we can give folks a better sense of assurance that this type of misinformation will be used intentionally in the future. That's, I think, just scratching the surface, right? You mentioned a lot of other areas that haven't been fully investigated or concluded yet. And we have a new mayor - I think that there's conversations right now about who will be a new chief. I know that there's been conversations about who will be interviewed for that. And during the inauguration, Mayor Harrell mentioned that they were going to have conversations with our existing chief, but I think across cities across this country, we need chiefs and leadership within police departments who are willing and ready to accept that reform - and the status quo - the status quo is not going to be permitted and reform alone isn't enough. We need to invest upstream in making sure that people have education, and housing, and that we invest in gun violence reduction strategies, and youth violence reduction strategies, that we create greater economic security and opportunity for everyone. And I'm interested in a chief and leaders that want to embrace that broader vision of what public safety looks like. [00:05:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and they've mentioned being sometimes limited by the consent decree, and some of what the judge overseeing that feels. And also with the union contract, the SPOG contract. As you - I don't know if - what is going on there certainly with the new administration. The new mayoral administration - they're talking about how negotiations are going to unfold and who's going to be involved in them, but is there anything that you're specifically looking to get out of that contract in terms of accountability? [00:06:37] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, number one, I think that we should have had these conversations a lot earlier. When I came into office in 2017, we were already years delayed in having a renewed contract. So finally, when the contract was passed, it was supposed to be short-term in nature because there was only about 12 more months left of what should have been the contract. And I and other council members called for the mayor to convene the Labor Relations Committee meetings so that we could start negotiating faster. Those convenings didn't happen in, I think, a timely manner, and we're still here on the cusp of beginning our negotiations. And I think what's going to be important is to make sure that the accountability pieces are truly not negotiable, right? We want to negotiate the things that relate to workplace standards, but on what I think is a broad consensus of needing reforms overall - items that we saw in the public safety legislation that Councilmember González led on in the past - we wanted those items to be statute, we wanted them to be law, and they shouldn't be negotiable. So those are going to be some of our core components that I know we'll continue working on in the upcoming contract. [00:07:48] Crystal Fincher: Certainly, a lot more to come - a lot to unfold there. We'll keep an eye on it. I do want to talk to what you just spoke about and making meaningful investments in - really, it boils down to people, to prevention, to meeting needs, to addressing root causes of the problems that we're seeing, instead of just trying to address symptoms downstream. I wanted to start off talking about one of your signature pieces of legislation, the JumpStart Tax. And one, just to recap for people who are listening - what is it, what does it do, who does it help? [00:08:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: This is one of the biggest pieces of legislation that I am so proud of, but it is one of the largest pieces of progressive revenue that has passed in Seattle's history. There's been a long road to have this actually passed, and I want to thank all of the community members for their calls for progressive revenue to turn our regressive system right side up and actually make it progressive. And in a city that has seen such tremendous growth in terms of the wealth of not only individuals, but corporations - it is the right thing to do to make sure that we have progressive policies that allow for dollars to be invested in our community, into our most vulnerable. And it is the right thing to do for our economy as well - this is actually an economic stimulus when you think about the ways in which these JumpStart dollars will be used. They're going into affordable housing, into economic resilience, into Green New Deal policies. I just want to, from the outset here, say how important this is for our local economy. We cannot have a prosperous local economy when we have folks who are living in the door steps and entryways of the largest corporations across our country. And in the time that we find ourselves in with growing economic inequality that was existing before COVID, but has only been made worse by the pandemic, we have to invest these dollars into creating a healthy, more resilient local economy and that starts with housing. So JumpStart progressive revenue is going to invest over $214 million a year into housing, economic resilience, equitable development, and Green New Deal priorities. 68% of the funds, so the vast majority - over two thirds - is going into affordable housing. This is for building affordable housing, low income housing, not just for individuals - like one bedrooms - but we're talking two, three and four bedrooms. We're putting funding into building first-time home ownership opportunities. Funding specifically going to smaller developers who are trying to build affordable housing in communities hardest hit by displacement, so that we can truly create ownership and liberty and self-determination among community members who've been hardest hit by displacement. And really address the past legacy of discriminatory policies as well. Then 15% of the funds is going into economic resilience, especially into small, BIPOC, women, minority-owned businesses. In this time where we've seen folks really lose their livelihoods as small business owners as well, this is going to be critical. Equitable Development Initiative, obviously - this is one of the biggest areas for us to invest in that creates, I think, greater equity and a more just local economy, because these are dollars that go into things like childcare, space for small businesses, community centers, creating community. As we've all been isolated for so long in our homes, if folks have been able to work from home, we're disconnected from family due to isolation and quarantining - we want our community, when it's safe for people to reconvene again, to be able to have a community plaza or a community center. And to be able to gather in markets and childcare settings so that we can create a sense of community. And that's what that Equitable Development Initiative really goes towards. And the Green New Deal - this is the first time we've been able to allocate funding for the Green New Deal through JumpStart in a significant way. We have funding that's gone in - to the tune of, I think, near $20 million - that's going into helping set up Green New Deal investments. And this again, is not just something that we came up with on our own, either in my office or on council - this is what community has called for. So this broad group of over a hundred businesses, and small community organizations, and Green New Deal advocates, and housing advocates, immigrant refugee advocates, union members helped pass this. And now, it's the critical time to make sure that it actually gets captured and that it gets deployed the way that we said it would. So we had to pass, as I'm sure you know, the implementation plan twice and make sure that it was truly codified in statutes so that those dollars didn't get swept for other items. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: As a former mayor was trying to sweep that money for other items, and making conflicting statements about them, and just really trying to take this money - which clearly is doing a ton of good - and use it for other things and pitting interests against each other, which turned out not to work, thankfully. In talking to people, I don't know that a lot of people recognize just how comprehensive this is. Everything you just talked about - sometimes people look at one section of it or another - and you can look at one individual section and it is making a huge difference. But to meaningfully address small business - investing in small business - to meaningfully address affordable housing, the Green New Deal. At this time, it really is speaking to the most pressing issues that we're facing as a city - to your point, as defined by the residents - and saying, "This is where we're saying we need help." And really said, "Well, here is a comprehensive plan to do that in a progressive way." In this state, which is coming from the most regressive tax structure, to really trying to rightsize that in a way that truly asks - just asks people to pay their fair share, is not asking for stuff from ma and pa businesses, stuff for employees who are making low or even medium wages. This is really just looking at - hey, if you're a business who is one of the most successful businesses that we're dealing with, who has profited from what this community has provided you, the resources that the City has provided, and on the other side has created some challenges that the City has to deal with. We are looking at the rise in prices for homes that are now out of the reach of lots of people because of high-wage earners coming here to work for the Amazons of the world, so it certainly makes sense that for those super high earners - that a small tax on that - when we're asking so many other people to sacrifice so much. And they're already dealing with such burdens - and with fees and taxes and all that - while the richest just haven't been paying their fair share. And just look at what's possible when we ask people just to rightsize this whole thing. It's really wonderful. [00:15:20] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I was just going to say - thank you. And also, thanks to Seattleites, who I think are absolutely recognizing exactly what you said. The Seattle Business Journal said that they did a poll and 67% of Seattleites support JumpStart. And maybe they're thinking about the specific areas of interest that you noted - whether it's childcare assistance, or small business assistance, or housing assistance - but 67% of Seattleites embracing a progressive payroll tax is really exciting. And I think, as a reminder, this is not a tax on individuals or individual wage earners. This is a tax on those large corporations that have more than $7 million in Seattle payroll. And it's only on the highest salaries, so if an individual makes more than $150,000 a year, then the tax applies to that employee. We're going to see how the work-from-home nature of COVID is going to affect the projected revenue, but what's clear is that those largest companies - that especially are in the tech sector - that had the ability to work, have their employees work from home. Those companies, with so many people doing online transactions, they saw their profits grow exponentially. It is absolutely still a fair tax, it is absolutely still the right thing to do, and it's going directly into providing COVID relief in the first year. In the second year, making sure that we had childcare and support for our most vulnerable and warded off austerity budgeting. And then this year and going forward, those investments in housing, Green New Deal, economic resilience - this is truly how we have avoided deep austerity cuts to budgeting. And you're right - the previous mayor used those dollars after vetoing our bill. Then we, as a Council, came back and said, no, we're going to maintain this tax and we're going to put into statute the implementation plan. But for JumpStart, we would have been in the red last year. I think that it's going to be really important to build on that because even JumpStart alone isn't enough when you look at the sheer amount of housing needs that we have in this community and the infrastructure needs. And just the fact that, as you noted, our population's grown by 21% in the last 10 years, and we haven't kept up with the housing, childcare, and infrastructure needs. So we're going to need to do more, and this was a tax on payroll and corporations. We got a lot to do to recognize the individual wealth and, I think, CEO distribution of the pay between workers and CEOs that we can catch up on as well. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: I think the public is more ready for it now than they have been. It says something about this that people see a direct benefit for them in this program in at least one, if not many of the areas. Because support has actually only grown for this. Before, when you were talking about it, support was still a majority of people supported it, but it has actually grown over the past year as this has been implemented, despite the really - opposition to this, a legal challenge - largely it's Amazon - who's opposing this - this is a big corporate pushback. One of the things I think was made plain over the past couple years is that small businesses and Amazon are not necessarily aligned on a lot of things. You have a huge coalition of small businesses who came together to pass this - business coalitions like the GSBA talking about how crucial this is for their membership - providing direct support to businesses who are here in Seattle, who are hiring people, who live in Seattle, and it's a huge benefit. There really is one source of big mega-corporate pushback - because they seem to push back against any fees, taxes, anything, anywhere where they're at. The residents are just not in the mood for it after really bearing the brunt of some of the fallout from the economic inequality - from resources being used and exploited for mega corporation profit, but not then reinvested or invested in the surrounding community. Certainly, I'm a big fan of this legislation. This is the kind of leadership I think people are looking for where, "Hey, we have some really big problems that we're facing that are going to take big, bold solutions." But man, when people do provide those big, bold solutions - they're rewarded. This is what people want - people support this, they support you by a large margin. I just hope people look at this and cities across the country, certainly the state, as a blueprint on how to move forward and how to rightsize their municipal budgets and provide services to the people who need them, and the revenue necessary to do it. [00:20:34] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I so appreciate that. Thank you. When we were considering JumpStart, we had a forum that brought in Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and In The Public Interest and a handful of other national groups - and they showed the charts that proved that. When you invest in public services and you prevent against austerity, when you raise taxes on the largest corporations and put those dollars into the public good - you actually make recessions shorter, you create greater economic activity, and you create greater wealth that is shared amongst the population. It's so counterintuitive that the Chamber of Commerce is the one who is leading this legal challenge when it's actually good for the smallest businesses. If they were representing those voices, it would be good for those local small businesses to allow for these dollars to go forward. I'm really thankful that we had such broad support on Council and that that broad support was really generated by the community who saw the need for this. I think, like you're saying, in the wake of COVID too. This conversation around payroll taxes and our taxes - it predates COVID, but people have seen how these largest corporations have just become more and more wealthy as corporations and also as the wealthiest individuals that help run them. Now, folks are saying, "I lost my job. I lost my small business. I lost loved ones in this time and you've made profit. How are we going to recover from this in a way that doesn't bring us back to the normal that was before, and actually a more equitable recovery?" And JumpStart was part of that and I'm really proud. But also we need it at the state level, right? And I want to thank Representative Macri who was really spearheading the progressive payroll tax at the same year. It didn't happen that session, so we picked up where she left off - we still need it at the state level. Representative Noel Frame, who was able to get capital gains passed in the state legislature. We need so much more so that we can actually rightsize our upside down tax system. They've been great champions as well, and I'm hoping that we can see more from our state partners as well on revenue. [00:22:43] Crystal Fincher: Certainly, that's an excellent point. Sometimes we hear the tired excuse of, "Oh, it's going to chase business away. Oh, it's going to run jobs out of town." And time and time again - we've heard that with raising the minimum wage - that has shown not to be the case. In fact, Seattle has been attracting businesses at a greater rate than many other areas in the country. And even Amazon, the company that is pushing against this - as anything that would impede profit - there seems to be pushback against, but they have more jobs listed here in the Seattle area currently than they do anywhere else. It looks like the landscape for hiring and then feeling comfortable that they can continue to work here profitably and are looking to continue to hire here would suggest that maybe all the fearmongering isn't quite connected with reality. Once again. [00:23:43] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: That's right, that's right. And even in the region where they're expanding, they're expanding places where we're going to have light rail - light rail which takes public investments, light rail which takes taxation and financing. To try to lure or encourage people to come to our region and take these jobs, they are benefiting from our infrastructure - whether it's light rail, or our roads and buses. Obviously, the limited housing stock that we have - we are going to benefit by having these large corporations pay into creating greater housing density, infrastructure, childcare, economic opportunities. This is actually good for the local economy. And we, as public policy makers, need to stay strong and recognize that these taxation strategies are a good thing for our local economy as well. To your point, every time the fearmongering has been levied, the data proves it wrong. When we pass minimum wage in Seattle, all of these conversations were happening about how businesses are going to close and they're going to move out of Seattle. Literally, two years later, when the minimum wage went into effect, the headline of The Seattle Times read, "The Sky Did Not Fall." That is the letters that they used - the words that they used, because the sky did not fall and twice as many restaurants opened than closed. Restaurant industry is a really challenging area to open a business - I hear that all the time from entrepreneurs. I know that from my family who owns Tasty Tacos in Des Moines, Iowa - get your tacos there when you go, voted Best Taco every year - but it's a very challenging industry to start up in. There's always closures and opening, but twice as many opened than closed? I think that's a good indication of our strong economy. We're constantly rated among Forbes listing of one of the best places to have, to start your business, and grow your business. We also want that to be a good thing for the workers in those businesses. I want it to be a good thing for the folks who are cleaning the buildings in those businesses. I want it to be a good thing for the folks to take care of kiddos for people who work for those businesses. That's where I think, by looking at the investments that we can get from JumpStart, and investing into worker safety standards, childcare investments, small business support - that is actually the antidote to the crisis that's been worsened by COVID. The public health crisis that is upon us is worsening the economic inequality that we previously had and we have to have antidotes against that type of crisis. Those are public health crises, too. As councilmembers will talk about, economic stress and chronic poverty - that affects our public health, that affects our health and well-being, and it's creating a shadow pandemic. Stress and the physical wear and tear on our bodies during these times - just the income inequality that we live in in the United States is actually worsening our health. I'll just give a shout out to this one professor at University of Washington, Stephen Bezruchka, who talks about how income inequality, especially in the United States where income inequality is the worst - it is actually causing all of us, including the wealthy, to die earlier, our babies are dying at higher rates, our elders are dying faster, and we're living with more chronic health conditions because of income inequality. In countries where they have less income inequality, everybody lives longer and healthier. So if you don't care about income inequality from a social justice and economic justice perspective, at least care from your own self-interest, that you could have a better quality of life if we all had greater income equality across our area. [00:27:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, I appreciate it. [00:27:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I'm nerding out on this. I love this. [00:27:28] Crystal Fincher: I love it - I love it so much. I also want to talk about another big challenge and really a crisis situation that we're in with childcare. Working families having a very hard time to deal with childcare - certainly, with a PAC that I'm involved with, Persist PAC, we have started reimbursing political candidates for childcare expenses to try and lower the barrier there. But the amount of childcare facilities and providers was dwindling anyway, the cost of childcare was getting out of control before the pandemic. There are several counties in the state who have reported losing 30% to 40% of their providers through the pandemic, so you have families who are searching and scraping - sometimes can't find childcare, which is a barrier for people being able to fully participate in society, to work, it hinders economic mobility. What are you working on in that area? [00:28:32] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, this is an area I'm really passionate about and I think probably a lot of your listeners have been in a similar situation where if they are interested in having a kiddo, a lot of people are told you should get on a wait list before you can get pregnant. You should get on a wait list before you even begin the process of adopting a kiddo because of how long it takes to get into a childcare facility. And that is precisely because we do not have the capacity of childcare centers or in-home based centers to meet the need of our growing population. Headline-wise - we saw a headline recently in The Seattle Times - I think last year that said we saw more kiddos born in our city than any time in recent history, and we don't have the childcare to keep up with that. We see people spending more on childcare than they do on their rent and their mortgage in some cases. We know that this is a crisis, especially for families who have kids between the ages of 0 and 3, where it is more expensive to provide care for those kiddos. And yet childcare providers often are earning minimum wage and the childcare providers themselves are often women and people of color and sometimes come from immigrant and refugee communities. And so the disparity in terms of both who is not getting an equitable wage and the impact of not being able to find affordable childcare directly impacts women and folks of color who are working in that area and also need to be able to have affordable childcare coverage. What we're trying to do is a number of things. Number one, downtown core, right? Before COVID, anecdotally, we had heard more doggy daycares were opening than childcare centers in downtown Seattle, which makes a lot of sense if you look around. If there's younger single folks moving to Seattle to work maybe in the tech sector and we want to welcome folks, that's great. But doggy daycare was being provided at those places of work and not childcare. We need to be trying to create more childcare opportunities in all of our downtown buildings if we're wanting to think about how we encourage more workers to come back downtown in the wake of COVID. I think we should have started with City Hall. There's an empty room down there that has windows on the first floor that has a bathroom and a kitchen. We should be using that for childcare and opening it up to more folks to be able to have their kiddos there. For the fourth year in a row, we've been stymied on that, but I'm going to keep working on it. And in terms of supporting our childcare providers that are out there right now, we passed $3 million in the Seattle Rescue Plan to provide direct cash assistance to childcare providers. It penciled out to about $835 per childcare provider before taxes and then the childcare providers got their portion of that before the holidays, which was really great. We put $5 million in for new childcare facilities and those are rolling applications, so we'll get you information about how to apply for that if you're interested and put that on our social media. But what we have to do right now, I think number one, is support childcare providers. These are the folks who, if they don't keep their doors open, then folks can't go to work. And if they're barely making it, if they've had increased costs due to COVID and need additional support, we need to be supporting them. And also make sure that more people are able to work as childcare providers and really investing in those wages as a true profession that it is. I think that's in partnership with our state legislative members who are investing dollars into childcare. We need to be doing more to subsidize the cost of childcare. In every other country, this is a public good. In the United States, we treat it as a commodity and it should be treated as a public good. Childcare is a necessity for local economies and it is a necessity from an economic and gender justice perspective because the number of women, specifically - folks who are parents who are women - who had to take themselves out of the workforce in the wake of COVID has led to this being as she-cession because they did not have places to take their kiddos when so many childcares were closing in the wake of COVID. And as you mentioned, this was an issue pre-existing before COVID - so invest in childcare providers, invest in their wages, invest in career ladders, making sure that they have additional support for running those entities because they really shouldn't be treated as businesses, they should be treated as a public good. And that means we've got to pass public policies to make sure that we're supporting more workers and organizations and small businesses in that sector. [00:32:57] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm over here just saying amen to everything. [00:32:59] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I hear a hoot hoot from your train in your background. [00:33:04] Crystal Fincher: You can hear this train in the background here - always in the background at some point in time, usually. But we are just about at time - I could talk to you all day long - you get so many things and are such a fierce advocate for policies that help regular people. And that are delivering results for regular people right now, which is really the bottom line. A lot of times, people look at the success as signing the legislation, but it really is about getting help to people who need it in ways that they feel on the ground. Certainly, that is happening with a lot of what you spearheaded and so, you should be proud, and thank you, and keep it up. And thank you for joining us - just appreciate you spending the time and hope to have you back again soon. [00:33:56] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I really appreciate it. And thanks for your note across the country to look at Seattle to do things like investing in revenue and public policy. And I hope this last election was also a good indication to folks locally, whether it's in Seattle or at the state level - now is not the time to sit there and wring your hands and think about your next election. If you want to get the highest percentage of votes like I did in Seattle - [00:34:22] Crystal Fincher: Like you did. [00:34:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: - you got to get out there, be progressive. Be collaborative obviously, but aggressively committed to passing public policies that make radical change for people. And don't sit back and wring your hands and think about your next election because what voters want to see is action. So I'm thankful for your podcast and I'm thankful for the call to action that you put out there at the beginning as well. I'll keep working on it, and I know there's so much more to do - and look forward to doing that with you and our community. [00:34:53] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast - just type "Hacks & 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. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

On today's week-in-review, Associate Editor of The Stranger, Rich Smith, joins Crystal to discuss the investigation finding that SPD improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys and escalated and inflamed tensions as CHOP formed, and a Kent PD Assistant police chief being asked to resign for posting Nazi insignia and his wife hiding critical social media posts on the city's official social media accounts. They also chat about bills to pay attention to as the legislative session starts on Monday, as well as what Mayor Bruce Harrell's inaugural press conference revealed about his plans and priorities.    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Rich Smith at @richsssmith  Resources “Seattle police improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys as CHOP formed in 2020, investigation finds” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-police-improperly-faked-radio-chatter-about-proud-boys-as-chop-formed-in-2020-investigation-finds/   “Kent assistant police chief disciplined for posting Nazi insignia, joking about Holocaust” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kent-assistant-police-chief-disciplined-for-posting-nazi-insignia-and-joking-about-the-holocaust/   “Social media posts criticized how Kent police handled Nazi controversy — but they were hidden by chief's wife” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/criticism-of-kent-police-nazi-controversy-was-hidden-on-social-media-by-police-chiefs-wife-who-ran-the-accounts/   “A Big List of Bills to Track During Washington's 2022 Legislative Session” by Rich Smith from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/01/06/64661375/a-big-list-of-bills-to-track-during-washingtons-2022-legislative-session   “Harrell Pledges Bold Agenda in Inaugural Speech” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist:  https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/04/harrell-pledges-bold-agenda-in-inaugural-speech/   “It's up to Harrell to Save Renters in Peril” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/01/07/64713950/its-up-to-harrell-to-save-renters-in-peril   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 on 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 to the program again, today's cohost, Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:00:50] Rich Smith: Good to be back - thanks Crystal. [00:00:52] Crystal Fincher: Good to have you back. Well, we have no shortage of things to talk about this week. And you know what? The SPD just keeps popping up into the news - it doesn't seem to end. And this week, we learned that police improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys as CHOP formed in 2020. What happened here? [00:01:19] Rich Smith: Yeah. Well, it was June 8th, which was the day that the cops had abandoned the [East] Precinct, and lifted the barriers, and allowed protestors who had been gathered at that intersection in Capitol Hill - for several days being variously gassed and beaten up for making vocal their criticisms to the police, and occasionally throwing a rock or two. They released the barricades, let the protestors walk the block that they wanted to walk, and then yeah, and then left the - and then went about their business, basically. And then after that, the cops hopped on the scanner, where they communicate with one another about crimes stuff, reports - stuff that's going on around town, and invented a hoax. They fabricated a maraudering gang of Proud Boys, a violent group known to brawl people in the streets, seek out anti-fascists and beat them up, suggested that they were armed with guns - and it was four cops who were enacting this ruse. And the ruse was overseen and approved by the two commanders, including the Captain of the East Precinct, which was the one that the cops had just abandoned. On Wednesday, the Office of Police Accountability determined that this ruse improperly - or not improperly, sorry - this ruse added fuel to the fire of the situation - it was not a de-escalation tactic to claim that there was a roving gang of white supremacists looking to crack some Antifa skulls downtown. But there was no recommended discipline for the cops who participated in the ruse, and the two cops who signed off on the ruse are no longer employed at SPD. And so- [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: It's all good, evidently. [00:03:49] Rich Smith: That's what's going on - right, yeah. [00:03:52] Crystal Fincher: I mean, from the OPA, their finding was just, "Shouldn't happen, but don't do it again. We're not looking at this in the context of everything else that has happened." And I mean, just underscoring that - no, it absolutely was not a de-escalation tactic. Yes, it absolutely inflamed tensions. Because this was not some nebulous threat, this was not some theoretical violent threat - these were people who had enacted violence upon protesters recently before that. There was a legitimate fear. [00:04:32] Rich Smith: Absolutely, yeah. I mean, I walked through with the protesters - the barriers that were lifted - when they were happening. I was interviewing people, hearing the chatter and the gossip as that place where eventually the Free Capitol Hill that became CHAZ, that became CHOP - that autonomous zone around the precinct was forming. And the number one thing I heard, the number one concern I heard were these rumors of Proud Boys coming around the neighborhood. They're armed, they're dangerous, they're looking for Antifa. And there was concern that the Proud Boys were going to burn down the precinct and blame it on the Black Lives Matter movement, so suddenly there was this need to protect, ironically, the precinct from an attack. And a need to kind of hunker down and barricade the zone, and protect themselves against the threat that the cops had just invented over the scanner. And you're right, that they also had further reason to believe that these rumors were true, because the day before, a man named Nikolas Fernandez allegedly drove his car into the side of the protests, had shot with an extended clip a man named Dan Gregory, and then ran to the front of the police line, where he was welcomed with open arms, potentially because his brother worked at that very precinct. Now, the defense for that case says that the guy was just confused, and he was on his way to work, and there was road blockages, and so he didn't know what to do, and he suddenly ran into this protest - yada, yada, yada - he's got his story. But, this is all to say that the protestors were very afraid of people attacking them in cars, were very afraid of Proud Boys coming, burning down the precinct, shooting them up in retaliation for the protesting. And this ruse by the SPD was just bad policing - it inflamed the situation, to quote the OPA, but it also was the reason that CHOP formed. It might not have been the only reason, of course, it was non-hierarchical structures there - everyone was there for their own shit. But, that was the word on the street in the moment - was Proud Boys are coming, we've got to circle up, we've got to protect ourselves - and that was the staging grounds for CHOP. [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and certainly aided the fortification, obviously. Everybody was there, principally initially, mainly, to protest violence against Black lives, particularly from the state. But in the moment, certainly, especially looking at tactics to maximize the effectiveness of this direct action, fortification was what made the most sense when you have an armed threat approaching you, and you're trying to assert your First Amendment right to protest. That is what they inflamed, what they created. And I don't even think, certainly in the aftermath of this, "Hey, this is a commonly used de-escalation tactic." Clearly they wanted to just mess with these protesters and to create chaos, and to provoke action that they could act against. [00:08:26] Rich Smith: Yeah. What was his name - Brian - he was the captain of the East Precinct who now works for ADT, I think, down in Texas - the home security firm or whatever. Anyway, the guy who perpetuated, or who approved the ruse - when asked about it by Myerberg, or investigators with OPA - said that the reason for the ruse was they wanted to let the protestors know that cops were still out there doing stuff, that their position had not been weakened despite the fact that they literally had just abandoned the East Precinct - or a couple hours before - slash, they also wanted to do the ruse because they hoped it would draw protesters away from the precinct, and then, I don't know, maybe give them an opportunity, give the cops an opportunity to retake the precinct that they had already decided to abandon, again, as far as we know, themselves, without telling - [00:09:28] Crystal Fincher: Themselves, yeah. [00:09:30] Rich Smith: - without telling the mayor, who was supposed to be the overseer of the cops. They're Durkan's cops, acting on their own extremely bad, extremely wounded impulses. And they were clearly - it doesn't take a Psych major to determine that they were clearly wounded - and they wanted to show the protestors that the cops were still the top dog, that they still had the power, and the way that they decided to do that was to do what any bully or big brother would do, which is say there's a big, scary monster coming to attack you. And you're going to wish you had us to protect you, you know what I mean? And the protesters - they felt the need to defend themselves, felt the need to suddenly defend the property so that they didn't get accused of burning down a precinct when they didn't even do it, didn't want to hurt the movement. And so, this happened. And then the response from City officials so far has been fun too - newly elected mayor, Bruce Harrell, released a statement saying like, "That sucked. Don't do that, that's totally bad, that's wrong. Don't do this - this ruse was bad." And, what was the action he's going to do? He's going to go down there and talk to Interim Police Chief, Adrian Diaz, and tell him that that's unacceptable behavior, and stuff like that. So, that's nice - the chief is going to get a talking to. And then the Public Safety Chair of the City Council, Lisa Herbold, released a statement saying that what she's calling for is for the cops to fully implement ruse training. [00:11:20] Crystal Fincher: Ruse training? [00:11:22] Rich Smith: Yeah, ruses are acceptable - cops can lie to people in order to arrest them, or get evidence from them - so long as they don't quote the, according to state law, shock the conscience. A cop can't say there's a nuclear bomb headed this way or whatever, just to get someone to move somewhere. They can't do anything that shocking. This maraudering gang of Proud Boys coming to attack you - that would, I think, falls into the bad ruse category. Anyway, OPA - the cops were supposed to fully implement training recommendations on ruses, they had only partially done so according to Herbold. And so, she wants to get those fully implemented - you've got to tell all the cops about how to do ruses properly. And she also wants the ruses fully documented - that was another recommendation from the OPA - every time they do one of these ruses, they should write down that they have done the ruse so that we can go back later and determine whether or not it was a good ruse or a bad ruse. Or, we don't get in a situation like we were in today, where it comes out a year and a half after - like this vital piece of a narrative that the City is telling itself comes out a year and a half afterwards - thanks to, shout out to Omari Salisbury at Converge Media, who asked the cops for body cam footage of these Proud Boys that they were supposedly tracking. When his request turned up nil, OPA initiated their investigation. And also several, I should mention, journalists at the time - particularly Matt Watson, aka Spek - immediately thought that the ruse was a ruse. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: He called it at the time, yeah. [00:13:28] Rich Smith: He called it at the time, yeah. And communicated that very clearly, and brought receipts. And so, that prompted questioning from journalists that eventually, through the process of gaining public records and initiating investigations with the OPA, comes out with this vital piece of the story of the protests of 2020. [00:13:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean, it's so interesting - one, just the story, and just the - obviously the story on its own is egregious, just another egregious example. But also another example of the loss of control of the department - this was not a mayor directing or controlling anything - nothing in that narrative was directed, influenced, controlled by the mayor. And also, nothing in that narrative, according to the information that's publicly available, was directed or controlled by the Police Chief at the time, Carmen Best. These were officers who had basically gone rogue, and made these consequential, harmful, dangerous decisions on their own with no recourse. We're now finding out about this months, years after the fact - and then following up with laughable accountability, honestly. I mean, if ruse training is what comes out of this, I don't know how people are really looking at that as anything that meaningfully addresses this issue here - both with this specific issue - and with SPD overall. I hope that that was just an idea in the beginning, and we're going to get to the meat of accountability coming up, because that seems wholly just insufficient. [00:15:28] Rich Smith: Yeah, I'm skeptical, yeah, of this reformist answer that the City leaders are currently taking, which is to - you have Bruce Harrell doing an appeal to authority saying, "I know what I'll do, I'll go to the chief, and then we'll have this top-down answer," which is pretty typical, I think, of Harrell's impulse just as a leader. He's constantly talking about how he's going to bring the right people together, he knows everybody in the City, everybody knows him, it's a real top-down kind of coach approach. And so it makes sense that he would be like, "I know what I'll do, I'll go to the lead of the organization, Diaz, and say, 'Hey, this is unacceptable, tell everybody to quit this, whatever.'" Okay, so that's one - that's his approach to this reform. Herbold is saying, "We need more oversight over the cops lying, we need more records of this stuff, we need more training." But, the thing that seems to actually work, and what we're finding out as a result of many of these OPA investigations, is that the cops who perpetuated this bullshit are no longer at the department. And they're no longer at the department not because reformers rooted them out, but because of the Defund movement, which created a culture around policing that is inherently skeptical, that demands real accountability, that says, "You can't be hitting us, and we're going to film you when you do," that demands more of cops, and that doesn't - yeah. And so, that seems to be the thing that worked to root out a number of these officers who've gone rogue, or whose mission as officers don't align with the City's mission - I'll just say that. [00:17:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, pretty much. [00:17:26] Rich Smith: Defund worked - I don't know what to tell you. It probably rooted out more bad apples than any consent decree could have. I really should put asterisks all over that, I don't have any numbers or whatever. But just anecdotally, every time they go to discipline one of these guys, they're not there anymore. And it's for a reason. [00:17:50] Crystal Fincher: I would say increasingly - I think that there's still a number up there. But, certainly increasingly, and certainly it's because there has been pressure applied and accountability demanded, and increasingly made possible by the Defund movement and its demands, and holding other lawmakers accountable for enacting that through policy and through investigation and action. So, we will see how that continues. This is not the only police story that came up this week. In my city of Kent, Washington, we - it came out - have a police chief, an assistant police chief, who displayed literal Nazi propaganda, who was disciplined for posting a Nazi insignia, and joking about the Holocaust. The more that we learn about this, the worse that it gets. He admittedly joked about the Holocaust, he admittedly - this was a long-running thing. He had shaved his facial hair once into a Hitler mustache, and repeatedly told a joke to the effect that - just a horrible joke, horrible anti-Semitic joke, obviously this is all anti-Semitic. And word was given that the discipline for this - for an assistant chief who had repeatedly joked about the Holocaust, who had acted consistent with Nazi behavior and literally posted Nazi insignias on his door in the police department - was a two week suspension. That's what initially came out. [00:19:34] Rich Smith: That'll do it. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Obviously, public outcry. Obviously, a response from other City officials caused the mayor to reconsider and announced that she will be asking the union for this officer's resignation. Now obviously, firing may not be as simple in all of these situations to have it stick, but you can certainly act that way and then be like, "Okay, well, we dare you to try and get your job back, you person who are comfortable with Nazi actions and cosplay, and spreading that nasty infection to the rest of the department." I should note that this was caught because a detective under this assistant chief's command reported him after this insignia had been up for four days. One reported him - everyone else in the department, I'm sure, was not comfortable reporting an assistant chief to this. To me, this speaks a lot about the culture that is currently happening there - that this can happen and only one, thankfully one, but only one reported this. And my goodness, if the recommendation that comes back after an investigation is two weeks, then doesn't that indicate that this entire system is broken? There's a lot more broken here. [00:21:07] Rich Smith: Yeah. I mean, if you can't fire a Nazi cop for putting Third Reich insignia outside of his office door - and he wasn't just like some cop, right? [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: Nope. [00:21:22] Rich Smith: This guy was the head of the Department of Special Investigations and Detective Unit - [00:21:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, Assistant Chief. [00:21:30] Rich Smith: Assistant Chief, yeah. And this guy's safe space sticker is a couple of Nazi patches. It's just - the plausible deniability stretches the bounds of the imagination. He says that he didn't know that the insignia was Nazi stuff, it was from a show. So, if you're fighting an improper dismissal case or whatever, it just - I guess this is where you end up in the process, with a two-week suspension. But you're right, you could try to fight it a little bit harder, and push and push and push on this guy's counter-story, and really continue to gather more of this evidence that he was just flagrantly doing Nazi stuff in the Kent Police Department. [00:22:23] Crystal Fincher: Openly in the Kent Police Department. And if you can't fire a Nazi cop, who can you fire? The investigation found - he tried to say, "You know, despite making anti-Semitic jokes, and despite giving myself a literal Hitler mustache - that Nazi insignia that I posted on my door, I had no idea it was actually a Nazi insignia." And the investigation found that that was not the case, the investigation found that he knowingly posted that, knowing that it was a Nazi insignia. Everything about this screams Nazi cop, because literally Nazi cop. And so, this is a situation - to me - and for a lot of departments when they have egregious actions like this, and then they say, "Well, given the how - with the cop contracts oftentimes are - it's hard to fire them. If they went through arbitration, they'd wind up back on the force." Well, test it, test it. Say, "We're making a stand. And if you force us, perhaps, but we're not doing this willingly." Make that stand. And so, I suppose that is now where the mayor is at, asking for the resignation. If he says no, then what? Kick him off - get him out. [00:23:46] Rich Smith: You know, I think maybe we should do anti-Nazi training. But, anti-Nazi is a little just one-sided, so we probably should do anti-extremist training. [00:23:55] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. And look, I live in Kent - it is not like I haven't noticed the increase in Blue Lives Matter stickers on police vehicles, which has been an issue in other cities. And there's been pushback against in other cities - certainly this has been brought up and basically ignored by City leadership. Would love to hear some accountability on that. There's a lot to find when you look into the City of Kent. [00:24:26] Rich Smith: Yes, yeah, and there should be more - yeah, much more scrutiny on a lot of these, the goings-on in these suburban cities. But, just the whole Nazi cop thing, or alleged Nazi cop thing goes back to this - how do you change the culture in these institutions? And the reformist answer seems to be - you change it by training, you change it by putting pressure on the higher-ups to be accountable to the people they oversee - these are their answers. It just goes back to how challenging it is going to be for reformists to really change the culture of these institutions, especially when the culture right now of these institutions is self-victimization, a feeling like that they're the guardians, literally, against chaos in society. And a number of them are attracted to - everyone goes where they're flattered - and so the cops are going to conservative wings of political thought, where they're bathed and flattered. And this is all contributing to being a little bit more permissive of the old Nazi insignia on the door. I don't know how you rearrange that without drastically changing who a cop is and what a cop does. I think that that's where you have to start making change, rather than saying like, "We're going to tell your boss on you," or, "We're going to train you to not be a Nazi." I think that those reforms haven't worked, as well as- [00:26:09] Crystal Fincher: They have failed. [00:26:10] Rich Smith: Yeah, yeah. [00:26:12] Crystal Fincher: They have failed. [00:26:13] Rich Smith: And yeah, going back to what I said earlier, the Defund movement did more to root out these kinds of cops than any of these reforms seem to. I don't know that for sure, but that seems to be what we're learning anecdotally. [00:26:25] Crystal Fincher: Well, it certainly has brought - it says in no uncertain terms that the resources that we continue to dedicate to the things that have not worked, that have not worked to make us safer - bottom line - and that have not worked to curb this behavior in all of these departments. It has not worked, so why are we continuing to dump more resources in the same types of things? We're at a time now where we just had a lot of new lawmakers sworn in - lots of city councils, new mayors sworn in - and they have the opportunity to lead in a different way than we've seen before. We have a new legislative session that's about to start, and there's the opportunity there for them to take substantive action to fill in the gaps in accountability that exist. And I would just urge these people to look at these situations, and to look at how inadequate our laws, regulations, have been in addressing this - and understanding the need for more accountability. That we've tried training, we've tried all of these types of, "Don't you see how bad this is?" And the only thing that seems to be effective at getting people to see how bad it is is treating them - is acting on our behalf, as if it's actually bad - and holding people accountable. We're having this conversation at the same time that we have a new City Attorney in Seattle who is talking about prosecuting crimes. We are more comfortable as a society talking about the consequences for stealing a loaf of bread than we are for being a Nazi assistant police chief, and I am just sick of it. I cannot stand it, and I urge people to take substantive action. It is time to be bold - this is why people were elected. Please do something. [00:28:18] Rich Smith: Would you mind for a moment if we did see what the legislators are up to over - [00:28:21] Crystal Fincher: Let's look at that - you actually - there was a wonderful article that you wrote about this that covered a lot of this. And one directly ties to - a number directly tie to policing. One, an issue directly tied to the lying - ruses in SPD. What is on tap in the legislative session that's about to start on Monday? [00:28:55] Rich Smith: That's right. We've got a 60-day session coming up - short session - mostly just tweaking stuff going on, mostly just kind of working multi-year bills that people know are going to take a bunch of time to get over the finish line. And of course, we've got to pass, I think, around a $60 billion supplemental budget, so there's some consideration about how to use a lot of one-time millions and one-time federal funding. But, there is some policing stuff going on in terms of the proposed bills, thus far - related to lying - House Bill 1690, if you want to follow it, Rep Strom Peterson, of all people - a Democrat - wants to render inadmissible evidence gathered from cops who lie to suspects during interrogation. So that, if passed - if a cop is interrogating somebody and they invent a ruse or a lie - say, "Your dad told me you did it, your friends told me you did it," and that produces a false confession or some piece of evidence that is going to be submitted in court later. This law passes and says, "We're not going to take that evidence." So, the thinking being that that would deter cops from using this tactic to produce evidence, which would be no good to them in a court anyway. So, that wouldn't stop cops from using ruses of the kind that helped to start CHOP in the City. But, it would potentially lower the use of this tactic, which young people are particularly vulnerable to. For instance, the Central Park Five - they picked them up because the cop lied and said that their friends had already ratted on them. And so, they drew false confessions that way. More recently, in 2019, I think a Seattle police officer was interrogating a guy who they suspected of hitting a bunch of parked cars - didn't injure anybody, but the cop told him that he had left one person in critical condition. A little while after that, the guy, feeling so sad that he had done something that killed somebody - he thought killed somebody - committed suicide as a result of that. So, I don't know if it should be illegal for cops to do ruses. But, these kinds of - I'm sure that they don't want to unilaterally disarm when suspects themselves do ruses to try to escape accountability from laws that we decide that we want as a society or whatever. But, there should be some guard rails around how badly you could lie, to what extent evidence produced through this really tricky, potentially disastrous tactic can be used. And, that seems like a good one in particular. [00:32:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's a lot of others. I mean, you've rounded up - there's gun legislation to ban high-capacity magazines, close the ghost gun loophole. There's bills to address income inequality - work continues with Rep Noel Frame. And work on the guaranteed basic income policy, sponsored by Liz Berry. Lots of good stuff in there, lots of criminal justice reform, a number of them - bill to allow for the legal grow and therapeutic guiding of trips for psilocybin - which has been legalized in a lot of other places. Certainly, the frequently-talked about Washington Cares Act, and figuring out what to do with that. Environmental bills to reduce emissions from gas companies, to make buildings more efficient, make packaging more recyclable. One that I am tracking closely and in favor of - by Mia Gregerson - to move local elections to even-numbered years with Rep Debra Entenman. A lot of stuff there - are there any other ones that stick out to you? [00:33:26] Rich Smith: Yeah. The big one for me, this year, that I'll probably be screaming about - I won't be alone in it, I'm sure, is Senate Bill 5670, House Bill 1782. They're identical bills - it's just the House bill and the Senate version - sponsored by Mona Das in the Senate and Jessica Bateman in the House. And it would legalize multi-unit homes statewide - I don't know how you want to put it - abolish single-family zoning statewide under certain criteria. That criteria, not to bore people, but everywhere within a half a mile of rapid transit - that is like bus stops that come every 15 minutes, rail, ferry stop - you're going to legalize up to sixplexes, basically. And then cities with lower populations, under 20,000, they'll have to take less density. I think it goes down to quads. And then cities under 10,000, they have to take duplexes. There's an alternative for cities who don't want to do that - where they have a formula - and then they get to put the density wherever they want to, but they can't perpetuate racism in doing so. So, that's kind of the basic structure of the bill. Oregon has already legalized apartments and homes and multi-unit homes everywhere. California has already legalized apartments and multi-unit homes everywhere. Minneapolis has done this. The sky hasn't fallen. It's absolutely necessary because we have a 250,000 unit-strong housing deficit. This has tragicomically - sorry, this has raised the price of homes to tragicomically high levels. The only place a first-time home buyer can afford to live is in like, Ferry County. There's six counties, there's seven counties, in the eastern part of the state where you can technically afford to buy a home if it's your first one. Everywhere else is astronomical and damn-near impossible to own affordably. We're only building 44,000 units a year, so that's not going to keep up with the number of units we need to solve this housing crisis. They've been trying to pass this bill for four years, and this year there's some reason for excitement, because Governor Inslee has put his weight behind it. However, there's still plenty of opposition - you've got the Association of Washington Cities, which represent cities, which are filled by NIMBYs, because they think that adding more density is going to lower their property values, which is going to tank their retirement prospects, because we live in a society that for some reason links the price of our house to whether or not we get to comfortably retire in old age. That's a separate episode. But, there's a lot of strong opposition to this bill, so - at a press conference yesterday, the leadership didn't sound too enthused about it. So, it's going to take a big - if you want to try to save the housing crisis with a market-based solution this year, you're going to want to be tracking this bill. And every time it gets a hearing you're going to want to sign up to talk about it, say how much you can't afford a house in your own neighborhood, et cetera. And you're going to want to push your lawmakers, because right now they're hearing from NIMBYs - the default is, don't allow this density. So, yeah. [00:37:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And many of them live in those neighborhoods, and have those tendencies themselves - [00:37:16] Rich Smith: That's right. [00:37:16] Crystal Fincher: - realistically, and are hearing this from their literal next-door neighbors. So, it is critical that people make a phone call, send an email to your legislator to say, "Hey, absolutely support this. I'm excited about it. I am expecting you to support it and will be paying attention." And to sign in when the bill has a hearing as it goes through the process. People have to know and hear from people who want this legislation, because NIMBYs mobilize for this, always, big time. And, they're in the minority. We see poll after poll that says that they are not the majority here, but the majority isn't used to advocating in the same way and pushing those same levers of power for these issues. And we really need to. [00:38:02] Rich Smith: Yeah. And it's hard to tell - and you've got to do it blanket. You can't assume because you think you have a progressive representative that they're going to be automatically on board. You cannot name one Democratic Senator in the Senate right now who is like - you could name any of them, and then say, "This person is going to vote against this bill," and that would make sense to me. I don't know who opposes it, but there's a reason it hasn't passed in four years. There's a reason why Mona Das has to keep trying, who's a renter by the way. She's also a mortgage broker, but she's also a renter. And, so any one of these people could be problem children to getting this, again, market-based solution. I mean, we're talking about letting people build. I thought that this was what you all were about, you know? I thought you guys were super into this kind of thing. But yeah, so, anyway, this is all to say - don't give your representative the benefit of the doubt because you think they're progressive. They could be a NIMBY in hiding, you know? [00:39:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely correct. Well, I just want to take these last few minutes on the show to talk about another event that was covered this week - the Bruce Harrell inaugural press conference. After being sworn in, he made a speech - we now have Mayor Harrell, Mayor Durkan is no more - no more in office, she's certainly around - who knows where she's going to end, like go, I don't know, maybe she's going to run away from Seattle. But, Bruce Harrell is here, and he made a very bold-sounding speech. And I just wanted to talk about a few of the specifics in his speech, or what he brought, and some of them had specifics. One kind of immediate thing - he's still weighing whether to extend the eviction moratorium, which ends on January 15th. Obviously the Rona is here, the Omicron variant is just continuing to dance through our lives. We are in the middle of a pandemic, we aren't beyond it - certainly parents are struggling with how to approach school, schools are struggling to just be staffed at a level that they can have staff in classrooms. Now we're not even at just teachers in classrooms, just any adult staff member is filling in in many places, in many districts. It's a hard thing. And in the midst of this obviously we're still dealing with the same issues of people taking care of sick relatives, people they are living with, living with immunocompromised people. And so, we don't know - he said he would be looking at the data and figuring that out. So, we can expect an upcoming announcement on whether or not that's going to continue, and I'm sure your feedback on whether he should continue that would be helpful. Chief Diaz is - oh, go ahead. [00:41:05] Rich Smith: Yeah, just to add, there was an important report in The Times this morning that the County doesn't have enough money to handle all of the rent assistance applications that has come its way. So, there's 10,000 requests for rental assistance that the County is not processing - [00:41:25] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. [00:41:26] Rich Smith: - as of November. The County asked for $120 million from the Feds to cover the gap. So, if Bruce doesn't - I mean, and so - that's 10,000 people who say that they're behind on rent - in King County - I don't know how many particularly in Seattle. If Harrell lifts the eviction moratorium, that's that. And then those people could face eviction for non-payment of the rent. [00:41:57] Crystal Fincher: That's the trigger, yep. [00:41:58] Rich Smith: And so, that's something to - hopefully that the Harrell administration is considering. And also he says that he wants to strike some kind of balance between keeping vulnerable people housed, and making it so that vulnerable landlords don't feel like they have to sell their rental property and potentially decrease the rental housing stock. That's another conversation, but this is what he's balancing. Okay, he hinted that he was going to maybe rewrite some version of the moratorium, maybe he'll just keep it for another month based on The Seattle Times report, the amount of need that's out there. But, it's a huge problem, it's a big thing that the Harrell administration needs to deal with right now, and it's happening next week. [00:42:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - very, very big thing. And that was a very important data point to be considered. Another one - Chief Adrian Diaz might stay - Bruce Harrell didn't say that he was definitely going to leave, that they had some evaluation to do, that he needed to set expectations, and they needed to talk about those. And so it's possible that Chief Diaz stays, or that he embarks upon a nationwide search. He brought up that the City will pursue climate policies towards net zero emissions so that there'd be an early focus on electric cars. But that there weren't many specifics there, so we will wait to see what happens there. You know, another big thing that I was not expecting - that was intriguing, actually - and that could turn out to be very good. He said that he wanted to provide healthcare for every Seattle resident. That would be big, that would be awesome if that actually turned out to be every Seattle resident, if that included mental healthcare - like comprehensive healthcare for every Seattle resident would be great. Announced that as an initiative, where they said that they're coming up with the parameters to evaluate who does and who doesn't have healthcare so far, and figuring that out. So, we still have to see what the specifics of this are going to be. [00:44:15] Rich Smith: Yeah, finding money in the City budget - if it takes any money to provide healthcare for people as a City, finding that money in the City budget sounds like a real challenge. But, it's a worthy one. I don't know of many municipalities that offer healthcare for all in this way. I think New York City - Bill de Blasio did one - I should have looked that up before we started talking. But yeah, it seems like it would cost a lot of money, and he's got Tim Burgess on the case, the Strategic Initiatives Lead that he hired - former mayor, former City Councilman of many years, I think 12, don't quote me on that - and Burgess is a former cop, but he has led, I think, on some health initiatives. He made a big deal out of the Nurse-Family Partnership whenever he was on the Council. So, it's not crazy to have him do this - he's created healthcare policy, or worked on healthcare policy before. There's another person who's working with Burgess on this, I can't remember her name. But, in any event - so yeah, it would be a big deal, it would be cool, it will be interesting to see what they end up doing. From the sound of it, it was like, "We've got to get a dashboard spreadsheet of who's sick first," and yeah. [00:45:44] Crystal Fincher: One of my takeaways was that this is going to be an administration that loves dashboards - there was talk about data and dashboards for everything. We'll see how that turns out, but that certainly was a big, bold proposal that would be a huge win for everybody. [00:46:02] Rich Smith: Yeah. [00:46:03] Crystal Fincher: For residents of Seattle. He also talked about making noticeable change, noticeable progress, on housing people, on reducing our unhoused population - in the first quarter, I believe he said. And so, I'm going to be excited to see how he conducts that. He said that he's excited to get people into housing. And if he can get people into housing and there's a noticeable difference, I don't know anyone who is opposed to that. Now, if this is a sweeps-based solution, I think there's a lot of people who are not going to be happy with that. But it will be very interesting to see - again, they said that they're still collecting a lot of data, but he said that is one area where we can expect to see noticeable improvement. So, I truly hope - I don't think there's anyone who does not want people to be housed who are not housed. And I hope that there's listening to people who are telling people - there's this narrative about "refusing services." When people are offered services - that can be a very misleading statement - because a lot of times those services aren't available or applicable to their situation. But also, there are reasons why the services available may not meet the needs of the people on the ground. And so, I hope we're listening to what people say will meet their needs, and build towards what will meet their needs and solve this issue and house people. If that happens, I think we're all waiting to applaud Bruce Harrell for that. [00:47:33] Rich Smith: That's right. And he also said - on the getting houses for those people to live in, or for everyone to live in - he talked about housing for all, and making sure everyone had an affordable place to live. His first action was going to be to - he did an executive order to look at permitting processes. And it sounded like he wanted to streamline permitting - which is a thing that people say, but that's going to be interesting to see what he gets back. I mean, permitting - what's he going to get? It's a bunch of ideas that sound good on their own. So if he gets a list back and sees what kinds of permitting people need to do to build housing, what's Bruce Harrell administration going to get rid of? Are they going to get rid of design review, are they going to get rid of MHA, are they going to get rid of sprinklers for town homes, are they going to get rid of environmental review? I wonder if the Bruce Harrell administration is going to get rid of any of these processes that have built up around building housing. We know what it's going to take to get housing for all, and it's a billion dollars a year for 10 years, with the current affordable housing scheme that cities have concocted. Or, it's going to take massive investment in public or social housing, so we can put people inside. And so, maybe streamlined permitting can work a little bit, but it'll be interesting to see how we want to streamline that process. Not saying that there's not room for improvement, there definitely is. I don't give a **** about design review, I imagine the Harrell administration does. But, maybe they don't - I don't know, surprise me. Yeah, there's a lot more reporting to do on this. [00:49:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean, it will be interesting. Also, there is a - on the subject of zoning specifically - was a little bit fuzzy on that, but he said, quote, "We'll fill in the gaps where zoning is already available for housing and construction and density. And our Chief Operating Officer, Marco Lowe (a name that Hacks & Wonks listeners will be familiar with, as he's a co-host sometimes on Hacks & Wonks) who not only has deep experience in City Hall but also actual experience in the housing industry, will lead this critical effort. So, as we embark on a City-wide master plan update - and again, it's time for that master plan update. As many of you are aware, we'll look at opportunities to address every neighborhood to address the shortage of quality housing at every income level." So, not specifics there - a plan to address it, a point person named, and Marco Lowe to do it. And so, eager to see what results from that, but certainly results are needed. [00:50:26] Rich Smith: More power to - let them know, Marco. [00:50:34] Crystal Fincher: Marco's certainly competent, on the case, and I hope that they can make substantive progress. I believe Marco can - hopefully the intentions of the administration are truly to do that. And again - that happens, everybody wins. People are waiting to applaud that. [00:50:55] Rich Smith: It'll be an interesting four years. [00:50:57] Crystal Fincher: It will be, it definitely will be. Well, thank you. [00:51:00] Rich Smith: If he brings back the Sonics, that's going to be eight years. I've been telling you, this is the one thing - anyway, I don't want to start a new topic, but it'll be an interesting four or eight years depending on whether or not Bruce Harrell brings back the Sonics. [00:51:14] Crystal Fincher: Look, you know what? If he brings back the Sonics - yeah, that's going to be a whole thing, that's going to be a whole thing. And my goodness, looking at some of these other clubs around the country. And look, I don't want to take a team from the other city, but they have really messed things up in Oklahoma City. Wow, they did not earn the Sonics, they did not. They are a mess, they are trifling and shady and ridiculous and shameful. And anyway, I mean, I'm a Lakers fan, so you know. But I mean, the Sonics have a place in my heart. Kevin Durant has a place in my heart, we just - we need the Sonics back here. All right. We are more than beyond our time, but I just want to thank everybody for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM, this Friday, January 7th 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, with assistance from Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today was Associate Editor of The Stranger, Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. 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 show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show - all the great articles that we talked about - at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in, we'll talk to you next time.

New York City won't surrender to criminality like Portland and Seattle, ex-NYPD Police Commissioner Howard Safir told Fox News.The city's former top cop was responding to Black Lives Matter co-founder Hawk Newsome's predictions of "bloodshed" if incoming Mayor Eric Adams reinstates an undercover police unit to target gun violence.   "What Newsome said about there being riots and bloodshed, he has a vast misunderstanding of the NYPD," said Safir, who was appointed police commissioner in 1996 by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  "It's not Portland, it's not Seattle, it's not Minneapolis," he said. "If Black Lives Matter commits crimes on the street, they will be arrested."Police abandoned the East Precinct in Seattle during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations there, and the area, rebranded as the Autonomous Zone, became the site of several shootings. Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW, and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-wont-bend-criminality-portland-seattle-howard-safirSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

The father of a 19-year-old man shot and killed after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct on Capitol Hill during racial protests in June 2020 has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging Mayor Jenny Durkan, Councilmember Kshama Sawant and others acted with “deliberate indifference” to the lawlessness and contributed to his death.The 40-page complaint filed by Horace Anderson and the estate of his dead son, Horace Lorenzo Anderson, was filed in King County Superior Court on Wednesday, just two days after a federal judge dismissed similar claims filed in U.S. District Court by the young man's mother.The new lawsuit, filed by Seattle trial attorney Evan Oshan, differs from the failed federal lawsuit in that it relies on state law and adds claims for negligence and violations of protections and duties that cities and officials owe citizens that are outlined in the state constitution and statutes, which are generally more expansive than federal law.The lawsuit follows a claim made with the city asking for $3 billion in damages. The lawsuit itself does not specify the damages being sought.Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW, and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-leaders-failed-lorenzo-father-of-chop-victim-files-new-lawsuit-naming-durkan-sawant/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

A civil-rights lawsuit filed by the mother of a 19-year-old Seattle man fatally shot during last year's Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) has been dismissed by a federal judge, who concluded the city did not create a dangerous situation for the young man when police abandoned the department's East Precinct during the unrest.In formally dismissing the lawsuit Monday, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that Donnitta Sinclair, the mother of Horace Lorenzo Anderson, could not show that the decision by city officials to vacate the embattled East Precinct during the racial unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police caused the circumstances that led to Anderson's shooting death.Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW, and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/lawsuit-filed-by-mother-of-man-killed-during-chop-anti-police-protests-dismissed-by-judge/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

A Tacoma resident was sentenced to two years in prison Tuesday for setting fire outside the Seattle Police East Precinct during the CHOP occupation on Capitol Hill in June 2020.Isaiah Thomas Willoughby, who previously lived in Seattle, admitted he used gasoline to soak a debris pile outside the abandoned police precinct on June 12 and set it ablaze, as part of a plea agreement, according to a news release from Acting U.S. Attorney Tessa Gorman.The U.S. District Court in Seattle also imposed a three-year period of supervised release following the two-year sentence, according to the release.Surveillance video showed Willoughby, 36, lighting the fire and walking away. The fire, the U.S. attorney's office said, put some protesters who were camping in the area at risk and scorched the side of the police building before it was extinguished by other protesters.Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW, and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/chop-protester-sentenced-2-years-in-prison-for-lighting-fire-outside-seattle-police-east-precinct/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and Kevin Schofield of Seattle City Council Insight discuss the Seattle City Council's new "acknowledgment pay" for city workers during COVID (and the associated vaccine mandates), the first public hearing on the city budget, a challenging investigation of the SPD's abandonment of the East Precinct last year, and a look at decriminalizing psychedelic drugs, too. Plus: when it comes to slicing strawberries for dessert, Kevin has some advice on how to cut to the chase. If you like this podcast, please support us on Patreon! 

4PM - Hanna Scott: Abandonment of SPD's East Precinct did not violate law or policy, Seattle police watchdog agency says // Rachel Belle: Dick's Drive-In to increase minimum wage to $19 per hour See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

6PM - Hanna Scott: Abandonment of SPD's East Precinct did not violate law or policy, Seattle police watchdog agency says // Facebook whistleblower says company incentivizes "angry, polarizing, divisive content" // We ran out of time again so John goes into some movie trivia  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Homelessness, economic recovery, policing – these issues don't wait for an election. They're being addressed – or not, depending on your perspective – in real time.

The East Precinct - Mutiny inside the SPD? The Jerk Shack bets on all Black wines Black Star Farmers at Jimi Hendrix Park Garfield Super Block Project Waterfront Block Party Recap

Recall June 2020. George Floyd has been murdered by police in Minneapolis, and the video of his death is so shocking that people across the nation pour onto the streets in protest. In Seattle, demonstrators face off with police at their outpost in the freewheeling Capitol Hill neighborhood.

It's been one year since people protesting police violence marched to Seattle's East Police Precinct and found that police had abandoned the area. That started a protest zone that garnered national attention — the CHOP.After a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd on May 25, 2020, anti-police brutality demonstrations sprung up around Seattle. People marched from downtown up to the East Police Precinct building on Capitol Hill. The precinct became the epicenter of protests.Angelica Campbell said it was important to keep showing up to the East Precinct day after day."I'm going to have children that are Black," Campbell said. "And I don't want to come out here and march because they got shot.”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)

The Seattle Times filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that the city of Seattle mishandled requests from reporters for officials' text messages during a tumultuous period last summer when police abandoned the East Precinct and used tear gas on protesters.The complaint, filed in King County Superior Court, follows a whistleblower investigation that found Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's office violated state public records laws in its handling of requests after discovering the mayor's texts were missing for a 10-month period.Four Seattle Times reporters were among the requesters affected. Their requests were largely focused on officials' communications surrounding a series of events last summer, including fatal shootings in the Capitol Hill Organized Protest area that formed following the precinct's abandonment and the resignation of former Police Chief Carmen Best. None of the reporters were informed that the mayor's texts had not been retained.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)

After more than a week of protests and clashes Seattle Police abandoned the East Precinct, and organizers and protestors set up an autonomous zone, a part of Capitol Hill designed to be free of police.

Seattle area protesters marched from downtown to the East Precinct building on Capitol Hill for a anti-police brutality demonstration, after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd on May 25, 2020. On June 8th, protesters awoke to an abandoned precinct and they seized an opportunity. The so called CHOP would get national attention and scrutiny.

Retired Seattle police Chief Carmen Best says she warned before the CHOP formed last summer that ceding the Capitol Hill protest zone would be a threat to public safety. And she says she has no idea how her texts from that crucial time period were lost.In a new podcast episode released Monday and in a subsequent interview with The Seattle Times, Best publicly provided some of her most detailed recollections to date of the day last June when the Seattle Police Department abandoned the East Precinct after 10 days of street protests that erupted in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer.While Best still declined to say exactly who made the crucial calls on the ground, she reiterated it wasn't her decision to abandon the precinct. Instead, she described what happened as an almost unintentional series of events: Facing threats and the removal of the barricades that had separated protesters from the precinct, officers left and took weapons and sensitive material with them — but when they tried to come back later, on the assumption the protesters would largely be gone, they were blocked from returning.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)

3PM - Hanna Scott: Retired chief Carmen Best says she warned against abandoning the Seattle Police’s East Precinct // Seattle City Council votes to transfer 911 operations away from police // If You Thought Working From Home Was Messy, Here Comes Hybrid Work // Kenny Mayne ends Aaron Rodgers interview with a profane put-down, then walks off set See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1PM - The Fastest 15 // Who made the call to abandon Seattle's East Precinct? // Moderna wants to expand vaccine to kids/teens // 710 ESPN's Dave Wyman drops by to chat sports and music See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What's Trending: Homeless squatters set up camp in a multimillion dollar Sammamish home, a man only gets 20 months in prison for trying to set the East Precinct on fire, and Washington's law mandating Critical Race Theory training forces med students to sit through social justice courses to graduate Gunshots echo on the streets at George Floyd memorial square, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott promises to defund cities that defund the police A WNBA player gets body shamed by a coach. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jacks Recap looks at the biggest story's of the day including looking at Who made the call to leave East Precinct last summer? Chief Carmen Best's eye-popping interview. // Rachel Belle is in to discuss Yoga and the state of Alabama. // Jack is upset, and hes here to let you know. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best gave an unprecedented account of the events that unfolded last June during the protests for civil rights on Capitol Hill.

Greg, Brian, Cassidy, and Colin dredge through the developments in the ongoing uncoupling of Bill and Melinda Gates, then discuss the recent revelation that texts from Durkan, Best, and Scoggins from last summer, a period suspiciously overlapping with the abandonment of the East Precinct and subsequent creation of CHOP, are…missing (?!), and Interim police Chief Diaz quickly undoing a decision from the Office of Police Accountability.

This week Erica C. Barnett joins Crystal to review further revelations in the mishandling of public records requests by Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's office and the psychology of offering vaccination incentives. 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, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources: “Public records requests mishandled after Seattle mayor's texts went missing, commission finds” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/public-records-requests-were-mishandled-after-seattle-mayors-texts-went-missing-whistleblower-investigation-finds/ “Not just the mayor: Text messages of Seattle police and fire chiefs from June 2020 also missing” by Daniel Beekman and Lewis Kamb: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/not-just-the-mayor-text-messages-of-seattle-police-and-fire-chiefs-from-june-2020-also-missing/ “Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan had phone set to keep texts only 30 days, her office says” by Lewis Kamb and Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-mayor-jenny-durkan-had-phone-set-to-delete-texts-older-than-30-days/ “We asked for Mayor Jenny Durkan's text messages, and this is what we got” by Ashley Hiruko: https://www.kuow.org/stories/we-asked-for-jenny-durkan-s-text-messages-and-this-is-what-they-gave-us “Durkan Destroys 10 Months of Text Messages in Apparent Coverup” by Doug Trumm: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/13/durkan-destroys-10-months-of-text-messages-in-apparent-coverup/ “Should Mayor Jenny Durkan Resign Over Those Missing Texts?” by Nathalie Graham: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/05/13/57321148/should-mayor-jenny-durkan-resign-over-those-missing-texts “Black researchers say Seattle Mayor's Office has undermined their work to help reimagine public safety” by Liz Brazile: https://www.kuow.org/stories/black-researchers-say-seattle-mayor-s-office-has-undermined-their-work-to-help-reimagine-public-safety “Seattle partners with businesses to offer COVID-19 vaccine incentives” by Christine Pae: https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/seattle-free-incentives-for-people-who-get-covid-19-vaccine/281-b2dce03d-f083-4f6a-9b24-1f1f176f5234   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 politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. And if you like the show, please throw in a great review. We really appreciate that and it helps the show. 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: [00:00:53] Thanks, Crystal. Great to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:55] Great to have you back. So we've had a little bit of news this week. When we talked last Friday with you folks - when I was talking with Marcus Harrison Green - news about a whistleblower complaint that had been filed had just broke about 12 hours before. And we were just beginning to learn about the details of the news of, evidently, missing texts from the mayor's office and intentionally not being responsive to public records requests. We've since learned a lot more about the details behind those missing texts. And it looks like this was an intentional action and very problematic. What have we learned about this? Erica Barnett: [00:01:40] Well, a couple things since last week and one thing that was reported by the Seattle Times, I believe, just yesterday. Both of the records request officers who filed this whistleblower complaint initially are no longer working for the mayor's office. One stepped down and the other was put on administrative leave in an action that many are interpreting as retaliatory. Sure looks that way to me. And, I mean, the basics are that 10 months of texts from, to and from - the mayor herself, Mayor Durkan herself, the Fire Chief Harold Scoggins, and then Police Chief Carman Best - disappeared. And the mayor's office is saying that it was because of some sort of technical glitch. Those 10 months, of course, included the period of protest, the period when the East Precinct was abandoned by the Seattle Police Department, and just probably the biggest, you know, news weeks of last year. There are no texts available from any of those really relevant and involved public officials for that period. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:50] Well, and this is just mind-boggling. One, the length of time that this covers. And two, this actually looks like it's an intentional action. It is hard to see how this wasn't an intentional hiding or destruction of records. Jenny Durkan's a former US Attorney. She's intimately familiar with the law and with requirements for preserving communications and evidence. This is not someone who's a novice and had also been in a - I don't know how to characterize it - a warning action in relation to another issue that her office had - even had to take a refresher course on disclosures. What in the world! She knows how to maintain this. And it came out that she had changed a setting, or setting on her city-issued phone was set to destroy texts after one month. And that's not the default setting. You have to change that setting. Erica Barnett: [00:03:52] I don't even know how to do that, to be honest. I mean, I have texts going back to, you know, 2016 on my phone, which I probably got in 2016. So I - yeah, that is something that takes some doing. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:05] Yeah. So someone who should be more knowledgeable than just about anyone else from her profession and certainly touted her skills and qualifications when running for office - now wants us to believe that she doesn't know that she somehow accidentally, very coincidentally, somehow changed the setting on the phone to destroy texts after a month that she knew needed to be maintained. And now we're just supposed to not question, and deal with the aftermath, and let her seemingly retaliate against employees who brought this to light - that this is actually potentially a crime. Erica Barnett: [00:04:47] Yeah, it's potentially a felony to destroy this information and what's also - I mean, first of all, the issue of not destroying communications has been around for a very long time. I covered it in 2003 with emails from the City Council and that was addressed at the time. There is ample training at the City. I mean, the lowest level city employee knows you don't just go around deleting your text messages and deleting your emails. But what's really kind of frustrating about this for, from a media perspective, is the Seattle Times can probably sue for these records if they want to because they have, compared to everybody else, fairly infinite resources - they've got lawyers. But if they don't do that, we're just - I certainly can't sue for all the texts that I was denied over the years, because it costs money and because I don't have any standing to demand them at this point. And that is true of any member of the public, who sought messages during that time period too, which I'm sure there are many, because there was tons of speculation about who shut down the East Precinct, who gave orders to do various things - tear gas, blast balls - was this coming directly from the top? And all that information is, as it pertains to the mayor's phone, is gone. And the only way to really get it is a subpoena in a lawsuit at this point, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, unless they were retained somewhere at the City level, and unless the mayor's office decides to release them right now. So the problem - our records law is very strong, but it's also very fragile, because it depends on, to a certain extent, the goodwill of people who are obliged to follow it. And if they decide not to follow it, it takes some doing to force them to do so. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:46] It does. And you bring up, with this issue of accountability - okay, there is a law, there is potentially a felony that's been committed. Do we care to look into it? Is there a method for that? We have to rely on a private entity to bring a lawsuit, as you said it appears at this time, in order to do that. Or we have to rely on other people within the system to hold them accountable. Now, whistleblowers certainly did their part. We appreciate them standing up for a process and the rule of law and saying, Hey, we're aware of something that is potentially illegal and wrong, and we want to do this. We hope they are protected against retaliation. It is very concerning that one of them has been placed on administrative leave. And that certainly is consistent with other reports that we've heard from employees, including one covered in a KUOW report this past week about the participatory budgeting process, where other employees have raised an alarm saying, Hey, we feel pressure to go along with a program and processes and dictates from the mayor's office that we feel are misrepresenting our work or that are not completely forthright and honest. And if we don't go along, we are afraid of retaliation. We've heard that theme, we've seen people leave. You even covered some of that - I was reading one of your Twitter threads talking about how some people feel like they don't have the freedom or ability to do their jobs in communications roles. And they feel like there's no longer a place for them, because they are not able to, in good conscience, or to do their jobs. Erica Barnett: [00:08:34] Well, yeah, and they - I mean, the thing with the communications folks is everything from the very beginning - everything has had to be micromanaged by this mayor's office. And so just the Twitter thread you're referring to - just getting the absolute most basic or technical information from departments has required this long process where everything has to go through several staffers at the mayor's office, several kind of comms people - who pretty it up and doctor it up and make it tell a positive story, no matter what it is. I mean, even just the most mundane stuff that I asked for. And so you get these emails back that are in like five different fonts, 'cause they've gone through five different people. Well, it's like, well, can I just have the answer to my question? 'Cause all I actually wanted to know is - what is the length of this bike lane or whatever it may be. And yeah, it's been - I mean, it would almost be comical, except that it's frustrating because a lot of times you don't actually get the answer that you were originally asking for 'cause everything has to be processed through so many layers of people. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:43] Yeah, and I think it's important for people to know, who may not be familiar with the process of getting information from government, that that is not normal. That is not usual. And that is not just a result of, Oh, this is just a different administration and people are unhappy with the policies, so they're finding things to nitpick about. This was not the case with Murray or with McGinn or with - Erica Barnett: [00:10:08] Or even Nickels. Yeah, even though Nickels had a very tight shop - you could call the deputy mayor and the deputy mayor would call you back. That is not the case for me. I mean, I'm sure it's certainly the case for the Seattle Times, which has given, frankly, over the years, quite a lot of flattering coverage to the mayor. They're doing great work as well, but there's a question of access. And that access just simply does not exist for the likes of me, or for adversarial media in general. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:40] Right. And just the control of information from departments where - before you could call up SDOT and ask a question, a fairly basic question, "Hey, why are we doing this change on this street?" and get an answer. Where now, all of that kind of communication is routed through the mayor's office. They have been told not to answer. That that answer - that that question needs to go to the mayor's office and only they can answer. And who they choose to answer and how they choose to answer has been completely inconsistent. And the answers that they give have not always been the truth. And now, as we are uncovering more, seems like they were hiding a lot of information and it's certainly concerning. Then also concerning is - so what happens now? And so we have seen some candidates - one in particular, Jessyn Farrell, came out with a statement, "Hey, you know what, this basically, this - we need to elect a mayor who will follow the rules. And so, we need to elect someone like me, who will just follow the rules." And that was met with a lot of people saying, "Hey, with all due respect, it is great. We definitely want to elect someone who will follow the rules, but we want people, we want the policy and the rules to actually mean something. So if someone breaks them, the answer isn't just to say, 'Aw, man, that's really sad. I guess we have to go with someone else.' It's to hold that person accountable. So what are we going to do with Durkan? Are you calling for her resignation or not? What is the role of accountability?" And then even from the Council perspective, I believe, Council President Lorena González has talked about creating a new office or system to handle disclosures and to wrap more - I say bureaucracy and sometimes that has a negative connotation - but to stand up an administrative authority to more independently handle disclosures. Which may turn out to be great - I am not intimately familiar with those details yet. I'm sure we'll have more, but a lot of people said, "That's well and fine, but what are we doing with Durkan? Are you calling for her resignation? How are we holding Durkan accountable for breaking these rules?" And it just seemed like people skipped over that fact. And like we just really haven't talked about - a felony was potentially committed in the mayor's office. This actually is not a partisan issue at all, aside from the fact that most people in Seattle identify as Democrats. This is just a really simple process. Anyone who has worked in government, been adjacent to government, understands how overt the disclosure process and awareness is. Some people who may be further away from this, they're like, "Big deal. I delete texts all the time. Like how - why is someone going to save a text that's years old? I have deleted mine." When the culture of government is the preservation of records and being hyper-aware that everything that is going on is potentially disclosable to the public. And frankly, people are very careful about what they say in emails and texts because of that. Because they're so aware of that. So to act like that's not a big deal - she may not have known, changed a setting accidentally - just flies in the face of logic and reason, and is not believable at all. And it's really concerning - we were making national news daily during that time - for decisions that were made and not having questions and orders given to SPD, that were then seemingly ignored, and asked, "Hey, why - if you said don't use tear gas and then they're using tear gas. And you're just like, 'I don't know. Are they - are they using tear - I don't know what's happening.'" We have to be able to hold our leaders accountable for how they govern. This is a major element of how we make that possible. And to intentionally subvert that - I really do think there needs to be real questions. Is this something that other people who are candidates or who were on the City Council - do they feel like this is worthy of holding someone accountable? Do we not? I think - Erica Barnett: [00:14:52] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:52] - we just saw Trump and the problem with not holding people accountable. Erica Barnett: [00:14:55] Well, and what is so bad about this - the mayor is not running for reelection. I think there is - it's debatable whether this is a resignation-level offense. That's pretty - if indeed a felony was committed and all of that. But beyond that - first of all, accountability means owning up to what you did. And, personally, I'll just say - my personal opinion is, I'm not calling, just personally, for the mayor to resign. I think she should say what happened and be honest about it, instead of sort of giving all these defensive responses, frankly, about how they didn't do anything wrong and it was all an accident, because that is not believable. But in a long-term sense, it really speaks to public trust of institutions and of government, and of city government in particular, when you just have no idea if the government is being honest with you. And I am one of those people - I just somewhat naively believed that public disclosure officers - well actually, this part I don't think is naive - public disclosure officers generally are very interested in providing you the information. And as we've seen with these whistleblowers, they were dogged about it in a lot of cases, but ultimately elected officials and department heads and people in departments have the ability to hide stuff from the public. I mean, they just do. And so we can't go down that road where they feel empowered to do that. And we also can't go down the road where - even if this is a one-mayor kind of situation, the public just doesn't trust the City anymore to tell them the truth about things. And I think that is the long-term risk here - is once Durkan's out of office in a few months, that the public simply doesn't believe that the mayor and City Council are accountable and are telling them the truth about what's going on at the City. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:02] Yeah, I would agree with that. And whether or not Durkan resigns or people call for that, I think that there is much more of a responsibility and obligation that the City has to get to these texts, to exhaust every option, and to have or hire an independent entity who is capable of getting at this, and not to force a private entity to sue - the Times could do it, a number of the TV stations could probably do it, or consortium of them. If it comes down to that, I hope that would be the case and people would pursue that action. It seems like there is - that's a very worthy effort and there's a lot of newsworthy information and a lot of questions that would be answered by getting access to those texts. But I do think that the city has an obligation to get to the bottom of this, and we can't skip over that and start working on a new bureaucracy without first saying, How do we actually address this problem? How do we look at how existing policies are contributing to this problem or not? Maybe the issue is that there just is not enough of an incentive or disincentive to not hide information. And people just don't feel like there's any penalty for that. So why not do it? Let's make it painful if someone's going to do that - politically, policy-wise sanctioned painful, not physically painful. These days I always feel the need to clarify that. But certainly we'll be continuing to pay attention to this - quite the issue, quite the conundrum that the City finds itself in. And I just hope we can get to these texts and get the answers to these big questions that we've been asking for a year now and still don't have an answer to. Another issue in the City and that we're facing overall, I guess, is two questions. One, reopening the state. And then, the status of vaccine and vaccine incentives. And we're at the point now where vaccine supply is appearing to exceed demand, but that doesn't mean that there is no demand. And that doesn't mean that everyone is still vaccinated. There are lots of people who are not fully vaccinated, still looking for shots. We're just on the front end of having drop-in and pop-up clinics, which a lot of people need - who can't schedule around a job, or need childcare, and need more flexibility in when they can make it to get vaccinated - that certainly has been a barrier for people I know. So we're still making our way through this, but there's also a significant portion of the population who is hesitant to get a vaccine for one reason or another. And the use of incentives, whether it's a free Krispy Kreme donut, or a free beer, or some free tickets, has become popular, has been in some people's view effective. A lot of people are like, "Hey, whatever it takes to get someone to take a vaccine, let's do it." You have looked at this and thought about this and it's like, are we - is this the most productive way to go about this? How have you viewed this? Erica Barnett: [00:20:23] Well, look. I certainly agree. I mean, if the difference between somebody not getting a vaccine and getting a vaccine is a beer for a dollar, which I think is about the best that breweries can offer because of some obscure liquor law or other, I mean, okay. But to me - is that a rational - first of all, is that a rational response to a public health emergency, but also, Yeah, my reaction to it, just kind of emotionally and as a person and as a citizen of a society, is like, Dude, you don't have to get a cookie when you go to the dentist's office. You don't have to - you don't demand free tickets to a Mariners game for getting your annual checkup. And this is like, this is literally just basic healthcare. It's getting your vaccine the same way you get your flu shot hopefully every year. And it's also benefiting all the people around you. So I personally traveled, drove down to Federal Way - I'm very fortunate 'cause I work my own hours and I could afford to spend the time - drove down to Federal Way, got my first shot 'cause it was hard to get shots at the time. It got a little easier by the time I got my second one. But I don't think we should encourage, in general, a culture where we have to pat people on the head and call them a good boy to do the most basic - to brush their teeth essentially. I mean, that said, sure, if ice cream gets you out - great. I think that the fact that we live in a society, and the fact that you don't want to die, and you don't want your grandmother to die, and you don't want strangers to die, and maybe strangers who can't get the vaccine for various health reasons - that should be incentive enough. And the idea - it's a minor thing, ultimately. Because it's fine - if Husky Deli wants to give away ice cream, go for it. But I find it kind of silly and disheartening that that's apparently what it takes for people to do their basic civic duty. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:35] Yeah. I mean, I'm looking at this and ideally, absolutely. But what should be and what is are two very, very different things, in the same way that, you know, it's like, Hey, just like you go to the dentist. I think you might be surprised by how many people don't go to the dentist for a variety of reasons. Erica Barnett: [00:22:54] Sure. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:54] Some of it is just, Uh, I just haven't gotten around to it. Some of it is cost and access. Some of it is they had very painful experience. Like there's a lot that goes into how people interact, specifically with the healthcare system. And for a lot of things, there are a lot of - it seems like civic duty in one area, absolutely. And I'm fully vaccinated. I participated in a vaccine trial that I'm still in. And so clearly I would hope that people would do that. But I also understand that some people have not - a significant percentage of the population has not. And given that this is a public health issue, and we are relying on most people to do it, and our safety is in numbers, and that we're having trouble with those numbers, that we are at the point where anything helps because that is actually making the rest of us safer. And I also want to acknowledge, we look a lot at individual actions. And as a society, I think we are conditioned to look at an individual and how their actions impact others. But I think that we are - we cannot overlook how poorly as a public health administration and bureaucracy overall, most things about this pandemic - the vaccine, masking, you name it - have been communicated. Erica Barnett: [00:24:21] For sure. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:22] They've done a poor job overall. And we know that impacts how people perceive this. We know that, Hey, this is with the mRNA vaccine - it's been touted in news coverage as, Hey, this is brand new and this is the fastest ever, which if that is not messaged consistently and carefully, and people are not consistently educated, and messaging is very consistent and strong - that people are going to think, Oh, this is a brand new vaccine that, you know, just was rushed out. Why should I take this? Erica Barnett: [00:24:51] But here's the thing. I feel like - what I would really love to do is just have an exit interview at all of these places where you go to a brewery where people are getting vaccinated, then sitting around for a couple of hours and drinking a beer, and ask them why they didn't want to get vaccinated before. And my guess - this is just a hypothesis that I would love to test - is that they would not say it's because I am low-income and I didn't have, or I have a job that didn't grant me access to, during regular working hours, I couldn't get out to get the vaccine. Or like I had a problem with an mRNA vaccine, and then I got this beer and decided it was okay. I mean, I just wonder, and I really wanna know - who it is that is responding to an incentive that is worth a few dollars. And who is still not getting vaccinated for all these other reasons that you mentioned that are, that I totally get. But I just think if you're going to drive out of your way in the middle of the day to go get an ice cream, and wait in the line, and sit and eat the ice cream, like, I don't know. I would be curious to know if all of the sort of disadvantage-related demographic issues and whatever apply in that case. Or is it a bunch of guys who don't like to get a shot because they've never kind of been forced to do things like that in their life. I don't know. I don't know. It's just my hypothesis is that it is not, by and large, people who lack access or information. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:33] Yeah.... Erica Barnett: [00:26:34] I could be totally wrong. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:35] I - you know, I don't know that it's access, especially now that we are providing wider access. I think that there certainly are - have been issues around people's work, and childcare, and just being able to get there at times that certainly appointments were a hindrance to. And there has been some data collected on that elsewhere. I think the biggest issue that we have is vaccine hesitancy and people are trying to add an incentive to say, Okay, some people are hesitant because they're just - they just are unsure that this is safe for whatever reason. I think that there is a lot of information that people can access to be clear, to have confidence for that. The groups that have been tested - it is widely and broadly looked at as safe, certainly in comparison to getting COVID - that taking the vaccine seems like a much safer route to go than getting COVID. But I also think that there's a number of people and there has been, at least covered in some study of this, and particularly talking about among healthcare workers who were hesitant initially to get the vaccine - that after seeing a number of people get it, you know, now people usually have friends and family members who they've seen get it. They haven't keeled over. And, you know, like we aren't all turning into 5G robots and tauntauns - that people are okay. So now it's just like an extra kick and incentive to get it out. Is that getting most people over the hump? I don't know. I always think it's useful to do exit interviews and to collect data, so I hope that's happening everywhere regardless. I also understand that resources are an issue in that. And so who has the ability to stand that up and collect that in a reliable way is always a question of funding and capacity, but I don't have a problem with it. If we're throwing that on, just trying to do anything it takes to get more people vaccinated - particularly after the news that we just got from the CDC yesterday, that not only are they saying, Eh, you don't need masks anymore in public in outdoor spaces if you are vaccinated. But hey, indoor spaces - if you've been vaccinated, most indoor spaces were also fine. And guidance rapidly changing for that also. And what that means in terms of the potential for the spread of the virus now, especially since we still have variants going around. We are still in a pandemic, we're making our way out of it, but we're still in one. So it'll be interesting to see how this proceeds. I think you bring up some good points and like - it is a shame that we are here. Erica Barnett: [00:29:15] Yeah, and I just very quickly, I think this also might be a bit of a hangover from all the sort of stories about, Well, why do people vote for Trump? I don't know. Let's go interview 900 more people in the Midwest. And it's like, well, ultimately, I mean, we have an answer. We have answers to this question. We don't need to keep asking it. And we know why some people don't get the vaccine and it's because they believe in 5G and because they think it's - I mean, my parents will not get the vaccine because they think it's doing something to their DNA. And so I know people who are not, in fact most of my family, is not getting vaccinated for various reasons. And it's - so this is very close to home for me, but it's also the case that I don't ask them about it anymore. There's no incentive that's going to get a certain percentage of the population to vaccinate. And so I, so I feel like it's a little bit like asking Trump voters why they voted for Trump. I mean, we know why most people voted for Trump and there's people on the margins that we can convince otherwise and we can get to get vaccinated. And I agree with you. I mean, ultimately any incentive is fine. I just, I just personally find it a little bit silly. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:24] I got it. And I appreciate the conversation and your perspective. I thank all of you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on this Friday, May 14th, 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. 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 shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. 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 and we'll talk to you next time.

The mother of a 19-year-old Seattle man fatally shot during last summer’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) has filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the city, alleging officials were negligent in allowing Seattle police to abandon the department’s East Precinct and surrounding area, a decision that invited “lawlessness and … a foreseeable danger” that led to his death.Donnitta Sinclair, whose son Horace Lorenzo Anderson was shot and mortally wounded across the street from Cal Anderson Park early on June 20, alleges in her lawsuit that bad decisions, confusion, miscommunication and poor planning by city officials contributed to his death.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)

Matthew Gardiner on the Seattle housing market, Colleen O'Brien's touching daily dose, Gee Scott emphasizes positivity, Omari Salisbury details the situation surrounding the East Precinct, Hanna Scott details crimes against Native American women, and Melinda Gates is fed up with Bill's compound See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dave Ross comments on Seattle PD's decision to remove the concrete barriers around the East Precinct. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ep. 15 Former Seattle Police Officer Part 3 of 3. Riots. Rewards. Resignation. Today I complete a series of three interviews with a former Seattle police officer who was with the department for 14 years. We talk about working the protests and riots over the summer, in particular holding the line at the SPD’s East Precinct the closure of which made national news. The officer discusses watching legitimate protests overrun by those bent on destruction and harming officers. We talk about the inability to police effectively and hold those committing crimes accountable due to changes in filing standards and failure to press charges, changes that have forced this officer to make the difficult decision to leave the Seattle Police Department. And even with all that has happened, he reflects on what the rewards have been.

Greg, Brian, Munya, and Colin talk about the end of the Donald Trump impeachment drama, snow and high jinks at the East Precinct, an arrest of 2018 Seattle Firefighter of the Year related to the ongoing harassment of Kshama Sawant, a scheme to incarcerate the unhoused in Mercer Island (and exurban elsewheres), and German design and engineering's attempt at solving homelessness with sleep pods.

The New York Times is FINALLY issuing a correction on how a police officer was killed during the Capitol riot. A video posted on Saturday evening shows a snow barrier built by Antifa outside of the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct. Police arrested 11 people — one who allegedly bit a cop's leg — when an anti-cop protest turned violent in Manhattan, authorities said Saturday. Minneapolis is set to spend $6.4 million to hire dozens of police officers as some City Council members and activists work to replace the department. Kamala Harris said that they were "starting from scratch" on COVID-19 response... What about the MULTIPLE vaccine roll outs under the Trump administration?

Seattle Police and anti-police protesters ended 2020 in a familiar fashion on Capitol Hill with clashes and arrests near the 12th Ave youth jail and the East Precinct after reports of property damage and more broken glass at an area business targeted in previous attacks.Friday morning, owner Faizel Khan was sweeping up glass from busted windows at his Cafe Argento on 12th Ave at E Olive St. Khan’s business was first targeted this summer and he was at the center of a New York Times report on the police defunding movement that took a critical look at the effort through the eyes of local businesses and property owners. The small business is also part of a handful joining a group of developers and property owners suing the city over its response to the protests.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)

SEATTLE SPIRIT: Staten Island bar that declared itself 'autonomous zone' shut down, GM arrested, Mayor Durkan ‘in conversation’ to remove East Precinct wall / / Politicians across the country are hypocritical about holiday travel / / The media’s bias towards scripting the news. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New information has come out regarding who gave the order for the Seattle Police station to abandon their East Precinct Station during CHOP/CHAZ.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)

A Seattle activist hired by the city to serve as its “street czar” was embroiled in debates this past summer over the Capitol Hill Organized Protest and at one point suggested protesters seek money from City Hall, for their cause, in order to leave the zone. Andrè Taylor, who created a police-accountability nonprofit and championed statewide reforms after his brother, Che Taylor, was fatally shot by Seattle police in 2016, was a vocal critic of the multiblock occupation by protests and others that took shape in June after police abandoned their East Precinct on Capitol Hill. Taylor’s stance on CHOP provided support for Mayor Jenny Durkan as she sought to wind down the demonstration zone known as the CHOP in the wake of shootings there. His position also drew ire from some protesters who were trying to put pressure on the mayor and saw him aligning with her. Andre Taylor Indictment https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_BFNqgxBedKMV85ejdjS25fXzAtMXo5ZDVGOFJ3YkYtdXNn/view?usp=sharing Andre Taylor Plea Agreement https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_BFNqgxBedKZUhqNEFwRmtqWTdtdmNPcC1vcFVnRi1rLTBr/view?usp=sharing Credit Audio Youtube Andre Taylor Credit Audio Youtube Las Vegas Defense Group Q13 Fox Report Audio SHOW CREDITS Host: Keko - twitter.com/therealkeko Guest: Andre Taylor Producer: Mac Redd Music Guest: Blocc on Flat (feat. BlockRepp Shad, King Leez & Maffii) Background: Yondo Donate: cash.app/$folksalert Phone/ Email: 646-54-FOLKS / info@folksalert.com Website: www.folksalert.com

This week in Seattle News covers: -our newly appointed title "Anarchist Jurisdiction" by Attorney General William - protest clash again at the East Precinct after the grand jury decision of not charging the officers who killed Breonna Taylor - overruling Mayor Durken's Veto - BLM Mural becoming official - Seattle sports weekend rundown The Featured Meal of the Week comes from Ballard's Brimmer & Heeltap. They served one of the most delicious slices of bread I've ever had along with Chicken Confit, and Tuscan Pork Ribs. The Featured Business of the Week is a story about creating an itinerary for The Nudge Text in which I went to The Ave at the University of Washington to visit Mountaineering Club, Flowers, UDon, and Sweet Alchemy.

Violent rioters attempted to use quick setting concrete to seal shut the door at the Seattle East Precinct then start a fire to harm the police officers inside alive. Fortunately, the violent rioters were not able to mix the appropriate water/concrete and it came out too thin/runny. No police officers were harmed as a result. Seattle City Council's response to this violent action was that it wasn't really harmful as there were additional doors the police could use for an exit strategy. Nice try! Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.

SEATTLE SPIRIT: Unbelievable- Rantz: Rioters tried to burn Seattle police alive, sealed door during fire at East Precinct. The context behind the death of Jacob Blake. Wisconsin has become a literal war zone. //  The masterwork production value behind the RNC. // Video resurfaces of Obama’s glass of water stunt in Flint, Michigan amidst their Democrat caused water crisis… See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

VC&R close out the week missing M, but he’ll be back Monday. Yet another night of peaceful rioting in Portland, and the mayor is finally trying to be tough. Joe Biden attempts to clean up his, “Black people are the same,” comments, while President Trump says, “Thighland.” Three teens were running from the cops when they accidentally scaled a wall into Mar-A-Lago. Nancy Pelosi accuses a PBS reporter of supporting Republicans, as a professor is demoted for having a “wrong opinion.” A man living near East Precinct describes the violence, and an NFL kicker will win free beer for his entire city, this year. Jamie may not be here, but The Friday Five are -- Fly Songs Edition.

New legislative bill by Washington State Senator would outlaw future Seattle CHOP Zones and make it illegal for cities to withdraw police and related services. State Senator Steve O’Ban (R-University Place) is introducing legislation that would essentially prohibit cities in Washington state from allowing another CHOP/CHAZ to occupy city streets or creating places where cops and other services find it difficult to venture.Could something like this pass in the state of Washington?“I don’t have to remind your audience of the tremendous travesty of CHAZ that started with the police withdrawing from the East Precinct, and then withdrawing police services at the city’s and mayor’s insistence from the CHAZ area, making it all but impossible for them to do their basic law enforcement responsibilities,” O’Ban said on the Jason Rantz Show.Join host Sean Reynolds of the Seattle Real Estate Podcast as he discusses the possibility of such legislation.

JUL 1, 2020 SEATTLE SPIRIT: BREAKING: 5:05am the Police take back the seized Antifa East precinct. Revised COVID case definitions in Texas makes nearly EVERYONE qualify for the virus. // Update on the SPD taking back the precinct. What you are seeing on the streets is a cultural revolution following Mao’s insurgency model. // Woman reported in labor inside the Cal Anderson in the middle of Cal Anderson Park during the take back of the East Precinct.   On behalf of Todd Herman and KTTH, have a great 4th of July weekend, and listen to some of the best guests and segments from the Todd Herman Show on AM770 KTTH!

5PM - Hanna Scott: Seattle police arrive at CHOP, take back East Precinct area // Marty Baron Made The Post Great Again; Now, the News Is Changing //  Your Letters + Letter of the Day

SEATTLE SPIRIT: BREAKING: 5:05am the Police take back the seized Antifa East precinct. Revised COVID case definitions in Texas makes nearly EVERYONE qualify for the virus. // Update on the SPD taking back the precinct. What you are seeing on the streets is a cultural revolution following Mao’s insurgency model. // Woman reported in labor inside the Cal Anderson in the middle of Cal Anderson Park during the take back of the East Precinct.

Andy Ngo, the editor at large for the Canada-based Post Millennial, who was badly beaten by antifa in June 2019, spent five days undercover in Seattle’s so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), also known as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). It's a self-declared "autonomous” and cop-free zone. Ngo joins the podcast to discuss what he saw, the recent shooting in CHOP, the claims that the violence has been from "a right-wing attack," and more. We also cover these stories: President Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order to protect statues from destruction by radical protesters.Trump said that “autonomous zones” like the one declared in Seattle that has seen shootings and at least one death will not be tolerated in Washington, D.C. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan announced on Monday that police will slowly return to the city's East Precinct police station. It’s located in Seattle’s Capitol Hill area dubbed CHAZ or CHOP after being taken over by protesters demanding that the police department be defunded. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jason Rigden has been interviewing folks around the East Precinct.  On this episode, he will actually release an episode with some of those interviews. This was recorded Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at around 1pm. I want to hear your stories, opinions, and experiences about the CHOP/CHAZ. Call my voice mail: ‪(425) 835-2766‬ or schedule an interview on the show with the link below: https://calendly.com/jasonrigden/talk-to-seattle-interview You can also always email me at: jasonrigden@gmail.com Guests: Jud Nichols - https://www.instagram.com/judnichols/ Eric - https://twitter.com/OldCrick  

CHOP, or the Capitol Hill Occupied or Organized Protest, formerly known as CHAZ, has been in the headlines lately. On June 8th, Seattle Police officers boarded up the East Precinct on Capitol Hill after more than a week of sustained protests by residents following the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. Since then, a police-free community has spread out to Seattle’s Cal Anderson Park and between Broadway and 12th on Pine. While there were two shootings there over the weekend that left one dead and two injured, the area has been mostly peaceful, with almost a festival vibe to it. There’s art and music amplifying the message that Black Lives Matter. KEXP’s Sharlese Metcalf spent some time at CHOP last week and brought back an audio postcard. Support the show.

The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest in Seattle, Washington was established by George Floyd protesters on June 8, 2020 after the Seattle Police Department vacated its East Precinct building. The goal of the establishment of the zone, which was originally six blocks, was to have a neighborhood without police. Protesters have demanded rent control, the reversal of gentrification, the abolition or defunding of police, funding of community health, and releasing prisoners serving time for marijuana-related offenses or resisting arrest. This past week, WOOC correspondent Meghan Marohn caught up with protestors to interview them about their views on Black Lives Matter and their role in the occupied protest.

The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest in Seattle, Washington was established by George Floyd protesters on June 8, 2020 after the Seattle Police Department vacated its East Precinct building. The goal of the establishment of the zone, which was originally six blocks, was to have a neighborhood without police. Protesters have demanded rent control, the reversal of gentrification, the abolition or defunding of police, funding of community health, and releasing prisoners serving time for marijuana-related offenses or resisting arrest. This past week, WOOC correspondent Meghan Marohn caught up with protestors to interview them about their views on Black Lives Matter and their role in the occupied protest.

6PM - Confusion, anger in Seattle Police Dept. after East Precinct exit // Klobuchar Drops Out of Biden’s V.P. Search and Backs Picking a Woman of Color // After 3 decades and dozens of huge stories, KIRO’s lead anchor Steve Raible is bowing out // Blackface incident at Post cartoonist’s 2018 Halloween party resurfaces amid protests // Wanna buy a Duck? Former troubled Ride the Ducks Seattle tour fleet hits the auction block

4PM - Confusion, anger in Seattle Police Dept. after East Precinct exit // Klobuchar Drops Out of Biden’s V.P. Search and Backs Picking a Woman of Color // After 3 decades and dozens of huge stories, KIRO’s lead anchor Steve Raible is bowing out // ‘Getting sick has gotten political’: One Yakima woman’s struggle to say the pandemic’s hurt is real // Military removes ‘Into the Wild’ bus from Alaska backcountry after rescues and deaths

Introduction "You Are Leaving the USA" is the sign greeting anyone at the border of CHAZ (CHOP?), AKA Antifastan, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in downtown Seattle. And the sign is 100% correct.  That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.  Continuing There is absolutely nothing American about CHAZ, its leaders or followers. They do, however, bastardize many of our principles in the name of their cause--whatever that may be on any given day. Here are a few examples: They have borders, and they enforce them.  They have armed police, just not the trained ones with body cameras. They act in the name of “the people”, but no one has been elected--they simply assert the authority they claim at any given moment.  And further, they: Rip American flags from the hands of those who dare wave them. Deny entrance to business establishments to those suspected of anti-CHAZ thinking. Challenge many of the occupants of the 500 living spaces in the occupied zone as they go about their daily lives. I do not believe this group of disorganized anarchists, radical ideologues and partiers will have a long-term, negative effect on Seattle in particular, or America as a whole. But if allowed to grow, or even tolerated, this kind of thinking can spread. And the mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan, has gone on record as saying this is a “Patriotic block party.” They will likely dry up and blow away as did the Occupy Wall Street gang a decade ago. But beware of the underlying thinking that says it is okay to seize private and government property on behalf of a cause. The same thinking that claims their cause to be “autonomous” while expecting free services, all paid for by real life voting taxpayers. Is any of this beginning to sound familiar? Let me help with that: They want to be completely free, to be autonomous, while being supported by others. They want to cancel, to shut out, those with whom they have known or suspected philosophical or political differences. They want authority without accountability; power without a voting democracy.  All while claiming the moral high ground. Here is an example of what being autonomous means to CHAZIans.  Can’t have a proper revolution without sunglasses and Gatorade, eh? For those of you who ever had or ever were a teenager, does this sound familiar? I am reminded of the title of a talk aimed at the parents of teenagers, “I hate you, get out of my life; but first, drop me off at the mall!” Translated into CHAZian, “I hate you, stay out of my country, but first ship me everything in the mall!” “Okay, Will, just how did all of this come about?” The area around East Precinct in Seattle became a battleground between protesters and police in the past few weeks, leading the governor to send in the National Guard and for the mayor to impose a curfew. During the violence, demonstrators threw missiles at police, cars were torched and looting broke out, according to local media. At the weekend, Seattle police used tear gas and flash bangs to disperse protesters. Members of the city council rebuked the police department, accusing them of heavy-handed tactics. Then on Monday, the mayor ordered barricades to be removed near the precinct and the police building was boarded up and abandoned. This is the very same mayor who says this is a patriotic block party. Is there any identifiable leadership? Well, no one elected or appointed by anyone elected. Solomon Simone, whose nom de CHAZ is Raz, is the self-styled leader of the CHAZians, perhaps believing the AK-47 and pistol he carries while screaming “This is war!” gives him all the right to be a leader that he requires. Critics call him a “warlord.” But it’s been discovered that he sent out ugly homophobic tweets several years ago, so he could be deposed. Raz claims “someone is creating fake tweets from my page somehow.” Basically, your guess is as good as mine as to who--if anyone--is leadi...

In the past few weeks since the uprising in response to police killings of Black and Brown folks around Turtle Island, amazing chances have presented themselves and folks have seized opportunities. One great and unfolding circumstance is known as the CHAZ or CHOP, an autonomous zone and occupational protest surrounding a police precinct in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. The area was opened to community redesign after nights of intense battles with the police leading to the department evacuating the East Precinct to crowds of people chanting “Every Day”, meaning they would continue surrounding the police building. In many ways, the ability of the community, including anarchists and other radicals, to be able to respond to the situation was possible because of the mutual aid work that had been being developed during the covid-19 pandemic and years of building relationships. In this podcast special, you'll hear a fresh conversation with D. D is a Black Anarchist who grew up in and around Capitol Hill district in Seattle. He talks for this chat about that neighborhood and adjacent Central District's rebelliousness and conflictual history with the Eastern Precinct that the Seattle Police abandoned, about his knowledge of the protests of past weeks and the retreat of cops from their pen. D talks about the foundation of what has been called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, aka CHAZ, aka Capitol Hill Occupation Protest (or CHOP), or as D calls it the Chopped City CHAZ. You'll also hear a tiny bit about the history of occupations during protests in the city, engagement with the zone and indigenous communities in the area, the idea of monolithic Black Leadership, self-defense against the far right, the reproduce-ability of the autonomous zone model and other topics. We're going to try to bring you more stories from this place soon and are super thankful to D for sharing his perspectives. Transcription PDF (Unimposed) Zine (Imposed PDF) note: I was informed by my cohost William that in fact the retaining wall in front of the fourth precinct in Minneapolis that I was referring to was actually constructed by the Minneapolis PD, hence why it looks janky as shit. A few of the resources that D suggests folks pay attention to include Converge Media, Some of the occupations that D mentions include: Northwest African American Museum Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Centre El Centro De La Raza The website for the Duwamish nation is DuwamishTribe.org And for the Suquamish nation's website can be found at Suquamish.nsn.us Political Prisoner Oso Blanco's statement on the CHAZ can be found at FreeOsoBlanco.Blogspot.Com. . ... . .. Music from this podcast: Liquid Liquid - Cavern - Discography (1981-1984)

4PM - Feliks Banel: The artist who created an installation called “Neighbors” for the lobby of the Seattle Police Department’s embattled East Precinct is OK if the work gets destroyed // Phoenix Jones supports CHOP, but says ‘you can’t just not enforce laws’ // Rachel Belle: Aunt Jemima brand to change name, remove image that Quaker says is 'based on a racial stereotype' + Airlines ban alcohol on planes in response to Covid-19 // Master of None: what I learned from trying all 81 MasterClasses

6PM - Feliks Banel: Artist hopeful, but understanding if protesters ‘need to destroy’ East Precinct art // Phoenix Jones supports CHOP, but says ‘you can’t just not enforce laws’ // Confederate Symbols Are Coming Down. Should Dolly Parton Go Up Instead? // 'Gone with the Wind' returning to HBO Max with 'multiple historical contexts' provided // Is There a Line at Trader Joe’s? Social-Media Spies Are Keeping Track

Christopher Rufo joins Brian Anderson to discuss Seattle's activist-controlled "autonomous zone" in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of the city, established after police evacuated the local precinct building. In the aftermath of George Floyd's death in Minneapolis, activists and police in Seattle clashed until the city decided to abandon the East Precinct and surrender the neighborhood to protesters, who declared it the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). More than a week later, the future of CHAZ—now increasingly called CHOP, for Capitol Hill Organized Protest—remains unclear.

Visit Us Online: https://www.middaymumbles.com Support the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MiddayMumbles Email Us: talkmumbles@gmail.com On this episode of The Midday Mumbles Podcast the guys spoke in depth about the current state of America this included... Black Lives Matter, The riots, NASCAR banning confederate flags, CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone), and MUCH MORE! About CHAZ: The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) or the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), also known simply as the Zone and Free Capitol Hill, is an occupation protest and self-declared autonomous zone in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The Zone, covering approximately six city blocks and a park, was established on June 8, 2020 by George Floyd protesters after the Seattle Police Department (SPD) vacated its East Precinct building at Capitol Hill. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Pink Umbrella Riot update by Mark Taylor-Canfield in Seattle on June 11. On Monday June 8th the Police Department removed valuables, boarded up, and evacuated the East Precinct headquarters as a deescalation technique. Demonstrations in that area had been ongoing for a couple of weeks.The civil occupation, also referred to as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, has continued with rally's, teach-ins,and speeches. Wikipedia. So far it has not been damaged. June 14 Update. USA Today.  Mark reports that 15,000 complaints of police misconduct were filed during the two weeks prior to the occupation. There have been many false narratives, some extreme, being published by some media outlets. What It Is Like in the Autonomous Zone-NPR The Truth About Seattle Autonomous Zone - A View From Inside by Mark Taylor-Canfield Recorded 2020-06-11   Duration  45:43   See our blog: https://democracycast.libsyn.com/ .   Send listener feedback to    dwatchnews@earthlink.net Our production team https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rnPeRDB3JTrr80N_NlLmUM7nEzrRejw8-5qFYd45W5M/edit?usp=sharing #SeattleAutonomousZone,#PinkUmbrellaMovement,#MarkTaylorCanfield,#CHAZ,#PoliceReform,#PeacefulProtest

Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone: CHAZ | Protesters in Seattle, Washington, declared an area that includes the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct as the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” after Seattle Police and the National Guard pulled out of the region. Defund Police morphs to Abolish Police | All of this has sparked a debate as to whether the Defund the Police movement is a broad description of police reform or if it truly means the end of policing in America - and what does that look like? Radical Groups Takeover of America | Who is in charge here in America? Why are governors and mayors standing by and allowing this destruction to happen? Michael Johns is the National co-founder and leader of the Tea Party Movement. A former White House speechwriter and a Policy Analyst with The Heritage Foundation. Dr Ron Martinelli, is a retired police detective, a forensic criminologist, political analyst and Host of Talking While Married.  Viewpoint This Sunday reports on the stories with the goal of offering a unique perspective that challenges conventional thinking. Welcome to the Premier News Magazine as we celebrate our 4 Year Anniversary here at America Out Loud. Join WE THE PEOPLE to fight back against FAKE NEWS and Rate the show, leave a quick review and subscribe to Viewpoint on Apple Podcasts by clicking here. Your voice for the fight forward, Malcolm Out Loud. Cancelling America’s Culture | "Crowds shouldn’t be able to remove statues and elected officials shouldn’t let them," says Andrew Bennett Morehead, a spokesman for the Virginia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to remove 11 confederate statues from the US Capitol. Military Bases to Rename Military Installations | Joe Biden has come out in support of renaming military bases. Maj Gen Malcolm Frost in June 2015 said, “These historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” And now we’re seeing Big Brands react, music artists changing their names, and Executives resigning over expressing their opinions in tweets. Where does it all end? Ilana Freedman is a veteran intelligence analyst, political commentator and host. Dr Marty Fox is a surgeon, former talk show host and son of Holocaust survivors. The Politics of Looters Vs Lockdown | How is it that politicians encourage 'Peaceful Protests', yet they are against getting back to some level of normal activity? Some states say numbers rising and Wall Street reacts; what’s behind this reaction? The World Health Organization and their mixed messaging. The AAPS Sues FDA | A group of doctors has sued the Food and Drug Administration for limiting use of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, arguing that the therapy should be made widely available to fight the pandemic. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is an independent physician specializing in Preventive and Climacteric Medicine. Dr Ron Martinelli, is a retired police detective, a forensic criminologist and political analyst. June 14th 10 AM EST Encore Presentation AT 6 PM Available on Podcast Networks After 1 PM

Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone: CHAZ | Protesters in Seattle, Washington, declared an area that includes the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct as the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” after Seattle Police and the National Guard pulled out of the region. Defund Police morphs to Abolish Police | All of this has sparked a debate as to whether the Defund the Police movement is a broad description of police reform or if it truly means the end of policing in America - and what does that look like? Radical Groups Takeover of America | Who is in charge here in America? Why are governors and mayors standing by and allowing this destruction to happen? Michael Johns is the National co-founder and leader of the Tea Party Movement. A former White House speechwriter and a Policy Analyst with The Heritage Foundation. Dr Ron Martinelli, is a retired police detective, a forensic criminologist, political analyst and Host of Talking While Married.  Viewpoint This Sunday reports on the stories with the goal of offering a unique perspective that challenges conventional thinking. Welcome to the Premier News Magazine as we celebrate our 4 Year Anniversary here at America Out Loud. Join WE THE PEOPLE to fight back against FAKE NEWS and Rate the show, leave a quick review and subscribe to Viewpoint on Apple Podcasts by clicking here. Your voice for the fight forward, Malcolm Out Loud. Cancelling America’s Culture | "Crowds shouldn’t be able to remove statues and elected officials shouldn’t let them," says Andrew Bennett Morehead, a spokesman for the Virginia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to remove 11 confederate statues from the US Capitol. Military Bases to Rename Military Installations | Joe Biden has come out in support of renaming military bases. Maj Gen Malcolm Frost in June 2015 said, “These historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” And now we’re seeing Big Brands react, music artists changing their names, and Executives resigning over expressing their opinions in tweets. Where does it all end? Ilana Freedman is a veteran intelligence analyst, political commentator and host. Dr Marty Fox is a surgeon, former talk show host and son of Holocaust survivors. The Politics of Looters Vs Lockdown | How is it that politicians encourage 'Peaceful Protests', yet they are against getting back to some level of normal activity? Some states say numbers rising and Wall Street reacts; what’s behind this reaction? The World Health Organization and their mixed messaging. The AAPS Sues FDA | A group of doctors has sued the Food and Drug Administration for limiting use of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, arguing that the therapy should be made widely available to fight the pandemic. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is an independent physician specializing in Preventive and Climacteric Medicine. Dr Ron Martinelli, is a retired police detective, a forensic criminologist and political analyst. June 14th 10 AM EST Encore Presentation AT 6 PM Available on Podcast Networks After 1 PM

- Australia is racist  - BLM are right - NatSoc Elmo - #ChazWozzers - Australian cooking show To support the show, please subscribe on Podbean, iTunes or Patreon Join the live audience on D-Live Follow on Twitter @BoogieBumper Join the Discord Grab Daily Boogie Merch Show links;  Project Healthy Heart Australia has ‘chronic' racism, says China's state media Police are threatening fines and arrests for people planning to march through Sydney's streets Coronavirus: National Cabinet eases gathering restrictions Why are Elmo and his Dad on a video call? Congressional Democrats take a knee as they observe a nearly nine minute moment of silence for George Floyd at Emancipation Hall at the U.S. Capitol. This moment is a wake-up call for all of us Seattle police chief meets with protesters who remain at East Precinct after officers scale back Mayor, Police Chief address East Precinct, CHAZ and President Trumps threats to Seattle Seattle Mayor: CHAZ is a “peaceful expression of our community's collective grief and their desire to build a better world.” The “Autonomous” zone doesn't seem all that autonomous... U aint want no Problems w/me & IceHouse Edge, Self Pie-solation

Chapter 1: Commercial rent assistance, as well as the other programs to support small businesses in response to COVID-19. Small business owners are worried because the rental assistance and eviction protections are set to expire at the end of the month with no assurance customers will come back anytime soon.  Guest: Mary Ng, Federal Minister of Small Business.  Chapter 2: Wild variations in COVID-19 transmission across Canada.  Why are Ontario and Quebec still reporting hundreds of new cases of COVID-19 every day? There were 14 new cases announced in BC yesterday, Ontario had over 200, and Quebec had 144. Testing rates in both provinces are much higher than here in BC on a per capita basis, so why are we seeing such a big difference in the number of new cases across the country? Guest: Colin Furness Associate Professor at U of T's Faculty of Information and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.  Chapter 3: Seattle protest Protesters in Seattle have occupied several blocks outside the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct since Monday. Now at the end of the week, the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone”, otherwise known as CHAZ, remains.  President Trump called those occupying the area around the precinct “domestic terrorists” and told the people of Seattle “Take back your city NOW. If you don't do it, I will.”  Guest: Hanna Scott, reporter with KIRO-TV in Seattle.  Chapter 4:  BC records highest number of fatal overdoses in a single month  It's the other ongoing health crisis amid the COVID-19 pandemic: opioids. Yesterday afternoon BC reported that there were 170 illicit drug deaths in the month of May, the highest number since they began tracking them, and three more than the total number of deaths from COVID-19 to date.  Guest: Garth Mullins, host of the Crackdown podcast about drugs and drug policy.  Guest: Donald MacPherson, Executive Director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.  Chapter 5: Liberals fail to win support for latest CERB bill on fraud fines The honeymoon period between the federal government and opposition leaders might be over after they chose not to support legislation yesterday in the House of Commons. We've seen unanimous consent for some of the big pieces that brought rent and wage subsidies online quickly, but stonewalling yesterday could signal a shift in that unified front.  Parliament has been operating under special pandemic rules since mid-March, and calls for them to get back to business as normal have been getting louder.  Guest: David Akin, Global News chief political correspondent.  Chapter 6: BC restaurants are no longer limited to 50% capacity for dine-in patron Welcome news for the restaurant industry in BC yesterday as the province unveiled less restrictive guidelines for reopening.  We're joined by Mark von Schellwitz with Restaurants Canada to talk about what they're hearing from restaurant owners, and what these new regulations look like.  Restaurant Canada Survey shows over half of the restaurants that reopened are operating at a loss right now.  Guest: Mark von Schellwitz, Vice President in Western Canada for Restaurants Canada. 

Police in Seattle abandoned their East Precinct building and ceded about six blocks of the city to protestors, who have now set up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or CHAZ. Some conservatives are comparing that area to “Lord of the Flies,” while those on the ground say it’s more like orientation week at Evergreen State College. Another 1.5 million workers filed for unemployment last week. Trump plans to hold rallies again starting next Friday, building up to a packed RNC speech that’s now officially set for Jacksonville. And in headlines: a giant fuel spill in Siberia, a new police unit in Hong Kong, and Twitter wants you to read. Plus, Erin Ryan fills in for Akilah Hughes. Listen to her podcast! http://apple.co/hysteria

INTERVIEW – JULIO ROSAS – TOWNHALL.com – IN SEATTLE TOPIC: Describes The Scene From The “Autonomous Zone” In Seattle The recently dubbed ‘Autonomous Zone’ is a section of a Seattle neighborhood where police officers have effectively abandoned the area due to violent clashes with demonstrators calling to ‘Defund the Police’. Protesters have taken control of the area spanning six blocks.  – Julio Rosas @Julio_Rosas11: My latest report from the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone“: Things are getting dangerous for people who are accused of wrongdoing. In one instance, an accused thief was surrounded by a crowd and interrogated, with one person brandishing a bat in his face.  https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1271166157412634624 – Julio Rosas @Julio_Rosas11: Jun 11: Protesters called the fire department about the dumpster fire. https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1270968437179740160 Cracks Are Starting to Appear at Seattle’s ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone’ By Julio Rosas| @Julio_Rosas11|Posted: Jun 11, 2020 3:35 PM Seattle, Wash. — In a shock to no one, days after Seattle’s government gave the area around the city’s East Precinct to protesters following days of unrest, there are tensions within the loose coalition of people occupying the area and evidence they still are relying on city’s services to help the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” While the zone has been relatively peaceful, it took less than 48 hours for an armed local, a rapper by the name of Raz Simone, to start “policing” the area with firearms. This led to a tense confrontation with a tagger that resulted in an alleged assault of a streamer who recorded the interaction. The problems have not stopped there. In addition to still utilizing the city’s power, water, and porta-potties, the occupiers called the Seattle Fire Department after a dumpster fire was started just outside the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” as it threatened to set a nearby building on fire. Without the presence of police in the area, things can be dangerous for people accused of wrongdoing. In one instance, a young man was accused of stealing a phone from another protester. A crowd quickly surrounded him and tried to interrogate him, with one individual brandishing a baseball bat in the man’s face. The accused thief was clearly frightened and explained he did not steal anything, to which the crowd asked why did he run away. The situation was resolved after it was discovered the phone was never stolen, but it only came after the man was able to once again run away from the crowd. President Trump has tweeted that if the city of Seattle or Washington state refuses to get the situation under control in the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” then the federal government will have to step in. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/06/11/cracks-appear-capitol-hill-zone-n2570461

Mornings on the Mall 06.12.20 Hosts: Mary Walter and Vince Coglianese Guests: WaPo's Dana Hedgpeth, Tom Fitton, Julio Rosas in Seattle and Bret Baier 5-A WORRY TROLLING OF SECOND WAVE OF CORONAVIRUS: Two hairstylists who had coronavirus saw 140 clients. No new infections have been linked to the salon, officials say No cases of coronavirus have been linked to two Missouri hairstylists who saw 140 clients last month while symptomatic, county health officials said.  Both stylists worked at the same Great Clips location in Springfield. The clients and the stylists all wore face coverings, and the salon had set up other measures such as social distancing of chairs and staggered appointments, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department said this week. Of the 140 clients and seven co-workers potentially exposed, 46 took tests that came back negative. All the others were quarantined for the duration of the coronavirus incubation period. The 14-day incubation period has now passed with no coronavirus cases linked to the salon beyond the two stylists, county health officials said. During the quarantine, those who did not get tested got a call twice a day from health officials asking whether they had symptoms related to Covid-19, said Kathryn Wall, a spokeswoman for the Springfield-Green County Health Department. "This is exciting news about the value of masking to prevent Covid-19," said Clay Goddard, the county's director of health. DOJ BRINGS HAMMER DOWN ON MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD... KERRI KUPEC: NEW: DOJ Letter “During a crisis it is important for people of faith to be able to exercise their religion. Montgomery County has shown no good reason for not trusting congregants who promise to use care in worship the same way it trusts political protesters to do the same.” (LETTER) 5-D --  JUDICIAL WATCH ASKS BOWSER TO PAINT MESSAGE ON DC STREET Judicial Watch Asks DC Mayor for Permission to Paint ‘Because No One is Above Law!’ on Capitol Hill Street Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has asked Mayor Muriel Bowser for permission to paint its own message on Washington, D.C., streets, after the mayor allowed “Black Lives Matter” to be painted on a road leading to the White House before “Defund The Police” was added by protesters. Judicial Watch asked Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine for permission to paint “Because No One is Above the Law!” on a Capitol Hill street. “Mayor Bowser made a decision to turn D.C. streets into a forum for public expression. Judicial Watch seeks equal access to use this new forum to educate Americans by painting our organization’s motto and motivation, ‘Because No One Is Above the Law!,’ on a Capitol Hill street,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. The conservative group said it is prepared to sue, if their request is denied, on the basis of “viewpoint discrimination.” “This rule of law message is timely, as it is a reminder that rule of law applies to – and protects – all Americans," Fitton said. "If we are unlawfully denied access and face viewpoint discrimination, we are prepared to go to court to vindicate our First Amendment rights.” D.C.’s liberal mayor had "Black Lives Matter" painted in bright yellow letters on the street that runs into the White House amid the ongoing protests against police brutality and racial injustice in the wake of the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month. Floyd died in police custody on May 25 after a police officer kneeled on his neck for more than 8 minutes. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-group-asks-dc-mayor-for-permission-to-paint-their-own-message-on-street 5-E - STARBUCKS BANS EMPLOYEES FROM WEARING BLM TAGGED CLOTHING According to an internal bulletin obtained by BuzzFeed News, store managers had been contacting senior leadership on behalf of employees who wanted to wear BLM-related attire as protests continued to sweep major cities and small towns across the country. In response, management, according to the memo from last week, argued that wearing clothing and accessories highlighting Black Lives Matter could be misunderstood and potentially incite violence. The bulletin pointed employees to a video, which has now been removed, in which its VP of inclusion and diversity explained that "agitators who misconstrue the fundamental principles" of the movement and could use them to "amplify divisiveness." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/starbucks-is-now-very-pro-black-lives-matter-but-it-wont?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc 6-A -- MILLEY APOLOGIZES: Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley says it was 'mistake' to appear with Trump in Lafayette Square Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley on Thursday expressed regret for accompanying President Trump during a photo-op last week at Lafayette Square amid protests, calling the decision “a mistake” – in the latest sign of friction between the White House and the military over the response to racial unrest. Milley made the remarks during a remote video speech to graduates at National Defense University, advising young officers to “always maintain a keen sense of situational awareness.” “As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched,” he said. “And I am not immune. “As many of you saw, the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week. That sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society,” Milley continued. “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” He added: “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.” Thursday was the first time Milley addressed the visit to Lafayette Square since the incident earlier this month. Milley did not address the issue of renaming the 10 U.S. Army bases named after Confederate generals – after President Trump made clear a day earlier he would not support such a discussion – but acknowledged the U.S. military’s “mixed record on equality.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joint-chiefs-chairman-milley-says-it-was-mistake-to-appear-with-trump-in-lafayette-square 6-B/C -- BIDEN NEWS: NYT: Biden says Floyd’s death is having a bigger impact than the King assassination Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said on Thursday that the killing of George Floyd in police custody had a larger effect globally than the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. "Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did,” Mr. Biden said at a roundtable event in Philadelphia. Mr. Biden noted that “television changed the civil rights movement for the better,” and added that the prevalence of cellphones today had “changed the way everybody’s looking at this.” 'Uh With Uh I Don't Know:' Joe Biden Appears To Lose Train Of Thought During Coronavirus Roundtable Former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to lose his train of thought Thursday, during a coronavirus roundtable discussion hosted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign. The roundtable was organized to discuss safety measures as most of the U.S. reopens for business. “You know the rapidly rising umm uh in with uh with I uh don’t know,” Biden said at one point during the event. 6-D -- INTERVIEW - DANA HEDGPETH - WASHINGTON POST - discussed the DC area loosening restrictions around the DC area today and Monday. MARYLAND - MD GOVERNOR HOGAN LOOSENING RESTRICTIONS TODAY, MOCO LIKELY TO REOPEN NEXT WEEK:  Hogan announces wave of reopenings, including day cares and gyms, as region lifts more restrictions in Maryland. Montgomery County plans to move to Phase 2 of reopening next week.  Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) announced Wednesday that the state’s day cares, gyms, malls, school buildings, casinos and amusement parks can reopen within the next 10 days — an extension of its Phase 2 reopening. Restaurants will be able to offer indoor dining with 50 percent capacity. Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D) said Wednesday that the state’s largest jurisdiction will probably enter its next phase of reopening next week — a timeline he said was “in the same ballpark” as the District and Prince George’s County, neither of which has made an announcement — but Elrich did not provide a date. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/montgomery-maryland-virginia-coronavirus-phase-2/2020/06/10/968a2440-ab06-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html - PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY REOPENING ON MONDAY: Prince George’s County will enter next phase of coronavirus recovery on Monday, loosening more restrictions. Indoor restaurant dining and retail store operation will be allowed in Prince George’s, both at 50 percent capacity.  Maryland’s Prince George’s County announced Thursday it is moving toward its next phase of reopening, part of a collective shift toward looser pandemic restrictions in the Washington region that some health experts warn may be happening too quickly. Prince George’s County executive Angela D. Alsobrooks (D) said declining rates in new covid-19 deaths, hospitalizations and coronavirus infections support moving to a second phase of reopening Monday — when, among other things, restaurants can offer dine-in service and swimming pools can open, both with social distancing restrictions Prince George’s officials said the second phase of reopening will mean restaurants can offer dine-in service and retail stores can stop limiting operations only to curbside service, provided those businesses limit customers to 50 percent of capacity. Outdoor pools — both public and private — can open at 25 percent capacity, but indoor pools will remain closed, officials said. Parks can reopen and youth sports teams will be able to begin practicing in groups of 10 or less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/coronavirus-maryland-prince-georges-virginia-dc-phase-2/2020/06/11/0b88bd34-abe7-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html NORTHERN VIRGINIA REOPENING  - Northern Virginia to ease coronavirus restrictions Friday; Northern Virginia and Richmond will move to the next phase of shutdown recovery starting Friday, Gov. Ralph Northam announced, as data shows the novel coronavirus appears to be slowing its spread across the region. The looser restrictions include opening restaurants for indoor dining at half capacity and allowing gyms and fitness centers to reopen indoors at 30 percent capacity. Most of Virginia entered Phase 2 earlier this month, but Northern Virginia and Richmond were granted delays because they had been hit harder by the pandemic. In addition, Northam (D) said Virginia students will return to school in the fall if the state continues to limit the spread of the virus. Phase 2 of the education reopening plan allows for in-person teaching for prekindergarten through third-grade students, students with disabilities and students who are not fluent in English. Strict social distancing protocols must be enforced; on school buses, just one child may be assigned to each seat, Northam said. School assemblies and other large gatherings are limited to 50 people; school clubs and extracurricular activities may be reinstated as long as students follow social distancing guidelines. Student-athletes are permitted to resume practices, so long as they keep 10 feet away from one another and disinfect shared equipment, such as helmets and uniforms, between uses. Northam sounded confident the state will be in Phase 3 in time for school to open, but officials said that will depend on current favorable trends continuing. Local schools may impose tighter restrictions if they need to. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/northern-virginia-to-ease-coronavirus-restrictions-friday/2020/06/09/95033ee4-aa58-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html 6-E -- HOLLYWOOD GETS PREACHY Sarah Paulson, Kristen Bell, Aaron Paul and other white celebrities are slammed for 'tone deaf' I Take Responsibility PSA video that smacks of 'white guilt' By BRIAN GALLAGHER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Three months after Gal Gadot and other celebs caught backlash for their video singing Imagine, another group of white celebs are facing backlash for another PSA. Confluential Content, a production company that produces OWN's Black Love and Sony's The Perfect Guy, teamed up with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for a video called I Take Responsibility. The two-minute video features white celebs such as Sarah Paulson, Aaron Paul, Aly Raisman, Ilana Glazer, Stanley Tucci and many more taking responsibility for perpetuating racism in their lives, vowing to take action, which has drawn backlash from many on social media. The black and white video begins with Sarah Paulson saying 'I take responsibility,' followed by Aaron Paul and Kesha. Bethany Joy Lenz added that she takes responsibility, 'for every unchecked moment,' while Kristen Bell added she is responsible, 'for every time it was easier to ignore it than to call it out for what it was.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8412825/Sarah-Paulson-Aaron-Paul-team-NAACP-Responsibility-PSA-video.html 6-F -- IT’S OFFICIAL: GOP CONVENTION IN JACKSONVILLE RONNA MCDANIEL: We are thrilled to hold @realDonaldTrump's acceptance of the Republican nomination in the great city of Jacksonville! Not only is Florida his home state, it is crucial to victory. We look forward to bringing this great celebration and economic boon to the Sunshine State! Republicans pick Jacksonville, Florida, as convention site for Trump to accept nomination The move to the crucial battleground state comes after the committee was at loggerheads with North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, whose was reluctant to ease COVID-19 restrictions. The Republican National Committee announced Thursday that it had selected Jacksonville, Florida, as the site where President Donald Trump will accept the party's nomination after bailing on Charlotte, North Carolina, over coronavirus restrictions. "We are thrilled to celebrate this momentous occasion in the great city of Jacksonville," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. "Not only does Florida hold a special place in President Trump's heart as his home state, but it is crucial in the path to victory in 2020. We look forward to bringing this great celebration and economic boon to the Sunshine State in just a few short months." The move to Florida, a crucial battleground state, comes after the committee was at loggerheads with North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, whose was reluctant to ease COVID-19 restrictions.  The convention is scheduled for the week of Aug. 24; Trump will accept the Republican presidential nomination at VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena. There is still a plan to hold all convention business in Charlotte because of contractual obligations between the city and Republican National Committee. Jacksonville is one of the largest cities in the U.S. to be led by a Republican mayor, Lenny Curry, the former head of the state's Republican Party and an ally of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has eased restrictions in the state. DeSantis said in a statement that he was "honored" to host the convention. Curry called it "a huge win" for the city. Others have also noted that despite nationwide reckoning over racial discrimination in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, Trump's acceptance speech, which traditionally occurs on the final day of the convention, falls on the 60th anniversary of one of Jacksonville's most horrific events during the civil rights movement — Ax Handle Saturday. Sixty years ago, several members of the NAACP's youth council participated in a sit-in at a whites-only lunch counter and were later chased through the streets of downtown Jacksonville by a mob of 200 white people, who attacked them with ax handles and baseball bats. Trump's campaign and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rnc-picks-jacksonville-florida-convention-site-trump-accept-gop-nomination-n1230326 7-A -- SEATTLE: Trump tells Fox News he won't 'let Seattle be occupied by anarchists' President Trump told Fox News' Harris Faulkner in an exclusive interview Thursday that his administration is "not going to let Seattle be occupied by anarchists." https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-seattle-occupied-anarchists-straighten-it-out 'I'M ANGRY'... Seattle Police Chief Says Abandoning Precinct ‘Was Not My Decision’ Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, in a Thursday address, told officers that it was not her decision to abandon the East Police Precinct located in what protesters are now calling the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” The “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” formed after the Seattle Police Department evacuated the East Precinct Monday giving way for protesters to set up barricades, and signs near the Zone’s entrance that read, “You are now leaving the USA.” After days of protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, Seattle police boarded up and left the East Precinct building Monday night – and then a crowd of protesters set up barricades in the surrounding area, declaring it an “autonomous” and “cop-free zone.” Images of the barricades show hand-written messages including “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and “You are now leaving the USA.” “You should know, leaving the precinct was not my decision,” Best said in the address. “You fought for days to protect it. I asked you to stand on that line. Day in and day out, to be pelted with projectiles, to be screamed at, threatened and in some cases hurt. Then to have a change of course nearly two weeks in, it seems like an insult to you and our community.” “Ultimately the city had other plans for the building and relented to public pressure. I’m angry about how this all came about.” WARLORD PATROLS CHAZ... “We are the police of this community now!” ... “We got to the point where addressing the point physically was the best way to get our point across.” ... The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Has Already Had Its First Incident Of Self-Appointed-Police Violence (VIDEO) The denizens of this new experiment in police-free living were probably envisioning a utopia full of peace and community love. Instead they got a new self-appointed police force led by a rapper named Raz Simone. Early this morning someone posted a video clip to Reddit which shows Simone and a group of people confronting a graffiti artist. Things escalate and eventually the tagger is assaulted by someone in the group and has his phone taken away. [...] tl;dw: Man was tagging over someone else’s art, Raz and group approach and separate him from crowd, chasing him for two blocks. He begins to film them with his phone, they take it from him. He tries to get it back and they attack him, kicking him in the head and breaking his glasses. At one point, Raz threatens to shoot the man. They then begin to gaslight him that it was all his fault. Audio only for most of the end, because woman in Raz’ crew filming puts the phone in her pocket while the stream continues. TUCKER: ‘Not a Big Deal, a Brand-New Nation Within Our Own Borders’ (VIDEO) “[S]o CHAZ is a nation without leaders. It is a flat system. It is anarchy. How long can it continue? Probably not very long. Anarchy isn’t built to last. In the end, the strong always dominate the week. And, in fact, it’s already happening. It took barely a day for the nation to get its first warlord, and it was quite a promotion for him. Just a week ago, Raz Simone was an up-and-coming rapper. He was also a super host for Airbnb. Now, he has a monarch. In videos taken within CHAZ, Simone is seen patrolling the area with his allies. They have guns. They’re declaring ‘we’re the police now.’ In one clip, the monarch’s men assault a citizen of CHAZ for spray painting graffiti inside the zone. Just like the mafia, CHAZ doesn’t put up with nonsense like that in their own neighborhood.” ‘Closest I’ve Seen To Our Country Becoming A Lawless State’: Seattle Police Union President Rips Mayor’s Defense Of CHAZ (VIDEO) Solan wondered whether the surrender of one police facility would eventually mean others, including the precinct “which houses the 911 call center,” which would stop all police service in the city. “So where is the reasonableness here?” he asked. “Where is the safety of the reasonable community of the city of Seattle? To me, that is absolutely appalling, and I am embarrassed being a Seattle resident to even talk about this.” Reacting to the defund the police movement, the police union chief noted that success in this area would mean lack of much-needed training, which would eventually mean a decline in the “quality” of “police service.” After Carlson played a clip of Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan describing the protesters as engaging in “patriotism” rather than “terrorism,” Solan said officer morale “is the lowest I have ever seen in my career.” No Police, Extortion Of Private Businesses: Inside The Latest On Seattle’s Downtown ‘Autonomous Zone’ Seattle police say they are not responding to calls for assistance while armed protesters operate checkpoints and have declared a portion of the city as “cop-free” and an “autonomous zone.” The area is called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) by the forces who have occupied it, KOMO News reported Thursday morning. Antifa-affiliated groups and armed members of the far-left John Brown Gun Club seized control of the neighborhood, according to the City-Journal, which also reports that they set up barricades with a cardboard sign declaring “you are now leaving the USA.” President Donald Trump has called the activists “domestic terrorists” and has urged Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan to deal with the problem in her backyard,  Durkan told Trump Thursday to “to go back to your bunker.” Trump urged both the Washington governor and mayor to “take back your city NOW.” 7:35 AM - INTERVIEW - TOM FITTON - President, Judicial Watch Judicial Watch Asks DC Mayor for Permission to Paint ‘Because No One is Above Law!’ on Capitol Hill Street Seeks Equal Access to New Free Speech Forum After DC Government Authorized Painting of Political Slogan on DC Street (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it has formally asked District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and DC Attorney General Karl Racine for permission to paint “Because No One is Above the Law!” on a Capitol Hill street (Independence Ave, SW between 2nd and 4th Streets SW). The Judicial Watch message would be the identical size and coloring of the DC Government’s “Black Lives Matter” political message on 16th Street NW. On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington, DC, Mayor Bowser authorized the painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW, and later allowed “Defund the Police” to be painted alongside it. “Mayor Bowser made a decision to turn DC streets into a forum for public expression. Judicial Watch seeks equal access to use this new forum to educate Americans by painting our organization’s motto and motivation, ‘Because No One Is Above the Law!,’ on a Capitol Hill street,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This rule of law message is timely, as it a reminder that rule of law applies to – and protects – all Americans. If we are unlawfully denied access and face viewpoint discrimination, we are prepared to go to court to vindicate our First Amendment rights.” 7-E -- POLICE GET CALLED ON MARYLAND FAMILY FOR STUDENT HAVING A BB GUN IN THE BACKGROUND OF HIS ONLINE CLASSROOM VIDEO: 'I felt violated': Police search Maryland house over BB gun in virtual class BALTIMORE, Md. (WBFF) – A Baltimore County family is warning other parents after they say police were called to their house over something that happened during a virtual school lesson. The incident is raising concerns over privacy and safety in the era of online learning. As a Navy veteran with four years of active duty, Courtney Lancaster has extensive knowledge of guns, how to use them and how to store them. Her 11-year-old son, who owns BB guns, is a boy scout in fifth grade at Seneca Elementary School. “He's just a very intellectual child, but he's all boy as well. He loves to be outside and play and ride his bikes and that sort of thing,” Courtney told Project Baltimore. In his pursuit of becoming an Eagle Scout, Courtney says her son has learned how to shoot a BB gun and an airsoft gun. He’s also taken three levels of archery lessons. His mother says he stores his bow and guns on this wall in his bedroom. It’s never been a problem until June 1, when police pulled up outside her house. Courtney says she was home with her son who’s been doing virtual learning since schools shut down in March. “So, I answered the door. The police officer was, he was very nice. He explained to me that he was coming to address an issue with my son's school,” Courtney told Project Baltimore. “And then explained to me that he was here to search for weapons, in my home. And I consented to let him in. And then I, unfortunately, stood there and watched police officers enter my 11-year-old son's bedroom.” Courtney was told someone had seen the guns in her son’s bedroom during a Google Meet class on his laptop. “I thought, this is outrageous. This is despicable,” she said. “I had no idea what in the world could this be over? BB guns never even once entered my mind. How many 11-year-old boys have BB guns?” According to emails Courtney later exchanged with a school administrator, a screenshot was taken during the online class. The principal of Seneca Elementary was notified. Courtney says she was told the school safety officer then called police. “I felt violated as a parent, for my child, who's standing there with police officers in his room, just to see the fear on his face,” she said. Courtney says the police officers were in her home for about 20 minutes and found no violations. No laws were broken and no dangers present. They left without any further action, but Courtney wasn’t done. Since that day, she has written school administrators, the superintendent and the school board, demanding answers. She says the principal initially compared bringing a weapon to a virtual class to bringing a gun to school. She was also told she could not see the screenshot of her son’s bedroom, because it’s not part of his student record. “It's absolutely scary to think about,” Courtney said. “Who are on these calls? Who do we have viewing your children and subsequently taking these screenshots that can be sent anywhere or used for any purpose?” Project Baltimore reached out to Baltimore County Schools requesting an interview. We received this statement, “Our longstanding policy is to not debate individual circumstances through the media. There are multiple ways for families to share concerns with us. In general terms, the safety of students and staff is our chief concern, whether we are meeting in classrooms or via continuity of learning.” Courtney says she understands the safety concerns, but no one called her first before involving police. “There's no more trust. There have just been a series of lies and just no cooperation,” she said. Now, she worries about the future of virtual learning without clear policies in place. “So, what are the parameters? Where are the lines drawn? If my son is sitting at the kitchen island next to a butcher block, does that constitute a weapon? It's not allowed at school, right? So, would my home then be searched because he's sitting next to a butcher block,” Courtney said. “I feel like parents need to be made aware of what the implications are, what the expectations are.” https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/i-felt-violated-police-search-maryland-house-over-bb-gun-in-virtual-class 8-A -- CRAZY PROTESTERS Glass Found In Pizza Delivered To South Carolina National Guard Soldiers While They Were Protecting DC... Two National Guard soldiers found pieces of glass baked into a pizza they had ordered to their Washington D.C. hotel, the Post and Courier reported.  A Department of Defense report said that the South Carolina National Guard soldiers ordered pizza to the Marriott Marquis Hotel in D.C. while they were deployed to assist police in handling the George Floyd protests, according to the Post and Courier. The soldiers used UberEats to order the food from an unnamed restaurant. They noticed the shards of glass in the cheese and dough before they started eating, the Post and Courier reported. BOSTON GLOBE: Berklee College of Music says it is “deeply sorry” for allowing Boston police officers to use the school’s restrooms Berklee College of Music says it is “deeply sorry” for allowing Boston police officers to use the school’s restrooms, following the downtown protests on May 31 in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. And the school says it will not happen again. In a joint statement Wednesday night, Berklee President Roger Brown, chief financial officer Mac Hisey, and public safety chief David Ransom said the college had heard expressions of anger and betrayal from their community, after giving Boston police officers, who were staged at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Boylston Street, access to the Back Bay school’s restrooms. “Boston Police of course have jurisdiction over the roads and other public spaces around our campus, but not inside our buildings,” Berklee officials said. (Like many colleges, Berklee has its own public safety department.) “The decision to allow them into our facilities was ours,” the statement continued. “This was not a formal decision by the institution, but an informal one, made on the spot.” 8-B/C -- INTERVIEW - JULIO ROSAS - TOWNHALL.com - IN SEATTLE TOPIC: Describes The Scene From The “Autonomous Zone” In Seattle The recently dubbed 'Autonomous Zone' is a section of a Seattle neighborhood where police officers have effectively abandoned the area due to violent clashes with demonstrators calling to 'Defund the Police'. Protesters have taken control of the area spanning six blocks.  - Julio Rosas @Julio_Rosas11: My latest report from the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone“: Things are getting dangerous for people who are accused of wrongdoing. In one instance, an accused thief was surrounded by a crowd and interrogated, with one person brandishing a bat in his face.  https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1271166157412634624 - Julio Rosas @Julio_Rosas11: Jun 11: Protesters called the fire department about the dumpster fire. https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1270968437179740160 Cracks Are Starting to Appear at Seattle's 'Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone' By Julio Rosas| @Julio_Rosas11|Posted: Jun 11, 2020 3:35 PM Seattle, Wash. — In a shock to no one, days after Seattle's government gave the area around the city's East Precinct to protesters following days of unrest, there are tensions within the loose coalition of people occupying the area and evidence they still are relying on city's services to help the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone." While the zone has been relatively peaceful, it took less than 48 hours for an armed local, a rapper by the name of Raz Simone, to start "policing" the area with firearms. This led to a tense confrontation with a tagger that resulted in an alleged assault of a streamer who recorded the interaction. The problems have not stopped there. In addition to still utilizing the city's power, water, and porta-potties, the occupiers called the Seattle Fire Department after a dumpster fire was started just outside the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" as it threatened to set a nearby building on fire. Without the presence of police in the area, things can be dangerous for people accused of wrongdoing. In one instance, a young man was accused of stealing a phone from another protester. A crowd quickly surrounded him and tried to interrogate him, with one individual brandishing a baseball bat in the man's face. The accused thief was clearly frightened and explained he did not steal anything, to which the crowd asked why did he run away. The situation was resolved after it was discovered the phone was never stolen, but it only came after the man was able to once again run away from the crowd. President Trump has tweeted that if the city of Seattle or Washington state refuses to get the situation under control in the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone," then the federal government will have to step in. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/06/11/cracks-appear-capitol-hill-zone-n2570461 8-D -- 8:35 AM - INTERVIEW - BRET BAIER - Anchor of "Special Report" on Fox News Channel weekdays at 6 pm and author of the latest book "Three Days at the Brink: FDR's Daring Gamble to Win World War II" TOPIC: News of the day 8-E -- CONFEDERATE STATUES AND MONUMENTS DEBATE IN VIRGINIA AND CONGRESS: - Citing dangers to protesters, Northam urges them to stop pulling down monuments  At least three Confederate statues have been taken down by protesters in Virginia since demonstrations began in late May, and with at least one person getting severely injured in the process, Gov. Ralph Northam urged protesters to be safe and let the local governments handle the monuments’ removal instead. “I know these statues are causing a lot of pain, but pulling them down is not worth risking someone’s life,” Northam said at a press conference in Richmond. On Wednesday night in Portsmouth, protesters began by throwing paint and tagging graffiti onto the statue honoring the Confederate dead. Gradually, they began beheading the four figures, hitting them with tools and removing a rifle and sword from their arms. One of the figures was pulled down using a tow rope and fell onto Chris Green, who was standing underneath it. Green was taken to the hospital, where he is being treated for life-threatening injuries, according to the Virginia State Police. Also on Wednesday, protesters in Richmond took down the statue of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, on Monument Avenue, the Washington Post reported. The statue was towed away by a truck a little before midnight. https://www.pilotonline.com/government/virginia/vp-nw-northam-confederate-statues-protests-20200611-vp2beakov5ai7okndnesbchzz4-story.html - Man injured when Portsmouth Confederate statue fell on him is fighting for his life.  Gov. Northam encourages protesters to let statues be removed 'the right way'  Chris Green, who had been trying to get people out of the way when one of the four Confederate statues on the monument in Portsmouth fell on him Wednesday night, is in stable condition, according to state police. Green, 45, was with hundreds of others who rallied around the statues Wednesday after the City Council put off taking action on removing the monument in a meeting earlier that night. Demonstrators beheaded the four statues and pulled one down with a tow rope. When the statue came down, Green was under it.He remains hospitalized in stable condition, Sgt. Michelle Anaya, spokeswoman for Virginia State Police, said Thursday night. Portsmouth Police asked state police to investigate the man’s injuries. Whether any charges are filed from the incident would be determined by the commonwealth’s attorney, Anaya said. Green lost consciousness after his head was cut open. Protesters first took a knee and then began to disperse as Green was taken to the hospital. https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-man-injured-20200611-3mp5z4smffanni7qr4dxkpja34-story.html   ============================================================ Mornings on the Mall Podcast - 2020-6-12 [00:00:00] 5:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [01:00:16] 6:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [02:00:27] 7:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [03:00:38] 8:00 am - Mornings on the Mall