Podcasts about head tax

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert chat about Raise the Wage Renton's special election win, how a rent stabilization bill passed out of the State House but faces an uphill battle in the State Senate, and the authorization of a strike by Alaska Airlines flight attendants. They then shift to how gender discrimination problems in the Seattle Police Department create a toxic work culture that impedes recruitment, the inexplicable pressing forward by Seattle on ShotSpotter while other cities reject it, and the failure of a philanthropic effort by business titans to solve the regional homelessness crisis. 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 “Renton $19 minimum wage hike ballot measure leading in early results” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times   “Washington State House Passes Rent Stabilization Bill” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Rent Stabilization Backers Aim to Beat Deadline to Keep Bill Alive” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   2024 Town Halls | Washington State House Democrats   “Alaska Airlines flight attendants authorize strike for first time in 3 decades” by Alex DeMarban from Anchorage Daily News   “The Seattle Police Department Has a Gender Discrimination Problem” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola   “Harrell Plans Hasty Rollout of Massive Surveillance Expansion” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   “Chicago will not renew controversial ShotSpotter contract, drawing support, criticism from aldermen” by Craig Wall and Eric Horng from ABC7 Chicago   “Despite Public Opinion, Seattle Cops and Prosecutors Still Prioritize Cracking Down on Sex Work” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Council's Public Safety Focus Will Be “Permissive Environment” Toward Crime” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “The private sector's biggest bet in homelessness fell apart. What now?” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Amazon donation is ‘another step' after homelessness group's collapse” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical shows and our Friday week-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review 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. [00:01:08] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back here again, Crystal. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Well, we've got a number of items to cover this week, starting with news that I'm certainly excited about - I think you are, too - that this week, in our February special election, Renton had a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage which passed. What are your takeaways from this? [00:01:31] Robert Cruickshank: It's a huge win, both in terms of the margin of victory so far - nearly 60% of Renton voters saying Yes to this in a February election with low turnout. It will raise the wage to around $20 an hour in Renton. And I think it's a clear sign that just as we saw voters in Tukwila last year, and just as in fact voters in SeaTac 11 years ago - kicking all this off - moving to $15 an hour with a city ballot initiative that year, voters in King County, Western Washington want higher minimum wages. And I don't even think we need to qualify it by saying King County in Western Washington. You can look around the country and see - in states like Arkansas, when people put initiatives on the ballot to raise the wage, they pass. So I think there's, yet again, widespread support for this. And I think it also shows that the politicians in Renton - there were several city councilmembers like Carmen Rivera who supported this. There are others, though - the majority of the Renton City Council didn't. They spouted a lot of the usual right-wing Chamber of Commerce arguments against raising the minimum wage, saying it would hurt small businesses and make it hard for workers - none of which actually happens in practice. And voters get that. Voters very clearly understand that you need to pay workers more - they deserve more, especially in a time of inflation. This has been understood for well over 10 years now - that the minimum wage wasn't rising quickly enough and it needs to keep going up. So I think it's a huge wake-up call to elected officials - not just in local city councils, but at the state legislature - they've got to keep doing work to make sure that workers are getting paid well and that the minimum wage keeps rising. [00:03:04] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. I also think, just for the campaign's purposes, this was really exciting to see. Again, not coming from some of the traditional places where we see ballot measures, campaigns being funded - great that they're funding progressive campaigns in other areas, but that these efforts are largely community-led, community-driven. The Raise the Wage Renton campaign, the Seattle DSA - the Democratic Socialists of America, Seattle chapter - were very involved, did a lot of the heavy lifting here. So really kudos to that entire effort - really important - and really showing that when people get together within communities to respond to problems that they're seeing and challenges that they face, they can create change. It doesn't take that many people acting together and in unison, speaking to their neighbors, to have this happen in city after city. And like you said, it started in SeaTac, and we see how far it's carried. I also think, as you alluded to, this puts other councils on notice. I know the City of Burien is talking about this right now, other cities are looking at this locally. And we have been hearing similar things from Burien city councilmembers that we heard from some of those Renton city councilmembers who declined to pass this on their own. They were parroting Chamber of Commerce talking points. They were parroting some old, disproven data. People recognize and so much data has shown that when you empower people, when you pay people, that is what fuels and builds economy. The economy is the people. So if the people aren't in good shape, the economy is not going to be in good shape. People recognize that. And we really do have to ask and reflect on - I think these elected officials need to reflect on - who are they serving? And where are they getting their information from? Because in city after city, we see overwhelmingly residents respond and say - This is absolutely something we want and we need. And there's this disconnect between them and their elected officials who are parroting these talking points - Well, we're worried about business. Well, we're worried about these. And I think they need to really pause and reflect and say - Okay, who are we really representing here? Where are we getting our information from and why are we seeing time after time that these talking points that have been used for decades, from the same old people and the same old sources, are completely falling flat with the public? I think they should be concerned about their own rhetoric falling flat with the public. They're certainly considering where these elected officials are as their reelections come due, as they're evaluating the job that they're doing. So I think they really need to think hard, evaluate where they are, and get aligned with the people who need the most help, who are trying to build lives in their communities. And stop making this go to the ballot. Stop making the people work harder for what they need - just pass this in your cities and make it so. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: Absolutely. It would be certainly better for working people - for the elected officials to do this themselves. I am noticing a growing trend, though, of progressive and left-wing activists - socialists in this case, DSA - going directly to the ballot when needed. We saw it in Tacoma with the renters' rights legislation last year. We've seen it last year with social housing. And now again this week, House Our Neighbors came out with the initiative to fund social housing, which they had to split in two - due to legal reasons, you had to create the developer first, and then now you have to fund it. And again, the city council had an opportunity to do both here in Seattle. They had the opportunity to create the authority. They passed on that. Then they had the opportunity to fund it. They passed on that. And I am bullish on House Our Neighbors' chances to get their funding initiative, which would be through a payroll tax on large employers, passed by voters this fall. Because again, social housing was super popular at the ballot last year in a February election. Now they're going to go for November 2024 election when there's going to be massive turnout. It's unfortunate that people are having to put a lot of time, money, effort into mounting independent efforts to get things on the ballot - that's hard. It takes a ton of work, not just the gathering signatures and raising money, but just keeping a coalition going and all the meetings and stuff. But hats off to the people who are able to do that. It's not a sustainable way to get progressive policy done, but in a moment where there are more members of city councils who are aligned with the big corporations and wealthy donors, it's what you're going to have to do and it's building power. Ultimately - hopefully - it starts leading into successful victories in city council elections around the region, just as it's led to successes at the ballot box for initiatives. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We saw in this effort, as we've seen in others, significant opposition from some elements in the business community. There were some businesses, especially small businesses, who were supportive of this, who were either already paying their employees higher wages because that's how you attract people in business - is not doing the absolute bare minimum. But we saw significant resources spent. This campaign was outspent. And still, the people made it clear what they wanted with another really, really impressive and strong margin. So we'll continue to follow where that goes. We will certainly continue to follow other ballot measures on the ballot as they develop this year, especially with House Our Neighbors and the Social Housing Initiative in Seattle - just going to be really interesting to see. Moving to the legislature, significant news this week that rent stabilization has passed the State House and now it moves on to the Senate. What will rent stabilization accomplish? [00:09:03] Robert Cruickshank: So the bill, HB 2114, which passed out of the State House - it was the last bill they took up before the deadline to pass bills out of their original house - limits the amount of increase in rent each year to 7%. So a landlord can only raise your rent 7% a year. This is modeled on similar legislation that was adopted in Oregon and California right before the pandemic - in Oregon and California, it's a 5% annual increase. This being Washington state, we can't do things exactly the way that are done elsewhere - we've got to water it down a little bit, so it's 7%. But it's not rent control in which a property or a apartment is permanently capped at a certain level, no matter who's renting it. Like the Oregon and California laws, this one in Washington would exempt new construction. And the reason you want to exempt new construction is to encourage people to keep building housing. And there's plenty of research that shows now that one of the most effective ways to bring rent down, not just cap its growth, is to build more housing. So building more housing and then capping the annual rent increase on housing that's been around for a while generally works. And you're seeing this in California and in Oregon - especially in cities that have been building more housing, rents have come down while those living in older apartments, older homes, are seeing their rents capped, so they're having an easier time affording rent. This is all good, and it made it out of the State House on mostly a party line vote - Democrats almost all in favor with a few exceptions, Republicans almost all against. Now it goes to the State Senate where there's a number of conservative Democrats, like Annette Cleveland from Vancouver who blocked the Senate's version of the bill, who's against it. Surely Mark Mullet, a conservative Democrat from Issaquah running for governor - surely against it. And Rich Smith in The Stranger had a piece yesterday in which he related his conversation with Jamie Pedersen from Capitol Hill, one of the most rent-burdened districts in the city, one of the districts in the state of Washington - legislative districts - with the most renters in it. And Pedersen was hemming and hawing on it. And so it's clear that for this bill to pass - it surely is popular with the public. Democrats, you would think, would want to do the right thing on housing costs going into an election. But it's gonna take some pressure on Democrats in the State Senate to pass the bill, especially without watering it down further. The bill that Annette Cleveland, the senator from Vancouver, had blocked in the Senate would cap rent increases at 15% a year. It's like. - Why would you even bother passing a bill at that point? 7% is itself, like I said, watering down what California and Oregon have done, but 7% is still a pretty valuable cap. Hopefully the Senate passes it as is. Hopefully the State Senate doesn't demand even more watering down. There's no need for that. Just pass the bill. Protect people who are renting. [00:11:44] Crystal Fincher: Agree. We absolutely need to pass the bill. I do appreciate the House making this such a priority - building on the work that they did to enable the building of more housing, which is absolutely necessary, last session. And this session moving forward with protecting people in their homes - trying to prevent our homelessness crisis from getting even worse with people being unable to afford rent, being displaced, being unable to stay where they're living, to maintain their current job. So that's really important. But it does face an uncertain future in the Senate. I do appreciate the reporting that Rich Smith did. He also covered some other State senators on the fence, including Jesse Salomon from Shoreline, John Lovick from Mill Creek, Marko Liias from Everett, Steve Conway from Tacoma, Drew Hansen from Bainbridge Island, Sam Hunt from Olympia, Lisa Wellman from Mercer Island, and Majority Leader Andy Billig being on the fence. And so it's going to be really important for people who do care about this to let their opinions be known to these senators. This is really going to be another example of where - they've obviously had concerns for a while, they're hearing talking points that we're used to hearing - that we know have been refuted, that maybe that information hasn't gotten to them yet. And maybe they don't realize how much of a concern this is for residents. They may be - they're in Olympia a lot of time, they're hearing from a lot of lobbyists - and they aren't as close sometimes to the opinions of the people in their districts. But one thing that many people need to understand is that many of these districts are having legislative town halls coming up as soon as this weekend, but certainly in short order. We'll put a link to where you can find that information in the show notes. Make it a point to attend one of those. If you can't, call, email, make your voice heard - it's really going to take you letting them know that this is a priority for you in order for this to happen. It's possible. So we really need to do all we can to ensure that they know how we feel. [00:13:58] Robert Cruickshank: Exactly. And those State senators you named, they are all from safe blue seats. Not a single one of them, except for maybe John Lovick in Mill Creek, is from a purplish district where they have to worry about any electoral impact. Although, to be honest, this stuff is popular. There are plenty of renters in purple districts who are rent-burdened and who would love to see the Democratic majority in Olympia help them out, help keep their rent more affordable. So it's a huge political win for them. Some of this may be ideological opposition. Some of them may be getting a lot of money from apartment owners and landlords. Who knows? You got to look at the case by case. But gosh, you would hope that the State Senate has political sense - understands that this is not only the right thing to do, but a winner with the electorate, and passes the bill. But it is Olympia. And unfortunately, the State Senate in particular is often where good ideas go to die in Olympia. So we'll see what happens. [00:14:48] Crystal Fincher: We will see. We'll continue to follow that. Also want to talk about Alaska Airlines flight attendants this week authorizing a strike. Why did they authorize this, and what does this mean? [00:15:01] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think it goes back to what we were talking about with workers in Renton. Flight attendants work long hours - they're not always paid for it. They're often only paid for when the flight is in the air. And their costs are going up, too. The expense of working in this country continues to rise and flight attendants continue to need to get paid well for that. Flight attendants' union is very well organized. There's the good Sara Nelson - Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants' union, not Sara Nelson, head of Seattle City Council - is an amazing labor leader and has done a really good job advocating for the flight attendants across the industry. And you see that in the strike authorization vote - it was almost unanimous with almost complete 100% turnout from members of the Alaska Flight Attendants Union. Alaska Airlines has been facing its own issues lately, especially with some of their Boeing jets having problems. They've also, for the last 20 years, at least tried to cut costs everywhere they could. They outsourced what used to be unionized baggage handlers at SeaTac many years ago - that caused a big uproar. It was, in fact, concerns about Alaska Airlines and how they're paying ground crews that was a major factor in driving the SeaTac minimum wage ballot initiative way back in 2013. So here we are now - the Alaska Airlines flight attendants looking to get better treatment, better wages and working conditions. And huge support from the union. And as we've seen in this decade in particular, huge support from the public. And I think it's really worth noting - you and I can both remember the 90s, 2000s, when workers went out on strike weren't always getting widespread public support. And corporations had an ability to work the media to try to turn public against striking workers - now, teachers always had public support, firefighters had public support, but other workers didn't always. But that's really shifted. Here, there's a widespread public agreement that workers need to be treated well and paid well. You see that in Raise the Wage Renton succeeding. You see that in the huge public support for Starbucks workers out on strike who want a union contract. And if Alaska Airlines forces its flight attendants out on strike, you will see widespread public support for them as well, especially here in western Washington, where Alaska maintains a strong customer base. People in the Seattle area are loyal to Alaska, and they're going to support Alaska's flight attendants if they have to go out on strike. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's still a number of steps that would need to happen in order for it to lead to an actual strike. The flight attendants' union and Alaska Airlines are currently in negotiations, which according to an Alaska statement, is still ongoing. They signal positivity there. Hopefully that is the case and that continues. But first-year flight attendants right now are averaging less than $24,000 in salary annually. And especially here, but basically anywhere, that's not a wage you can live on. Those are literally poverty wages. And this is happening while Alaska Airlines has touted significant profits, very high profits. They're in the process of attempting to acquire another airline for $1.9 billion right now. And so part of this, which is the first strike authorization in 30 years for this union - it's not like this happens all the time. This is really long-standing grievances and really long dealing with these poverty wages - and they just can't anymore. This is unsustainable. And so hopefully they are earnestly making a go at a real fair wage. And I do think they have the public support. It is something that we've recognized across the country, unionization efforts in many different sectors for many different people. This week, we even saw - The Stranger writers announced that they're seeking a union, and wish them best of luck with that. But looking at this being necessary across the board - and even in tech sectors, which before felt immune to unionization pushes and they used to tout all of their benefits and how they received everything they could ever want - we've seen how quickly that tide can change. We've seen how quickly mass layoffs can take over an industry, even while companies are reporting record profits. And so this is really just another link in this chain here, saying - You know what, you're going to have to give a fair deal. It's not only about shareholders. It's about the people actually working, actually delivering the products and services that these companies are known for. The folks doing the work deserve a share of those profits, certainly more than they're getting right now. [00:19:44] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And again, the public sees that and they know that being a flight attendant isn't easy work. But whoever it is, whatever sector they're in, whatever work they're doing, the public has really shifted and is in a really good place. They recognize that corporations and governments need to do right by workers and pay them well. Hopefully the flight attendants can settle this without a strike. And hopefully Alaska Airlines understands that the last thing they need right now is a strike. They've had enough problems already. So hopefully the corporate leadership gets that. [00:20:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also want to talk about a new study that certainly a lot of people haven't found surprising, especially after two very high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits against SPD. But a study was actually done that included focus groups with Seattle officers, both male and female. And what was uncovered was a pervasive apparent gender discrimination problem within SPD. What was uncovered here? [00:20:45] Robert Cruickshank: All sorts of instances of gender discrimination - from blocked promotions, to negative comments, to inequities and inconsistencies in who gets leave - all sorts of things that made it an extremely hostile work environment for women. And some of the celebrated women of the department - Detective Cookie, who's well known for leading chess clubs in Rainier Beach, sued the department for gender and racial discrimination. And what the study shows that it's pervasive, but the only times it seemed to get any better were when women led the department - Kathleen O'Toole in the mid 2010s and then Carmen Best up until 2020 seemed to have a little bit of positive impact on addressing these problems. But under current leadership and other recent leadership, it's just not a priority. And it speaks, I think, to the real problems - the actual problems - facing police. You hear from people like Sara Nelson and others on the right that the reason it's hard to recruit officers is because - Oh, those mean old progressives tried to "Defund the Police' and they said mean things about the cops. That's not it at all. This report actually shows why there's a recruiting problem for police. Normal people don't want to go work for the police department. They see a department that is racist, sexist - nothing is being done to address it. Who would want to enter that hostile work environment? I remember when Mike McGinn was mayor - we were working for McGinn in the early 2010s - trying to address some of these same problems, trying to help recruit a department that not only reflected Seattle's diversity, but lived in Seattle - was rooted in the community - and how hard that was. And you're seeing why. It's because there's a major cultural problem with police departments all across the country - Seattle's not uniquely bad at being sexist towards women officers, it's a problem everywhere. But it's the city that you would think would try to do something about it. But what we're hearing from the city council right now - and they had their first Public Safety Committee meeting recently of the newly elected council - is the same usual nonsense that just thinks, Oh, if we give them a bunch more money and say nice things about cops and ease up a little bit on, maybe more than a little bit, on reform efforts trying to hold the department accountable - that officers will want to join the ranks. And that's just not going to happen. It is a cultural problem with the department. It is a structural problem. The red flags are everywhere. And it's going to take new leadership at the police department - maybe at City Hall - that takes this seriously, is willing to do the hard work of rooting out these attitudes. And you've got to keep in mind, when you look at this rank-and-file department - they elected Mike Solan to lead their union, SPOG - in January of 2020. Solan was a known Trumper, hard right-wing guy - and this is well before George Floyd protests began. Yet another sign that the problem is the department itself, the officers themselves, who are often engaging in this behavior or refusing to hold each other accountable. Because again, this toxic culture of - Well, we got to protect each other at all costs. - it's going to take major changes, and I don't see this City leadership at City Hall being willing to undertake the work necessary to fix it. [00:23:54] Crystal Fincher: I think you've hit the nail on the head there. And just demonstrating that once again, we get a clear illustration of why SPD has a problem recruiting. It is absolutely a cultural issue. It is what they have been getting away with despite dissatisfaction from women. And women in the department saying either we're targeted or discriminated against, but a lot of us - even though we're experiencing it - just try and keep our heads down and stay silent. And a lot of those people end up moving out eventually because who wants to work in an environment like this? We recognize this in every other industry. There's a reason why organizations and corporations tout their corporate culture, tout their benefits for women, their respect for women, their inclusion of women in leadership and executive-level positions. And we don't see that here. So if the leadership in charge of this - from Bruce Harrell, who is the ultimate head of the department, the buck stops with him to the police chief to the City Council - if they're actually serious about addressing this and not just using this as a campaign wedge issue with the rhetoric, they will have to address the culture of this department. Now, the Chair of the Seattle City Council's Public Safety Committee, Bob Kettle, who was recently elected in November, said that the hiring numbers were disappointed. He said - "The number of women that were hired in 2023 was not acceptable. We need to have a representative force where women are well represented. We need to be creating that culture and an environment of inclusion. And also the idea that you can advance, you can be promoted, you can move forward in the organization." So if he is serious about that, he has to address the culture - and that's going to involve addressing a number of things. That's going to involve, perhaps, addressing a number of the people currently in leadership who have created and who continue this culture and who are going to have to be dealt with if this is going to change. But this isn't something that's just going to change because there're new people elected in office. This isn't something that's just going to change because they're getting compliments more as a department and more funding has been thrown at them. This is going to take active engagement and a difference in leadership, a difference in training, a completely different approach. So we'll follow this. Mayor Bruce Harrell also said that he is planning to meet with women throughout the department to hear directly from them and listen to their concerns - we will see what results from those conversations and what happens. But now there is a lot of touted alignment between the mayor and city council here, so there really should be no roadblocks to them really addressing this substantively - if they're serious about addressing this. [00:26:58] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. And one of the ways you'll see whether they're serious or not is how they handle the SPOG contract. And one of the things that helps change a department's culture, where this sort of behavior is clearly known to not be tolerated, is for there to be real consequences. How are officers disciplined? How are officers fired? How are they held accountable? Right now, it's very difficult to remove an officer - the current contract rules make it very easy for an officer to contest a firing or disciplinary action and be reinstated or have the disciplinary action overturned. You're not going to eradicate a culture of racism and sexism without changing that as well. And that is at the core of the fight over the SPOG contract, and we will see whether the mayor and the city council are serious about cultural changes at SPD. And you'll see it in how they handle the SPOG contract - hopefully they'll put a strong one out and hold their ground when SPOG pushes back. But that's not going to happen, honestly, without the public really pushing City Hall hard. Because I think you see - from both the mayor and the city council - a desire to cut deals with SPOG, a desire to not go too hard at them. And I don't see - absent public mobilization - a strong SPOG contract coming. [00:28:07] Crystal Fincher: I think you're right about that. In other SPD public safety news, Seattle is planning a significant rollout of the ShotSpotter system. We've talked about that before here on the show - it's basically a surveillance system that's supposed to hear, to be able to determine gunshots from noises, to try and pinpoint where it came from. Unfortunately, it has been an absolute failure in several other cities - we've had lots of information and data about this. And this week, we received news that the City of Chicago is actually canceling their contract after this failed in their city. And so once again, people are asking the question - Why, with such a horrible track record, are we spending so much money and getting ready to roll this failed technology out in Seattle? Why is this happening? [00:29:04] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I see people on social media speculating it's because of campaign donations and things like that. I'm not sure that's it. I honestly think this goes back to something Ron Davis said in the campaign when he was running for city council, criticizing his opponent, Maritza Rivera, who ultimately won, and other candidates in-line with Sara Nelson for wanting to, in his words, "spread magic fairy dust" around public safety issues and assume that would work. And that really, I think, is what ShotSpotter is. It's magic fairy dust. This idea that there's some magical technological tool that can quickly identify where a gunshot is happening and deploy the officers there immediately. It sounds cool when you first hear about it like that, but as you pointed out and as Amy Sundberg has written about extensively, it doesn't work - just literally doesn't work. The number of false positives are so high that officers are essentially sent on wild goose chases - you can't trust it, it's not worth the money. And Chicago, which is a city with a very serious gun violence problem, explored this. And for them to reject it means it clearly does not work, and Chicago needs solutions that work. I think honestly, the reason why the city is adopting is they want to do something that looks like they're acting, that looks like they're taking it seriously, even though this isn't going to actually succeed. It is very much that magic fairy dust of trying to appear serious about gun violence, without really tackling the core issues that are happening here, without tackling the problems with policing, without tackling the underlying problems in communities and neighborhoods that can cause gun violence. There is a growing issue at schools in Seattle with gun violence. And students have been trying to raise this issue for a while, ever since a shooting at Ingraham High School in late 2022, another shooting that led to another student's death in near Chief Sealth High School in West Seattle recently, to a group of students robbing another student at Ingraham High School at gunpoint in recent weeks. There's a serious problem. And what you're not seeing is the City or the school district, to be honest, taking that very seriously or really responding in the ways that the students are demanding responses. And I think the really sad story with something like ShotSpotter is all this money and effort is being spent on a clearly failed piece of technology when other answers that students and community members are crying out for aren't being delivered. That's a real problem. [00:31:21] Crystal Fincher: It is absolutely a real problem. And I think there's near unanimous concern and desire for there to be real earnest effort to fix this. We know things that help reduce gun violence - there's lots of data out about that. The city and county have done some of them. They've implemented some of them on very limited basis. But it is challenging to see so much money diverted elsewhere to failed technologies and solutions like this, while actual evidence-based solutions are starved, defunded, and are not getting the kind of support they deserve - and that the residents of the city, that the students in our schools deserve. This is a major problem that we have to deal with seriously. And this just isn't serious at all. I feel like - it was the early 2010s - this technology came out and it was in that era of "the tech will save us" - everyone was disrupting in one way or another. There were lots of promises being made about new technology. And unfortunately, we saw with a lot of it in a lot of different areas that it just didn't deliver on the promises. So I don't fault people for initially saying - Hey, this may be another tool in the toolkit that we can use. But over the past 10 years, through several implementations in Atlanta, Pasadena, San Antonio, Dayton, Ohio, Chicago - it has failed to deliver anything close to what has happened. In fact, it's been harmful in many areas. And so you have people who are interested in solving this problem who are not just saying - Hey, we just need to throw our hands up and do nothing here. We're not trying to minimize the problem. They're in active roles and positions really saying - Hey, this is a priority. And unfortunately, this is not a serious solution to the problem. The Cook County state's attorney's office found that ShotSpotter had a "minimal effect on prosecuting gun violence cases," with their report saying "ShotSpotter is not making a significant impact on shooting incidents," with only 1% of shooting incidents ending in a ShotSpotter arrest. And it estimates the cost per ShotSpotter incident arrestee is over $200,000. That is not a wise use of government expenditures. A large study found that ShotSpotter has no impact - literally no impact - on the number of murder arrests or weapons arrests. And the Chicago's Office of Inspector General concluded that "CPD responses to ShotSpotter alerts rarely produced documented evidence of any gun-related crime, investigatory stop, or recovery of a firearm." Also, one of the big reasons why Seattle is saying they're implementing this is - Well, we're so short-staffed that we really need this technology and it's going to save manpower, it's going to save our officers' time, it's going to really take a lot of the work off their plate. Unfortunately, the exact opposite was shown to happen with ShotSpotter - "ShotSpotter does not make police more efficient or relieve staffing shortages." In fact, they found it's the opposite. ShotSpotter vastly increases the number of police deployments in response to supposed gunfire, but with no corresponding increase in gun violence arrests or other interventions. In fact, ShotSpotter imposes such a massive drain on police resources that it slows down police response to actual 911 emergencies reported by the public. This is a problem. It's not just something that doesn't work. It's actually actively harmful. It makes the problems worse that these elected officials are saying that they're seeking to address. With the challenges that we're experiencing with gun violence, with the absolute need to make our cities safer - to reduce these incidences - we quite literally cannot afford this. And so I hope they take a hard look at this, but it is really defying logic - in the midst of a budget crisis, in the midst of a gun violence crisis - to be embarking on this. I really hope they seriously evaluate what they're doing here. [00:35:54] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. And what you're raising is this question of where should we be putting the resources? And shout out to Erica C. Barnett at PubliCola, who's been writing in the last week or so some really good articles on this very topic - where is SPD putting its resources? A few days ago, she had a very well-reported article at PubliCola about enforcement of prostitution on Aurora Avenue, which is a very controversial thing to be doing for many reasons - is this is actually how you should protect sex workers? But also, is this how we should be prioritizing police resources? Whatever you think of sex work, pro or con, whatever your opinion is - is that where police resources should be going right now when we don't have as many officers as the City would like to have, when there's gun violence, and when there's property crime? And then she also reported recently about, speaking of Bob Kettle, he put out this proposal that he wants to focus on what he calls a "permissive environment towards crime" and closing unsecured vacant buildings, graffiti remediation as priorities. Again, whatever you think about vacant buildings and graffiti - how does that rank on a list of priorities when there are problems with gun violence in the City of Seattle? There are problems with real violent crime in the City of Seattle. And how are police department resources being allocated? I think these are questions that the public needs to be asking pretty tough questions about to City Hall, to Bob Kettle, to Sara Nelson, to Bruce Harrell, and SPD. Because, again, they haven't solved the cultural problem with SPD. They're not going to get many new officers until they do. So how do you use the resources you have right now? And it doesn't look like they're being allocated very effectively, whether it's cracking down, in their terms, on sex work on Aurora or buying things like ShotSpotter. It just seems like they're chasing what they think are easy wins that are not going to do anything to actually address the problem. And we will be here a year or two later still talking about problems with gun violence because City Hall didn't make it a real priority. [00:37:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also want to talk this week about news that was covered - actually in The Seattle Times and elsewhere - about the private sector kind of corresponding organization to the King County Regional Homeless Authority - We Are In, a philanthropic endeavor from some of the richest residents in the states and corporations in the state - actually folded. It was a failure. What happened? Why did this fall apart? [00:38:24] Robert Cruickshank: A lot of this stems from the debate in 2018 over the Head Tax - taxing Amazon to fund services related to homelessness. Mayor Ed Murray declared way back in, I think 2014, a state of emergency around homelessness. We're 10 years into that and nothing's been done. But what the City was looking to do in 2018 - Mike O'Brien and others were talking about bringing back the Head Tax, taxing the corporations in the city to fund services to address the homelessness issue. And the pushback from Amazon and others was - You don't need to tax us. We'll spend money better than government can and do it ourselves. And so that's what things like We Are In was intended to do. It was really intended to try to forestall new taxes by, in theory, showing that the private sector - through philanthropic efforts - can solve this more effectively. And guess what? They can't. In part because homelessness is a major challenge to solve without government resources, without major changes in how we build housing and how we provide services and where they're provided. And what you're seeing is that a philanthropic effort is not going to solve that. They keep chasing it because I think they have a political imperative to do so. But what happened was that We Are In wasn't producing the result they wanted to, leadership problems. And now Steve Ballmer is talking about - Well, maybe we'll just fund the King County Regional Homelessness Authority directly. It's like - okay, in that case, what's so different between that and taxation? There is a report that consultants came up with - I think got publicized in 2019 or 2020 - that the region would need to spend something like $450 million a year to really solve homelessness. You could easily raise that money through taxes and taxing corporations and wealthy individuals. And they are just so adamantly opposed to doing that. They would rather try to make philanthropic donations here and there, even when it's clearly insufficient to meet the need. It's not well thought out. It's not well programmed and just falls apart quickly. [00:40:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I agree. Over so many years, we've heard so many times - Just run it like a business. We need to run government like a business. And over and over and over again, we see that fail - that doesn't work. When you can't target what you're doing to a certain market, when you're only serving a limited subset - when you have to serve the entire public, when you have to actually invest in people, and this isn't a quick product or service that you can use that automatically fixes a situation, there have to be systemic issues that are addressed. And sometimes there's this attitude that - Oh, it's so simple to fix. If you just put a business person in charge of it, they'll get it done. Look at how they built their company. They can certainly tackle this. And over and over again - this is the latest example - that just simply doesn't work. They aren't the same. They aren't the same set of skills. They operate on different levels. There's different training. Lots of stuff is just absolutely different. And part of me, fundamentally, wishes we would stop denigrating and insulting the people who have been doing this work, who have been really consistently voicing their concerns about what's needed, about what their experience shows solves this problem, about what is actually working. There are things that are working. There are things going right in our region that we seem to not pay attention to or that we seem to, especially from the perspective of a number of these organizations who spend so much money to fight taxes, spend so much money to pick councilmembers, saying - Well, we think we have a better solution here. And so we wasted time trying and failing with this when, again, the answer is systemic. We have to sustainably fund the types of housing and resources that get people housed once more, that prevent people from becoming unhoused, and that make this region affordable for everyone so that one unforeseen expense can't launch someone into homelessness. We have been doing a poor job on all of those accounts as a region for so long that it's going to take significant investment and effort to turn things around. Some of that is happening, and I'm encouraged by some things that we're seeing. But at the same time, we're also hearing, especially in the midst of these budget problems that cities are dealing with, that they're looking at unfunding and rolling back these things. Interesting on the heels of this ShotSpotter conversation, where we're investing money into that - they're talking about de-investing, about defunding homelessness responses, public health responses to these crises. And I think we have just seen that this group involved with this effort just does not understand the problem, had the opportunity to meaningfully participate in a fix, and it just didn't work out. That's great - they're doing a great job running their businesses. They can continue to do that. But it's time to really follow what the evidence says fixes this and not what business titans are wishing would fix it. [00:43:55] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. And yet for the business titans, it's a question of power. They want to be the ones to ultimately decide how their money gets spent, not we the people or our elected representatives. I think of one of the things we started out talking about today is - rent stabilization bill in Olympia. Capping rent increases is a way to reduce homelessness. There are plenty of people who are pushed into homelessness by a rent increase they can't afford. Steve Ballmer calling up those State senators who are going to be tackling this bill saying - Hey, this would really help reduce homelessness if you pass this bill. I'm going to doubt that Steve Ballmer is making those calls. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be wrong. I don't think I am. For them, they want the power to decide how their money is spent. And even when they spend it poorly, they still want that power. And I think they're willing to hoard that power even at the expense of people who really are in need, who are living without a home, and who need all of our help urgently. [00:44:49] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. The last point I would want to make is that it's not like philanthropic funding is all evil, it's never helpful - it is. But this is about who is leading the solutions here and what we're doing. And I think that there are so many experts - so many people in organizations who are doing this work well - who need that additional funding. Let's put that philanthropic money into systems that are working instead of trying to recreate the wheel once again. So much time and money was lost here that so many people can't afford and that have had really horrible consequences. And I think a number of people who went into this were probably well-intentioned. But it just goes to show once again that - we know what works. And no matter how much we wish that it could be some simple fix over here, that it wouldn't require any public expenditure, it absolutely does. So it'll be interesting to follow and see what happens from there. And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 16th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter at @cruickshank. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast 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.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman! Crystal and David dig into why Seattle is putting less money into new affordable housing project this year and how this week's launch of a second social housing initiative by House Our Neighbors may be appealing to voters wanting to see progress on the issue. Next, they discuss the pressure on Mayor Bruce Harrell to deliver results now that a City Council friendly to his agenda has taken office and how the new Council's relative inexperience was on display at initial committee meetings. Finally, the show wraps up with a troubling story of the for-profit Tacoma immigration detention center refusing to allow state inspectors access after hundreds of complaints about the facility's poor conditions. 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, David Kroman, at @KromanDavid.   Resources Harm Reduction in Rural Washington with Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart from Hacks & Wonks   “Why Seattle will fund fewer new affordable housing projects this year” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   I-136 Let's Build Social Housing | House Our Neighbors   “Seattle's social housing developer proposes payroll tax on ‘excess earners'” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “New Social Housing Initiative Would Tax Business to Fund Up to 2,500 Over 10 Years” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “A council of allies in place, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell feels pressure to deliver” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “Watch: New Transportation Committee gets intro from SDOT, CM Kettle puts foot in mouth” by Tom Fucoloro from Seattle Bike Blog   @KromanDavid on Twitter: “Councilmember Rob Saka: "Ideally I'd like to have an across the board auditing of the entire city budget, but I am mindful that that is very costly and a time intensive activity. It's not practicable or feasible this year."”   “State inspectors denied entry to privately-run immigration detention center in Tacoma” by Grace Deng from Washington State Standard   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I welcomed Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart for a conversation about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities in Washington, the damaging role of stigma, what harm reduction is, and why it's so important. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review 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: Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. [00:01:22] David Kroman: Hello. Thanks for having me. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thanks for being here. Well, there is - been a decent amount of news this week. We will start off talking about news you covered about why Seattle is funding fewer new affordable housing projects this year. What's happening and why are they seeming to step back here? [00:01:45] David Kroman: Yeah, it's interesting, and I would say kind of concerning for the general affordable housing landscape. So back to as far as 2018, Seattle has always made these annual announcements of how much money they're going to be putting towards affordable housing. They pair it with federal tax credits and private donations, but it usually ends up being over $100 million a year. Last year, for example, it was $147 million - I think it was about that the year before. This year, the award is only $53 million for new affordable housing projects - that stands out because voters just passed a new housing levy that's triple the size of the one before it. There is still money - less money, but there's still money - coming in from the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. And there's also the JumpStart payroll tax, which is supposed to go towards housing. So all those things together would suggest there's a lot of money for new affordable housing, but the problem is that a lot of the projects that the city has funded in the past are struggling with their finances. The combination of interest rates and some wonky details about what loans they're on mean that these 70 projects or so that are in the works, or at various stages of development, need something in the order of $90 million to prop them up. So it's a frustrating reality for people in the affordable housing world because they want to be building new housing, they want to be putting new units on the market. But because of just the nature of construction industry and where interest rates are at, a lot of that money is getting sucked up into basically paying for housing that we thought we'd already paid for. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: So does this money that is usually allocated annually - does it only go to the construction? Does it ever go to propping up other projects? Did this happen by surprise for the city? It doesn't seem like it was telegraphed that it would be this much of a hit. How did this change come about? [00:03:36] David Kroman: Yeah, the Office of Housing always helps out with operations and maintenance, and they see that they have a certain obligation not to just fund the construction, but to make sure that the buildings that they're helping fund function properly and can actually house people. I don't think it's uncommon that they go back and help out buildings that they'd already funded. As far as I know, though, it has never gotten to this size. It was telegraphed actually a few months ago - their initial announcement of how much money would be available suggested that it was going to be quite a bit smaller. I think people thought there were some more technical explanations for that. But what's really happening - in affordable housing, there's basically two loans that these affordable housing buildings get. There's the construction loan, which is what they get to put up the building. And then there's their final loan that they convert to once they've leased up enough of their units and are bringing in enough rent - because, despite the fact that it's affordable housing, the calculations that the banks make around these still require that they're collecting some level of rent from their tenants. Usually that process takes two or three years for them to convert from their construction loan to their final loan. But for a lot of reasons, they're just having a really hard time doing that. They're having a harder time filling their units - I think that's probably worth following up on why that is exactly. And then they're having a harder time collecting rents - some of that does go back to some of the pandemic era policies that were intended to stabilize people in their rental apartments. So they're not able to get to the point where they can get off of their construction loan. And that is a really bad loan to be on for a long period of time, just because the rates and interest rates on those are way higher. And so I think that reality is just coming to pass this year, that basically every single one of these projects is functioning on a construction loan. But if the Office of Housing didn't go back and help them weather this storm, then we're looking at a much worse problem, which is affordable housing buildings that have already been built and people are living in them - but them just basically going belly up or needing to be sold. And so kind of a rock and a hard place for the Office of Housing - they have a choice of spending on new buildings or helping out the buildings they've already funded. The choice in some ways is fairly obvious because you don't want to lose these buildings you've already built. But it does mean that future projects take a fairly significant hit. [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, it does look like that and it's important to keep these projects moving and healthy so that they don't go belly up or cause a large amount of destabilization in the market. But looking forward, especially with this hit to new affordable developments in an already-crisis level situation with housing affordability, the need for more units to be added - what kind of long-term impact does this look to have? Are we looking at a similar situation next year where we could be looking at a further hit? Is this a permanent injury to affordable housing funding, at least for the short to midterm? [00:06:28] David Kroman: Yeah, it's a good question. I'm not sure, but I do know that something fairly material would have to change between now and next year to make sure that this isn't a problem anymore. The number of units in a building that have to be leased up and collecting rent is like 90%, so it's really high. It used to never be a problem, but it seems like a lot of these buildings are hovering around 80% occupancy/rent collection. So unless the City has some trick up its sleeve for making sure that these buildings are 90% leased up and the people who are in them are paying that rent, it sets up a situation that is out of the City's hands because these are banks making these calls on whether or not they qualify for these cheaper loans. It's not like the City can pass some law that requires the banks to give them a cheaper loan. And so my guess would be it's not a problem that will go away in a year and probably will come up again this time next year. In the past, this has just never been a problem because, unfortunately, affordable housing is in such high demand that banks have never even thought twice about whether or not an affordable housing development would hit 90% occupancy and payment. The deeper concern here is that as banks see that that assumption is maybe not holding up as well, they might be more hesitant to write these loans in the first place. The only sort of cold comfort, I guess, is that this is not really a specific problem for affordable housing. I used to cover transportation - any transportation project is having these massive cost overruns and problems with construction projects too. And so maybe there's a little more leniency on the part of the financers because they understand that this isn't just some negligence on the affordable housing providers part, it's just the reality of the construction industry right now. But that doesn't mean that it's going to start being cheap anytime soon. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: Right - that's almost the takeaway. Everything about building housing right now seems expensive and growing more expensive. Inflation has definitely hit every element of it and interest rates are higher than they used to be, and just everything seems to be contributing to a higher overall cost. And so that's a challenge that we're going to have to figure out how to deal with, especially as it would be one thing if this were 15 years ago - We need to make plans because this is going to become a problem if we don't address it appropriately. But this now is a problem, a major problem, crisis level, where from the legislature to different cities are all acknowledging that we do have to build more residential units - at minimum - in addition to a variety of other policies, in order to prevent rents and housing costs from continuing to skyrocket. So here we are again, but not enough money is currently budgeted to go around. Is this a money issue? I know there's also a big budget deficit that they're in the process of beginning to deal with. Did the money just run out? Is this a matter of priorities? [00:09:21] David Kroman: Yeah, there is one lever I think that the City could pull and is pulling that could actually help this a little bit, which is one of the problems is the permitting timeline - for anything really, but affordable housing included - it used to be a year and a half basically just to get all the permits. There has been some legislation passed recently to exempt some affordable housing projects from design review in an effort to speed things up. That could help because then you're not sitting on a piece of property without actually being able to do anything with it. But yeah, it is a money problem because what it is at the end of the day is just things are costing more. The problem is every time there's a property tax levy in Seattle, the specter of levy fatigue is raised. So far, Seattle voters have never hit that - they have handily passed pretty much every property tax levy put before them. But there is, to an extent, an upper limit on how much in property taxes Seattle officials are going to feel comfortable asking voters to fund affordable housing. And if more than 50% of their money is going towards projects that they already thought had been funded, suddenly the political scenario starts to feel a little more fraught. Meanwhile, the other two funds that the City relies on for affordable housing are also no longer guaranteed solid funds. The Mandatory Housing Affordability pot - that depends on there being a lot of development in the City of Seattle. And of course, we've seen permits for new development plummet, which means there's just not going to be as many contributions from private developers toward affordable housing. And then the JumpStart payroll tax, this new city council is thinking already about this $230 million budget gap that you mentioned, and are not the friendliest to the idea of a business payroll tax. And so shifting the JumpStart tax from pure housing purposes to basically budget relief is very much on the table. And I think nonprofit housing developers understand that. So the problem is that in addition to the housing levy, which is robust and large, not going as far as they had hoped, combined with these other two sources of funds either declining or perhaps being repurposed for political reasons, in general, creates a lot of uncertainty among nonprofit housing developers. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: It does. We will continue to follow this. Thank you for covering that so comprehensively. Well, and that leads into news this week that House Our Neighbors launched a new social housing initiative, basically Part 2 of their initiative process that they talked about before. What is House Our Neighbors? What did the first initiative do? And what are they launching with this initiative that they just filed? [00:11:51] David Kroman: House Our Neighbors is the political side of Seattle's new social housing developer. 2023, they ran an initiative that set up this public developer that was theoretically going to take money and then either buy or build buildings. On its surface, it sounds a little bit maybe like Seattle Housing Authority, but their focus was going to be on mixed income or housing for not necessarily the poorest residents - 80% to 120% AMI. The idea being that if you're trying to raise a family in Seattle, it's really difficult because it's very, very hard to find two-, three-, four-bedroom affordable apartments. This would fill that gap that they see is missing between the market and government provided subsidized housing. The complaint or pushback on the last initiative was that there weren't any funds to do any of that work. That was intentional on the part of the people who ran the campaign because there are concerns about violating the state's rules against having multiple subjects in one initiative. So this new initiative that they're running would be that second step. It would provide a funding source via a tax on businesses with employees earning more than a million dollars. Their hope is to raise $50 million a year and buy or build around 2,000 units of social housing. I don't know that their announcement was coordinated with the Office of Housing's affordable housing announcement, but the two things certainly are related to each other. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And with social housing, it's designed to be permanently affordable, government-owned, mixed-income housing that insulates itself, basically, because it's not part of the private market - where we just got done talking about all of the factors causing price increases in the private market. But because this is public, government-owned, it can move forward with a different model that is conceivably more insulated from market forces, in addition to not having profit pressure attached to it - helping to keep it more affordable with mixed incomes where people paying into the pot help fund the affordable housing for everything else. This did pass in the City of Seattle. And as you said, this was a two-part initiative process. The first part was on whether we were going to establish this public developer. And now comes the time to fund it. So when it comes to funding, what is the funding mechanism? And why was this chosen? [00:14:15] David Kroman: Yeah, the funding mechanism is similar to the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about before, which is it focuses on companies that have an employee making a million dollars or more. And I think the thought behind this - if you think back to the contentious Head Tax debate, which was targeting overall revenue of a business and trying to tax that, that became really contentious because you have businesses like grocery stores that have really high revenue, but super thin profits. So when you have Uwajimaya, for example, testifying against this tax as a beloved local business, people get kind of queasy about it - it basically failed because of that. The argument here is we're not really focusing on the overall revenue. We're focusing on whether or not they have employees that they're paying over a million dollars, because that suggests - if you can pay somebody a million dollars or more, you should be paying some tax on that. And it's a marginal tax, so the first million dollars of that person's salary are not taxed - it's everything above that that is taxed. The City's payroll tax exempts grocery stores and healthcare businesses, or at least healthcare businesses have waiver for a few years. This one doesn't do that. This targets any business that's paying people a million dollars or more. The exact number of businesses that that includes is a little murky. They relied on a couple past legislative efforts at the state and city level to come up with their calculations. If it passed, we'd get a little more sense of who would actually have to pay this tax, but that's basically how it works. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: So what they're referring to is an 'excess earners' tax, and it'd be a 5% marginal payroll tax. As you said, if they had an employee making $2 million, the tax would not apply to that first million. It would only apply to the one million above that at a rate of 5%. They're estimating with that revenue source, they could acquire or build 2,000 affordable units over 10 years. What is the timeline for this initiative now? What do they have to do in order to qualify and get it on the ballot? [00:16:06] David Kroman: They have set 30,000 signatures as their goal, and they want to get it by June - because if they got it in by June, that would leave the current city council no choice but to put it on the November ballot. And anybody who's trying to do a more left-leaning progressive initiative wants to get their measure on the November ballot because turnout in Seattle is going to be probably 80% - it's a presidential election - and the progressives of Seattle figure that more turnout favors them. So the goal is November '24. But they said that if for whatever reason they didn't get there, they would run it anyway at a later ballot date. I just think politically, that would be a little more challenging for them. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. They just filed the initiative. So that process for the initiative to be approved, get to the signature gathering process will be commencing. How does this fit in, in the general overall landscape? Tiffani McCoy, who's the policy and advocacy director with House Our Neighbors, talked a little bit about this happening because there is either not a plan or a deficit in the ability to deliver the amount of housing we need and the type of housing we need at scale. [00:17:11] David Kroman: Yeah, it fits in because the affordable 80% to 120% AMI - there is just not really anybody interested in doing that right now. There have been some one-off projects around the city where a developer, out of the good of their own heart, has said that their building is going to be affordable to a certain level - workforce housing. But you're really relying on individual developers being interested in doing that. Usually those come with time limits, so they guarantee it for 30 years or 40 years or something like that. And then as we talked about before, there's Housing Authority and Office of Housing - it's a small lane, but there is a lane for 0% to probably 60% AMI. But when voters are approving a property tax levy, they're not quite as interested in building housing for people who are making up to $80,000 a year. But when you're looking at how expensive it is to live in Seattle or what the median income is, those people are having a hard time finding places to live and especially raise families in Seattle. And so that is more who this effort is targeted towards, which is fill that gap between 0% to 60% AMI and then 200%+ AMI housing, which there's just not a lot of people out there building that kind of housing right now. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: Right. And that matters so much because that is related to a lot of the staffing shortage talk that we hear about, whether it's teachers or bus drivers or healthcare workers or - across the board, we're hearing about workforce shortages, particularly in the City of Seattle and surrounding areas. And a big piece of that puzzle is that people just can't afford to live in the areas where those jobs are. It's way too expensive. So you have people moving further and further out, making it harder to commute in for a job, or just finding a job elsewhere outside of the city. And so housing affordability is an important element in just these conversations about our overall economy, including workforce strength and availability. It is absolutely related to those challenges. So once they made this announcement, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce immediately make a statement that opposed it. I don't know that this opposition was necessarily surprising, but it was an immediate reaction. How did they respond? [00:19:30] David Kroman: No, not surprising at all - they took the JumpStart Tax to court. They clearly don't like payroll taxes on businesses. Their argument was they supported the Housing Levy and they support some level of voter-agreed-upon property tax to build housing for the poorest people. The Chamber's line, and this has been their line and that of other businesses since at least back to 2017 when the first Head Tax debate came up, is this all comes down to supply. That the real issue is that Seattle is zoned in a way that you just can't add more supply, especially in the 60% or whatever it is of the city that's zoned for single family homes. So their argument is you are asking businesses to try and address a very small part of a much larger illness. And in so doing, you're not going to get us to where the city actually needs to be. And at the same time, you're going to materially hurt these businesses at a time when it has been, at least for some of them, sort of a difficult period. I think the counterargument is it has not actually been that difficult of a period for businesses like Amazon. And if you're paying somebody over a million dollars, something must be going okay for you. But I think the Chamber's position does kind of go to this point, which is - you're talking about a symptom when the real cause is just that we have built a system that doesn't allow for new housing construction. [00:20:42] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and it would be less ironic if they didn't seem to also oppose a lot of the rezoning and necessary new construction for that. But I guess it's a comfortable position to be in when you can just oppose things that seemingly have to do with each other. But I do think that's part of the reason why this passed in the first place. This passed after several years of seeming opposition and defeat of efforts to make things more affordable overall, including housing, especially those that are funded with taxes. And that has been a big point of contention between the Chamber and other folks there. The Chamber traditionally takes a - Hey, just don't tax us approach. A lot of their financial support of candidates in elections seems tied to their willingness or unwillingness to tax business. So this has been a long-standing divide that we have here. But I wonder if they've ever wondered if that long-standing hesitance to do that, in the face of skyrocketing costs borne by the regular residents of Seattle and surrounding areas, might have something to do with the alternatives becoming more popular to the point where they pass this in Seattle. So it'll be interesting to see how formal and robust the opposition to this initiative is. But it does seem like this is an alternative that the residents of Seattle are looking at. And as we look forward, especially if the JumpStart Tax is raided for the general fund, some of the other mechanisms that the legislature is looking at right now don't end up coming to fruition - this may be one of the only avenues where it looks feasible that something can actually happen, that there can be funding for, and that we can start to make up some of the gaps that are reopening here in some of the other areas. How do you see the prognosis for this moving forward? [00:22:42] David Kroman: Yeah, I think you're right that this is a lot of voter response to an intractable problem. I think it is true that the underlying problem is supply - I think that's hard to dispute at this point. It's just there are a lot of people coming into the city and just not enough housing for them. And so then, therefore, even old, run-down housing is being competed for - rich people are outbidding people of lesser means for housing that you would not necessarily associate with rich people. A lot of that is enabled by the fact that most of the city - it's just cast in amber and there cannot be any added density. So at a time when the city's population is growing, you've got certain neighborhoods in Seattle where the population is actually decreasing, and I think that is what is driving a lot of rent increases. I think the reaction, though - the problem is now, the struggles are now - and so it's all well and good to diagnose the deep problem and look back at what the city should or shouldn't have done, or what the city should be doing to help this problem in 10 or 15 years. The city could upzone across the entire city tomorrow, and the construction environment - as we just talked about - means it's pretty unlikely that you're going to see a huge influx immediately of new housing and density because it's just not a great time for building new stuff. And so I think that then causes people to look for alternative options. And this is one of them, which is a more direct taxation to construction that is divorced from - well, not entirely divorced because we talked about the problems facing the nonprofit housing world, but more divorced from market forces that, again, perhaps should have been addressed a long time ago. But even if they were addressed tomorrow, would take years, decades, perhaps, to really show meaningful improvements in the affordability of Seattle. And so I think that is why these solutions that the Chamber doesn't like - because they are not market solutions, they are taxation solutions on their clients and the people that they represent, but that becomes more appealing because people want to make some immediate progress in the next year. [00:24:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to follow that story and the initiative and see how it goes. I also want to talk about a piece that you wrote this week about Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell, titled, "A council of allies in place, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell feels pressure to deliver." I think that pressure is an appropriate response - a number of commitments or what he ran on two years ago still has a lot of areas for improvement. I don't know that anyone feels that the type of progress that was indicated or promised has actually happened. But some of that was in his telling because he didn't have a great working relationship with the council - even though they have very distinct roles and responsibilities. But he's saying now, and part of what he said during the campaign - if we have a better working relationship, we could accomplish more. What did this story uncover, what did you talk about, and where does he stand on what he's accomplished and what he's looking to accomplish? [00:25:37] David Kroman: Yeah, I think it's perhaps not quite exactly like having a one-party President, House and Senate, but it's something like that. Because at least since I have been watching City Hall, I would argue that there has been no mayor who, at least on paper, has come into a more favorable political environment than Bruce Harrell does right now. Because he endorsed five people for city council - which I don't think Durkan or Ed Murray dipped that much of a toe into the political scene, so that alone was a big jump into playing politics - and then all of them won. And then he gets this bonus of another one of his opponents, Teresa Mosqueda, leaving to go to the King County Council. So basically he gets six new friendly people on the council, banishes all but Councilmember Tammy Morales as clear opponents to his agenda. And then more than that, if you've been watching the committee meetings in city council this year, their agenda items are what is the Seattle Department of Transportation and what does it do? They are just getting their feet under them. They are still trying to find where the bathroom is. Meanwhile, Bruce Harrell has been in City Hall for 14 years. So all of that added together means there is nothing in his way to basically do what it is that he has envisioned for City Hall. The question is - can he or will he do that? And also it kind of puts to test some of the narratives that were created around what the previous council was at fault for doing. Some of those I think could end up being true, but also I think some of the problems that we're talking about here - fairly complicated and don't just boil down to who exactly was on the previous city council. For example, police recruitment. The mayor has said he wants to grow the department to 1,400. It's a real question of whether the police department is ever going to be back to 1,400. But there's no longer the boogeyman of "Defund the Police" to fault for those challenges - now the rubber meets the road. Can a council that has explicitly said it wants to hire more police officers actually do that? And then if it doesn't, I will be curious to see how voters respond. Will they give him the same level of scrutiny that they gave the council the last few years? That will be interesting to watch. [00:27:35] Crystal Fincher: That will be interesting to watch. I do also find it interesting, from the perspective of his allies that we heard during the campaign, of stuff like "Defund the Police" and blaming some of the inability to achieve what they said they wanted to achieve on that, as if the council had been hostile. But if we look - particularly over the past two years - the council didn't pass up an opportunity to fund the hiring of more police officers. Functionally - policy-wise, budget-wise - they allocated all of the money that was asked for, they allocated bonuses related to that, yet they still ran as if this council was somehow hostile to that issue. It seemed, to your point, like the creation of a boogeyman that didn't exist, and certainly not since he's taken office here. Did that strike you as genuine reasons or reasons that really would have impeded him taking action on some of his priorities that he seemingly talked about? Well, it was because of the council that I couldn't. But on an issue like police funding, where council did provide the funding for that, where council did provide everything that was asked for to do that, yet there still wasn't progress - does that rest on the council or was that another issue? [00:28:51] David Kroman: Yeah, I think if you ask him and you ask the current council, they acknowledge - Sure, they didn't literally defund the police by 50%. And what they did "defund" was mostly a shuffling of the decks.decks -moved parking enforcement to SDOT for a while and they moved 911 to Community Safety. So the police department's budget shrunk, but those functions just moved to a different department. I think they acknowledge - yes, that they didn't cut them. But policing is an incredibly competitive recruiting environment. And I think their argument is. And I do think - yes, they didn't literally defund, but they were pretty public about some of their comments around the police. And I think that that probably had an effect on certain police officers' willingness to stay at the police department and others' willingness to come to the police department - can have a whole debate about the merit or harms of that, but I do think that probably played a factor. But at the same time, I think that there's a lot else going on around that issue of police recruitment that transcends just conversations around "Defund the Police" and what the previous city council did or didn't do. The mayor's office has had a budget for marketing for a couple years now. As far as we know, the recruitment environment has not improved. And so I think there are a lot of technical details that will slowly come out over Harrell's administration that show that the problems - while I do think that whatever the city council's previous image was, made probably a difference around that - I think there's a more complicated story around the mechanics of what recruitment actually looks like. [00:30:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I tend to think that there's a more complicated story around the mechanics of recruitment, particularly because several surrounding departments, including those with staunch supporters of hiring police, of funding police, are also experiencing challenges with hiring. It's hard to find a department around that isn't saying that they're experiencing staffing problems. So it seems to go deeper, in my view, than just that. Can I absolutely say that their willingness to examine the budget four years ago had nothing to do with this now? No, I can't. Certainly conservative elements in talk radio and Fox News continue to make a lot of that and characterize "defund" as a current dominant thought, which I think is just demonstrably false. On top of that, just on that issue, with the understanding and the knowledge that even if you were to hire an officer today, it's going to be a year plus before they can actually be deployed on the streets because of their need to train and go through their requirements. Is there a plan in the interim? We're two years into Bruce Harrell's term now, and it doesn't seem like - okay, barring that, what are we doing? I don't want to say no plan. They introduced a limited partial trial of a co-response model for behavioral health through his new CARE Department. There is that going on in a limited way - would love to see that expanded so it's at minimum around-the-clock, but certainly more than a handful of officers and responders involved there. Certainly in the area of public safety, I think a lot has been examined there. Were there any other issue areas, whether it's homelessness, the City's environmental plans, economic development within the city, that he talked about wanting to deliver or work on in his next two years? [00:32:10] David Kroman: Harrell - I think he's going to be dripping these out slowly. But the thing that I would say stood out to me the most was his comments about the City's relationship to the county. We had seen some comments of his about, specifically the City's relationship to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, leak out unintentionally over the last two years. Fairly clear that he took a skeptical eye toward that body. But now I would say the big change now that he has this friendly council and basically full control of the City Hall is he's no longer saying those things in private. He's being fairly public about - he has a skeptical view of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And he has a skeptical view of the amount of money that the City of Seattle is giving that body and whether it is doing what he wants it to do. He said basically the same thing about Public Health Seattle King County, which I thought was interesting. I had never heard that relationship come up as one that needed additional scrutiny. But he said that when it comes to the issue of fentanyl, that basically he thinks Public Health Seattle King County should be doing more, and he was wondering why they're not doing more. And so as far as specific policies or legislation he might introduce, I don't have a great read on that just yet. But I do think - and I've heard this from the new council members too - I wouldn't be surprised if we see a fairly dramatic rethinking of how the city and the county work together on some of this stuff. [00:33:25] Crystal Fincher: Interesting. Certainly, it seems like there might be some budget implications attached to that. That might be another reason why we are talking about this now, as the City looks to trim a couple hundred million dollars or make up for a budget deficit of over $200 million that they're facing. Has he been responsive, or did you get a chance to talk about some of the seeming inaction on some of those areas? There certainly seemed to be a number of promises as he walked in and optimism from a lot of people as he took office that - Hey, you're someone with a different vision who's looking to move forward on a variety of things, talking about One Seattle and the vision that he has for that. Has that resulted in or materialized in anything? Is he talking about doing anything specific with that? I think a lot of people are wondering just kind of overall what his plans are. [00:34:17] David Kroman: Yeah, I think so far this has not been the most policy-heavy mayor's office by any stretch. I think back to the Murray administration - before, of course, everything else came out - but that was an office that pushed super hard for the task forces around $15 an hour and housing affordability, the HALA committee, and they would lock people in a room and make them work it out. This is not that office. What we have heard from him is a lot of messaging and, I think, an effort to do perhaps not systemic things, but pushes around certain homeless encampments or priority policing around Third Avenue or 12th and Jackson. And it's kind of these hits and sort of giving a general message about what kind of mayor he is. I think he would perhaps point to some of the rules - tree canopy legislation or things like that. But I don't know that you can point to the first two years of his office and call it a major policy-heavy term. I think there's going to be more pressure on him to be a little more policy-minded in the next two years, because as we just talked about, he's not going to have to do nearly the amount of negotiation with this city council as he would have had to do with the last one. If he comes down to them and says - I think this is really important, we got to pass this. - pretty good chance he's going to get it passed without, there's going to be tweaks and I'm sure there's going to be some nods towards pushback or accountability. But at the end of the day, this is a city council that has kind of adopted the mayor's own One Seattle slogan. When he was on city council, too, I don't know that everyone would have pointed to him, as a city councilmember, as the most policy-driven. He had certain things that he focused a lot on around policing, or he was the one who pushed the hardest for body cameras. And he's pushed hard for some police technologies like ShotSpotter and things like that. But when he was on city council, he wasn't taking the lead on a lot of big, big policy swings. And so far, I would say that's mostly been true for the first half of his term. It's just he's going to have to show some big policy swings, I think, for these next two years - because I do think he's hyper-conscious of his own reelection campaign, is my sense. We didn't talk about that specifically, but I think he's interested in running for reelection. I think it's assumed he will run for reelection. And so he's going to have to build a case for himself to voters in two years from now. [00:36:28] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. I also want to talk about some of the firsts that we saw this week. We saw the Seattle City Council conduct their first committee meeting. The Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilmember Rob Saka, held its first meeting. As you talked about, it was very Intro to or Transpo 101, because these are a lot of new members who are not familiar with the way this functions, who are still just getting their bearings underneath them for how City Hall works, how legislation works, what SDOT does do. They are all very new and are not even coming into this with a policy background in the area that may help. So this is really starting from Step 1 here. What did we hear during this committee and outside of the committee - statements from members of the council this week? [00:37:19] David Kroman: Well, a few things that stood out to me. One, it's starting to hit home a bit that this is just an incredibly green city council. This is two-thirds of people who have not held elected office before - that's not to say that they have zero experience. Maritza Rivera, for example, was a department head, so she has spent some time in City Hall. But at the end of the day, some of the questions they're asking or getting briefed on are things like - What is the Sound Transit Board? Who decides where the West Seattle to Ballard stations go? - things like that. Not to say that they don't know those things, but that's the level that we're at right now in their committee meetings. So that was one thing that really stood out to me, which is - they don't have a lot of time to figure out a lot of these big problems. We're already a month in to the year because they had to spend the first month appointing a new member. Council President Nelson didn't schedule any committee meetings during that time. So it's February and we're doing the briefing meetings. I think that's going to be something to watch. We also heard, I would say - let's call it some acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. On the campaign trail, we heard a lot of talk about "auditing the budget." We really heard it in the applications to fill the vacant council seat, this phrase "audit the budget, audit the budget." It was never super well defined what they actually meant by audit. We heard from Councilmember Saka that a literal audit of the entire budget is something that would take a really long time and be really expensive. And he acknowledged that they're not going to do that, at least not this year. So that raises some questions around what they actually meant when they were saying we were going to audit the budget and how that is materially different from what happens every year with the budget - which is you review what you can, and cut where you think you can cut, and fund what you want to fund. So that was interesting - just there's a certain reality that comes with moving from being on the campaign trail to being in office. [00:39:06] Crystal Fincher: There is a reality about moving from the campaign trail to moving into office. Speaking personally and speaking as someone who is a political consultant, has worked with plenty of candidates. This is something that you hope candidates would have an understanding of while they're running. This is directly related to what their plans are going to be. Certainly, Rob Saka and other councilmembers were asked plenty of times on the campaign trail how they were planning to deal with this looming budget deficit. And part of the background of this is that, "Well, we need to audit the budget" issue - never sound credible or serious to a lot of people because, overall, just a citywide budget audit is not the thing. But as you said, the budget process is what that is. The budget process is continually reviewing, understanding, approving, modifying - what this funding is, how effective the funding has been - that's all part of the standard budget process of the City every year. And so a lot of it seemed like they were trying to avoid talking about what their plans were. They were trying to avoid taking a stance on particularly the progressive revenue that would be needed to close a budget hole like this. And the mayor put together a Progressive Revenue Task Force that came out with options that may seem doable - asked about those, the move from a lot of the candidates, especially the moderate to conservative ones, was to say - I don't know about that progressive revenue, but we really need to audit the budget before we do anything else. We need to take a look at exactly what's being spent where and see if it works and that kind of stuff. But I think we're arriving in another situation where if you actually come in with a plan about what you want to accomplish, that's one thing. If you're coming in trying to avoid talking about what you want to accomplish, that becomes really hairy - trying to contend with and explain once you're actually in office. So now the one thing that people heard you talk about, which seeing response certainly online following these comments, was - Hey, the only thing he talked about was doing audits. And now he's saying that - Well, they can't really do that, we're walking it back, it's not practical or feasible. One, that seemingly could have been something that when people pointed that out on the campaign trail, maybe they should have taken that to heart and come up with a more realistic plan. But also now that we're here, it just seems like maybe there wasn't the kind of understanding related to what they were saying. I hope future candidates look at that and take that under advisement. I hope voters look at that and again, look at the types of answers that you're getting - even though they may sound good in a soundbite, are they actually realistic? Will they actually get done what you want to see happen in the city? Or is it just a line that people are tossing out in order to avoid talking about something else, or because it sounds good as a soundbite? [00:41:57] David Kroman: Yeah, I would say this, though, about the budget. I don't want to sound like I'm defending the City's budget process too much because - it takes you a little while, but it's very easy to see where dollars are allocated, theoretically. It is much, much more difficult to know if those dollars are actually being spent in the way that the city council budgeted them for. We've seen this actually crop up in conflicts between the city council and the mayor's office, which is city council will budget a certain amount of dollars and the mayor's office - not this mayor's office, past mayor's offices - just won't spend it because it wasn't part of their priority. And I think you can look to that conflict and generalize it out a little bit. I don't know that there are great mechanisms to show for sure that when the city council puts money towards a certain thing, it's A) going to the thing that it was supposed to, going out at all - I do think there are probably some amount of dollars that are dedicated and not being spent for whatever reason. I don't think it's corruption or anything like that. It's just staffing and permit timelines or whatever it might be. And then of course, the final question of - So it's gone out the door, is it doing what it was intended to do? I think those are all questions that are probably worth asking. And I'm not sure are always asked in the fullest sense every year during budget. And so I agree that the use of the word "audit" was incredibly fast and loose on the campaign trail. Because when you say "audit," that implies something pretty specific. We have a Washington State Auditor. We have a City of Seattle Auditor. And they do audits, or you can hire people to do an audit. It's clear that audit in the most literal sense of the term is not on the table here because that costs time and money. Close scrutiny of whether the dollars that the City has allocated are being used in the way that people said they were going to - sure, I can buy that a little bit more. I don't know how you bring that more into the process than what's already there. To the new councilmembers' credit, I think there is room there to shed a little bit more light on that end of the budgeting equation than has been done in the past. [00:43:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely agree with that. I think you raise a really important point. It's hard to do it comprehensively - doing a deep dive into everything is a challenging thing. I do think that those questions do need to be asked frequently, especially on these high priority items. We definitely have a number of examples in the Durkan administration where they just refused to spend money - if council funded something and it wasn't aligned with the priorities of the mayor's office, the mayor's office just wouldn't spend that money in some instances or would look to divert that money to another area that wasn't one of their policy priorities as they've identified. So certainly just because money is allocated, does not mean at all that it's being spent at all or spent effectively. And I hope council does take seriously their responsibility to make sure that what they intend to happen as they set forth does happen and that money isn't just sitting there - that should be working for the residents of the city. But we'll certainly see what happens there. Last thing I want to talk about today was a story that was really concerning about a for-profit ICE detention center in Tacoma blocking health and labor inspections. What happened here? [00:45:04] David Kroman: Yeah, this was news to me. It looks like the state had tried to pass a law that basically increased access to the ICE facility - a privately run jail, basically - for people who have come into the United States. Because, as we know, there have been a lot of complaints about that facility over the years, but it's always been a little bit of a he-said, she-said situation because there's just such limited access in a way that - not to say that the state or city or county jails are in great shape, but lawmakers have an eye into those places and can see what's going on in there. They just don't with this facility because it's private. And so this bill was supposed to allow that access, but it seems like the GEO group that runs the prison is fighting them super hard on it in court and even barring people from entering. And this is pretty new to me - it seems pretty concerning - something that if you were a lawmaker, you might want to follow up on. [00:45:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, these complaints, there were hundreds of complaints - over 200 just between April and November of last year - stuff like insufficient food, misuse of solitary confinement, clothes rarely laundered and returning when they were supposedly laundered wet and dirtier than before, detainees with mental health issues being refused clean clothing. Medical issues, including stroke, paralysis, asthma, internal bleeding. One instance, a detainee with a broken arm was only given ibuprofen and not a cast for days after the incidents. When you talk about the types of violations that can happen when you have people who are 100% under your control, who you control their access to everything - the possibility of denial of that is egregious and atrocious. And so you do have to follow the laws of the state. Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self is trying to work through legislation to ensure that the state can inspect and examine what is happening here so it gets out of the world of he said, she said, and to ensure that they're following the laws of our state. And they've refused. So it is really concerning. A law was passed in 2021 aimed at shutting down the detention center by 2025, but that was ruled unenforceable. It just really is scary to think about - that we have these facilities responsible for people's care, basically, while they're being detained just seemingly unaccountable to anyone, with really catastrophic impacts on people who are jailed or detained here in this situation. And sometimes I'll hear people very flippantly - If they didn't want that to happen, then they shouldn't have done something to land in there in the first place. One, I think it might surprise people, the amount of seemingly innocuous things that can land someone in there. But regardless of how they landed in there, these are still people in the care of the state. And the detainment is what has been called for there, so they're being detained. But that doesn't mean that abuse, neglect, mistreatment is in any way justified. It is never justified. And I just think that we need to look at these things seriously. And when we hear about facilities, with the responsibility on behalf of the state, where they can control people's access to the necessities of life, that we should hold a higher standard than the average private company out there. And it really is just infuriating to me that we seemingly land in these situations where we have people being mistreated and they just seem to not care about the law - it's about the profit - and regardless of how people suffer at their hands in the process of it, I just - these types of stories really get to me. [00:48:54] David Kroman: Yeah, and I think it's why people are so concerned and looking for ways to get more eyes on the private prison industry - just because it is a constitutional right that people, even incarcerated people, have healthcare and food and not inhumane conditions, but just a little harder to make sure that it's not happening when the prison doesn't necessarily need to answer to the voters. [00:49:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Hopefully that is something that will change soon. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 9th, 2024 - it's my mom's birthday today, as we're recording this February 8th. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman. You can find David on Twitter at @KromanDavid, that's K-R-O-M-A-N, David. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Taxation is an important component to consider while doing business. Is manufacturing attractive in India? What happens when the duty on the components of a product being manufactured is higher than the final product? More than Tariffs, the issue of  price competition is the need of the hour, according to Dinesh Kanabar, CEO of Dhruva Advisors, our guest on the The Core Report, Weekend Edition.  Dinesh Kanabar, winner of “Asia Tax Practice Leader of the Year- 2020“, is a stalwart in the industry and has over the decades been recognised by his peers as amongst the top tax advisors in India. His ability to relate business strategies of clients to the tax and regulatory environment has been recognised as unique and has played a critical role in developing solutions for clients.Prior to founding Dhruva, he held a series of leadership positions across several large professional service organisations in India. He was the Deputy CEO of KPMG India, Chairman of KPMG's tax practice, Deputy CEO of RSM & Co and Head – Tax and Regulatory at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC)For more of our coverage check out thecore.inJoin and Interact anonymously on our whatsapp channelSubscribe to our NewsletterFollow us on:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Linkedin | Youtube

In this episode, author and CUNY professor Ava Chin, a 5th generation Chinese New Yorker, discusses her new book, Mott Street: A Chinese American Family's Story of Exclusion and Homecoming.The book artfully explores themes of exclusion as it relates to all Chinese Americans, plus personally for Chin with her father, a "crown prince" of Chinatown that she didn't meet until adulthood. Chin reveals personal family stories against the backdrop of the U.S. eugenics movement and draws a connecting line between the current rise in violence against Asians in North America and anti-immigration laws more than 100 years old.Chin also showcases the resilience, love lives and dreams of Chinese immigrants as well as their resistance to the attitudes and laws of the era.In our conversation, Chin said:> This story goes back to a period in time, in the era of reconstruction, when the country, when the young country was asking itself, who is an American and who is not, who is one of us? And the decisions that they made back then in the 19th century set us on a course as a nation towards viewing all Asians as being foreign and suspicious. And so the great aim of this book is to shed light on Asian American stories and place Asian Americans into our proper space into the larger American story.

On today's episode we sit down to discuss the current revisions for taxes/banking for cannabis as well as a follow up to our previous discussion on Potency. We also dive into some 2 Head/ 5 Head clips and catch up since we last recorded. Go follow us on Instagram at @twodabspod Find out more at https://two-dabs.pinecast.co This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

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

A note from Talking Taiwan host Felicia Lin:   On March 9th Taiwan Post will be issuing a stamp commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of Canadian missionary George Leslie Mackay in Northern Taiwan. Mackay was unlike most 19th century missionaries. He has been referred to as the “son-in-law of Taiwan,” and was a forward thinker. He was one of the first to oppose the Head Tax imposed on Chinese in Canada.   To help understand who George Leslie Mackay was and the significance of his contributions, I'll be speaking with Reverend Michael Stainton, the founder of the Canadian Mackay Committee. Reverend Stainton has worked for the last 25 years to promote the recognition of Mackay in Canada and on several campaigns for Canada Post to issue a stamp to commemorate George Leslie Mackay.   Those interested in contacting the Canadian Mackay Committee can email Canadianmackay@gmail.com   This episode of Talking Taiwan has been sponsored by the Taiwan Elite Alliance 優社 and the Taiwanese United Fund.   The Taiwan Elite Alliance 優社 was established in 2000 to promote Taiwanese and Taiwanese American arts and literature, and to protect and enhance the human rights, freedom and democracy of the people in Taiwan.   The Taiwanese United Fund is an arts and culture foundation that celebrates the cultural heritages of Taiwanese Americans. Established in 1986, the foundation's mission is to facilitate cultural exchange between the Taiwanese American community and other American cultural communities, hoping to enrich and expand our cultural experiences. To learn more about TUF visit their website  http://www.tufusa.org/    Here's a little preview of what we talked about in this podcast episode:   How and when Reverent Stainton first learned about Dr. George Leslie Mackay How Reverend Stainton was a student radical at York University and was involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement and interested in China How Reverend Stainton became disillusioned with the friendship work with China that he was doing How Reverend Stainton was initially reluctant to go to Taiwan to work with the Presbyterian Church in 1979 How the Kuomintang had cancelled elections in response to U.S. President Jimmy Carter's switch in recognition from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China (in 1978) The Tangwai movement in 1979 How Reverend Kao Chun-ming, who was the guarantor on Reverend Stainton's visa to Taiwan (in 1979) had gotten arrested for helping to hide Shih Ming-teh How things in Taiwan were in chaos when Reverend Stainton arrived there in 1980 Upon arriving in Taiwan Reverend Stainton was assigned to the Aboriginal Student Center At the time the Kuomintang believed the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan was a cat's paw of the Chinese Communist Party Reverend Stainton was warned that he would be watched and under surveillance with his phone calls tapped and letters opened How Reverend Stainton was asked to play the part of Dr. George Leslie Mackay in a play was put on for the 100th anniversary of the Mackay Memorial Hospital in 1981 In 1992 after Reverent Stainton had returned to Canada, he saw the importance of promoting the recognition of Dr. George Leslie Mackay in Canada How Dr. George Leslie Mackay breaks the stereotypes of 19th century missionaries How Joseph Steere a professor of Zoology at the University of Michigan who met Mackay in Taiwan in 1873 wrote that he observed that Mackay treated the Chinese as equals rather than an inferior race How Mackay learned Taiwanese culture and language from his students How Mackay accepted his students' suggestion and arrangement for him to marry a Taiwanese woman, Tiuⁿ Chhang-miâ (aka Minnie) How Mackay was criticized about his marriage and why he got married at the British Consulate How Mackay told the Foreign Mission Board of his marriage only after he had already gotten married Why Mackay is so beloved in Taiwan and is called the “son-in-law of Taiwan” How Mackay's upbringing influenced his values Mackay was the youngest son of a Scottish Evangelical Presbyterian family Mackay and his family had gone to Canada as refugees from the Sutherland Highland Clearances in northern Scotland because aristocratic landlords had pushed peasants off their land due to the English Industrial Revolution Mackay along with other refugees had been sent to Oxford county which is present-day South Central Ontario in Canada How highlanders (people from northern Scotland) were also looked down upon in Canada because they weren't civilized Scots from the south How the early injustice Mackay and his family experienced shaped him How he learned frontier medicine and developed strong resilience from growing up in the frontier The Zorra pioneers and how Zorra refers to part of the province of Ontario How Mackay became known for pulling teeth and was able to gain the trust of local people in Taiwan but he was not a dentist or doctor Mackay was given an honorary doctorate degree in 1881 Misconceptions about Mackay How Mackay discouraged foreign women missionaries from coming to teach (sewing and English) in favor of having local Taiwanese women converts teach in his school The great numbers of the Kavalan indigenous people who converted and joined Mackay's mission The ethnic revitalization among the Kavalan How the Kavalan used a patronymic name system, rather than surnames, but under Chinese rule they were assigned Chinese names and surnames, so some Kavalan adopted Mackay's Taiwanese surname “Kai” (偕) as their own What has changed in terms of what is known about Mackay Up until the 1990s much of what had been written about Mackay was hagiography The first international academic conference on Dr. George Leslie Mackay that Reverend Stainton organized in 1997 and how it boosted the study of Mackay How Mackay ended up in Taiwan and settling near Tamsui How the Taiwanese called foreigners like Mackay and indigenous people “barbarians,” and this created camaraderie between Mackay and the Kavalan people Reverend Stainton's efforts to try to get Canada Post to issue a stamp commemorating George Leslie Mackay which have included two previous campaigns in 2001 and 2022 Comparisons between getting a stamp approved by Canada Post vs. Taiwan Post In 2001 a stamp commemorating Mackay was issued in Taiwan Why Canada Post didn't approve a stamp commemorating the 150th anniversary of George Leslie Mackay's arrival in Taiwan The issues that Reverend Stainton has with the stamp that Taiwan Post is issuing on March 9 Why Mackay's wife was given the English name Minnie Mackay's lasting contributions in Taiwan Mackay's title of doctor was due to an honorary doctor of divinity Mackay's opposition of the Head Tax Mackay's lasting contributions in/to Canada Woodstock, Ontario's sister city relationship with Tamsui, Taiwan Mackay's intellectual curiosity and love of nature, astronomy, and botany Mackay's use of traditional Chinese medicine in his medical work The complete Kavalan people's bridal outfit on display at the Royal Ontario Museum, which was among the 16 crates of artifacts that Mackay brought back from Taiwan to Canada in 1893 Many of the items that Mackay collected are among the oldest collection of indigenous artifacts from Taiwan in the world   Related Links: To view all related links for this article, click link below: https://talkingtaiwan.com/george-leslie-mackay-canadian-missionary-iconoclast-and-his-contributions-to-taiwan-with-rev-michael-stainton-ep-173/

Jeff describes what taxes have to do with Christmas. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to be taxed (or maybe to be counted, so they could be taxed). 

The Canadian Pacific Railroad has a deeply rooted past in racism against one particular group of people. This is also how Canada tried to limit those people being in the country, despite the fact they needed them

From 1885 to 1921, 82,000 Chinese immigrants came to Canada, all of whom paid a tax to do so. Upon arriving, they would be subjected to racism and discrimination. Even when the head tax ended, a new, more restrictive immigration law came into place.  Support: www.patreon.com/canadaehx Donate: www.canadaehx.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/craigbaird Instagram: @Bairdo37 YouTube: www.youtube.com/c/canadianhistoryehx

This week Crystal is joined by Marco Lowe, a professor at Seattle University's Institute of Public Service. They discuss the outrageous length of endorsement meetings which prevents more folks from being able to attend and voice their opinions, the historic amount of money being raised on both sides of the Kshama Sawant recall effort, and what appears to be a suspiciously targeted looking attempt to change the rules of Democracy Vouchers because they're working too well for outsider candidates. 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, Marco Lowe, at @MarcoLowe. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Battle over Kshama Sawant recall has now seen over $1 million raised combined” by Nick Bowman: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/battle-over-kshama-sawant-recall-has-now-seen-over-1-million-raised-combined/Z67X6Z7OLNER5PH4NJQJOSJEGU/ “Campaigns for and against recall of Seattle council's Kshama Sawant gear up as signature gathering begins” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/campaigns-for-and-against-recall-of-seattle-councils-sawant-gear-up-as-signature-gathering-begins/ Proposed rule regarding democracy vouchers: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/EthicsElections/Ethics/DRAFT%20Rule%20-%20Democracy%20Vouchers%20v2%2005.19.21.pdf “Elections Commission Proposes New Transparency Requirements for Democracy Voucher Program” by Nathalie Graham: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/05/27/57748083/elections-commission-proposes-new-transparency-requirements-for-democracy-voucher-program   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.  Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host: Professor at Seattle University's Institute for Public Service, Marco Lowe.  Marco Lowe: [00:00:46] Thank you for having me - I'm always excited to come here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:49] Hey, Marco - always excited for you to be here. Always a fun time. So kicking this off - I mean, there's a lot that has happened this week. We were just talking about everything that's going on - from the endorsement meetings, to new developments with the police department and senior staff being demoted, to Street Sinks finally moving forward, and the County Executive race heating up. I want to start talking off - just talking about, just in general, an issue that we had spoken about online earlier this week. But we are in the midst of endorsement season. And endorsement season, particularly with legislative districts - Democratic legislative districts in Seattle, there really aren't many active Republican ones. Most people who are elected call themselves Democrats - whether Democrats feel that they're Democrats is another thing, but that's what they're calling themselves. But these meetings have historically and are notoriously long - 3, 4, 5, sometimes 8, 11-hour endorsement meetings. And many candidates count on this to get support from within the Party. This can dictate whether they can be endorsed in some other races, whether they get access to party resources - like the voter file, which is a really valuable piece of infrastructure for a campaign. But my goodness, these endorsement meetings being this long really is an issue in accessibility. How have you seen and experienced this? Marco Lowe: [00:02:28] I think we're both veterans of driving candidates to these LD meetings that go on for hours - in-person in the old days, now they're online. They have not sped up online at all. If anything, they've probably gone longer because now more candidates can participate. If our values are more people participating in the LD level, and more people participating as the candidate level - and when I say LD, I mean like the activists within the party - I think we're going to see some discussions in the future, much as we did with the caucus system that we used to have. How do we make these shorter? How do we make these more accessible? Because multi-hour meetings often held on the same night - I think it's struggling to say that this is working.  Crystal Fincher: [00:03:09] Yeah, it is really an issue of accessibility. And you brought up a great point about - we had this similar conversation with the caucuses. How back then with the push there - I mean, the caucuses instead of a presidential primary were day-long affairs. How did that work? And I guess how long did it - did you see it take to finally get the momentum to change?  Marco Lowe: [00:03:37] You know, I think it was the most - gosh, they were - it was 2016 where they were taking 8 hours and we were hearing these long stories with people fainting and other things across the state - that both parties took it more seriously. That some sort of ballot system would be better to allow, again, people to vote from home - we do mail-in voting for everything else. And so that discussion began.  And I think ultimately it just - I don't know how you can ask somebody to stay that long at a meeting when we could post the interviews online a week in advance, people can get the ballots in their hand, and vote when their schedule allows. It's tough. People have children, people have jobs, people just don't have energy levels to be up that late - I don't have the energy level to be up that late. And I think that we're all for the better, in either party, for the more people that can participate.  Crystal Fincher: [00:04:32] Yeah. I mean, certainly. There certainly are a few curmudgeons in every LD who kind of view this as, you know, a rite of passage. And these are just the battle scars of being part of the democratic process - but that's really exclusionary. It is not accessible. Marco Lowe: [00:04:48] It is, and we see that everywhere. We see how people are treated in jobs - well, I was treated that way in the job. I mean, in all of that, the answer isn't - that's how it was done to me. The answer is - how do we make it better for the next generation? Just because I was treated that way does not mean somebody else should.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:04] Absolutely. And if we're saying accessibility and inclusion is a value, if Democrats are claiming that's a value, then we have to - one, acknowledge that this is not the most accessible and inclusive process. And to be clear, a lot of people involved in these processes agree. And these are all volunteer organizations, so this is certainly not an indictment on the leadership of those organizations. They're oftentimes just managing these as well as can possibly be managed, given the existing rules - but in meetings where the rules dictate that they have to run them using Robert's Rules of Order, which can be, I mean, they're a gatekeeping tool. They can be exclusionary. They certainly do create order, but you have to ask what type of order. And if people can weaponize their use of those rules - when someone walking into a meeting from the public who may just say, "I'm passionate about these issues and I want to help," but isn't familiar with all of the intricacies of that system - they're actually prevented from participating and can be shut down or locked out through that.  So, I mean, certainly we have to look at how we run those meetings - you bring up great points. And I think Robert Cruickshank also brought up online - that the 36th LD is already recording some of the candidate interviews beforehand to make those available, so that doesn't have to be part of the meeting. Other LDs are talking about - okay, perhaps moving to just a full online ballot. We can do debating beforehand with members of the LD, we can do candidate statements beforehand, give everyone an opportunity - a length of time - to watch and view them and then give them an online ballot. We've, through the pandemic, gotten used to online balloting in several venues - the Washington State Party used it in their convention. The Washington State Party used it in their convention, other LDs have used it in various forums and committees - so there certainly is the opportunity to address this, to modify bylaws. But I think this should be a priority for the Party, because they're excluding people with disabilities, parents, people with jobs that they have to either go to or sleep for. Yeah, it's rough. It's really, really rough.  Marco Lowe: [00:07:31] And it's also - I have empathy in that these are, as you said, volunteer-led organizations. And also, I think sometimes humans just tend to do the way we used to do things. And I think this was just a great moment for everybody to pull back and say - Let's - you and I had a funny exchange yesterday about a first baseman who got into tunnel vision, and couldn't pull themselves out of the moment, and made a bad decision. And I would say maybe just - some volunteers at LDs - I understand this is how we've always done it, but let's take this moment to pull back and decide - can this be faster, more efficient for the general, particularly.  Crystal Fincher: [00:08:03] Yeah, absolutely. And certainly PCOs, who are also volunteers - Precinct Committee Officers - doing the work of democracy from the absolute ground level are really hoping that this becomes less painful too. I think there is broad desire for this to change and maybe there is - there's enough visibility on it, especially following some of the conversations that we had about caucuses - that man, we have to live our values. We have to include as many people as we can and not make attending meetings a barrier, especially when things so consequential as candidate endorsements and who you're giving your stamp of approval on to lead you through the next several years. And these candidates who are starting and going to the LDs today - they're going to hold office at a lower level, but these are the people who wind up in Congress and as Governor. So thoroughly vetting them at this level is really important. The more eyes that we have on them, the better our community and our democracy gets. Marco Lowe: [00:09:06] Absolutely. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:07] Another item I wanted to talk about was how much money is being poured into this recall effort for Councilmember Sawant. My goodness - both groups - the group supporting her removal via recall and that defending against it - have raised over $500,000. This is eye-popping.  Marco Lowe: [00:09:33] Yeah. Each! They're almost - each! We're probably at a million dollars here. I, you know, it's interesting. I really can't recall - I guess I shouldn't use that word - the last recall. I already slipped baseball in here too, so I'm on two for two with puns. No, I really do - I'm having trouble remembering when we had a recall in this state. I know we've watched California go through this a few times, but anyways the group has had - I went through their expenditures and it's a lot of legal money, 'cause they had to go all the way to the State Supreme Court to even have this on the ballot. But I think one thing you see - and I think this word is sometimes a pejorative and I don't mean it this way - but I think Councilmember Sawant is polarizing. And we tend to see people are either very much in favor of her, or very much wanting to see her out of office. And then a recall, just to be clear, in the state of Washington is not about removing somebody from office as much as it is they broke the law. Because I think people are seeing this as - well, I get a second chance at her. And that's really not how the State Constitution or City Charter is set up. But I think that is a lot of what's going on in the recall effort.  But you're seeing for Councilmember Sawant - I went through - they had a refund to somebody in Somerville, Massachusetts. And it's like, so somebody in Somerville gave more than the legal amount to this race. And I thought, wow, that is passion - that you are literally 3,000 miles away and over-donating to this effort that's not even a campaign for her against somebody else, but keeping her in office.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:54] Yeah. I mean, she - polarizing. She - lots of candidates say - they love to say, "Well, I'm not a typical politician." I think here - we have a factual statement that Councilmember Kshama Sawant is not a typical politician. She doesn't care about making people comfortable or happy, and she certainly speaks with an urgency, and speaks without pulling any punches. Certainly, talks about Democrats falling short. She is part of the Democratic Socialists of America. She is not a Democrat, and has issues and is not afraid to say that. Especially in a city like Seattle, people are not used to hearing that.  And so - and then just being outspoken on issues and not being an incrementalist. And I think that is something that people are really not used to seeing from major city, major metro elected officials - is just a wholesale rejection, basically, of incrementalism. And the priority being on policy and not working necessarily for a nice, comfortable consensus with her Council, with her fellow councilmembers. So she's pushing and she's leading a movement - and there certainly is a lot to be said for being a leader and speaking to an issue that people don't hear a lot of other people speaking in the same way. So it does get traction nationally. It does reach people in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the country. She was one of the first Socialists elected in the country in recent years and in my lifetime, really.  And so it - really, there's a lot of passion around it. There are people who just - the idea of her, the idea of socialism - gets under their skin. And this is a statement of their values to try and recall her. I think a lot of people are not looking at it in the terms of the actual City Charter and someone did something legally wrong to earn this - but man, we can't stand her. She's bad for America, and bad for society, and we have to get her out.  Marco Lowe: [00:13:10] And I think all the change that she's pushing is absolutely accurate - on some of the energy - both for and against her. She's also a woman of color. And I just think it's worth saying that - that that also is part of the discussion. But one thing that's worth throwing out there is Seattle districts were drawn in - by an organization that wanted to bring them to the City. So when they passed the amendment, the charter amendment to make districts - they look, on maps, pretty clean. They are actually kind of - they're difficult because I think most people think, "Well, she has Capitol Hill. So Capitol Hill must be wildly progressive." Well, there's two things on Capitol Hill to know - first of all, there's a heck of a lot of single family homes in her district - that if you look at her map, she has always struggled with the outer part of the district that tends to be near the water, and she tends to be much stronger on the inner part of the district.  The problem is Seattle has not built enough housing since - really Seattle was founded. And so you've watched increasing rents and other things go up that have pushed even in Capitol Hill - like the proper Broadway, Pike, Pine corridors - a much wealthier renter even. So that when she was reelected two years ago, it was a much closer election than I think most people remember. And now, without somebody else on the ballot, I'm kind of curious - your take - does that even change the dynamics? Is it because she's so powerful on the pivot against somebody? And I wonder if she doesn't have that, if that helps or hurts her?  Crystal Fincher: [00:14:34] This is so interesting. I was having a conversation with this - about this - a couple of weeks ago. Because it is a different dynamic with her just being on the ballot. And, you know, I was recalling in her last election - there was a lot of people who, again, just gleefully dislike her. And there was a popular media narrative that she had no chance. And I remember just being in one interview, and I'm like, "Okay." They're like, "Well, she got a historically low percentage after the primary. And ooh - things look bad." And she was in the 30s, but it was a crowded primary. So I'm like, "Okay. But if you actually look at the issues, a majority of the voters don't disagree with her on issues. That doesn't seem to be the problem." The Head Tax was a big issue at that time - going up against Amazon was there, and they were trying to make the case that, "Hey, we need to repeal the Head Tax." Most of the voters in that district did not agree with that. They just voted for other candidates who articulated those in the primary, but they're just like, "Ah! This spells doom for Sawant." And I'm like, " No, it doesn't." I mean, there was one TV interview I was on where the reporters looked at me like I was out of my mind for saying, "You know, it's really not over. She's really in this." This is a different - and then saying, because it's a crowded primary and here are the dynamics of a crowded primary. This being a straight up and down is different. What I don't know - what I'm not familiar with is - is how active she's just been with constituent service. Really, I think a lot of candidates - and I ran candidate campaigns for a long time - they don't realize that - man, talking to people is your inoculation. Just talk to your residents. They may - they might be mad at you for something. They might be, you know, gleefully excited. You'll run into tough conversations, but don't stop at that first conversation. Keep having those conversations. I know Mike McGinn was a fan of the town hall and he'd be like, "Man, those first couple are going to be tough." But you get past that, you just stay consistent, and then people - they vent, they get out the other stuff. If you're earnestly working towards solving problems in your district, they'll see that. And then they'll see that you're there talking to them in a way that other people aren't. So if there has been that presence with constituents, with organizations on the ground in her district, then she's going to be in a lot better position, right? And she certainly has a very motivated army of people willing to canvass for her. Is that also in not a campaign or a recall context? Is that there in a - just a regular constituent service context? I am not saying it is, or it is not. I truly don't know. I think that is going to be the biggest determinant. Marco Lowe: [00:17:24] I - gosh, that is such a powerful statement, because one of the reasons I have always liked the idea of doing district elections is that the voters are closer. I don't feel a lot - I don't think Seattle is at the level of understanding what a district is. I think Debra Juarez probably comes closest - when you talk to her, it's like talking to a Chicago or New York councilmember. It's just talk - like this is the district. And I don't really - and this isn't about Councilmember Sawant - I don't really hear that from many of them. I mean, they could talk about their district, but not the way that Councilmember Juarez does. And I'm not here to upset anybody, but I think we're still getting there. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:02] Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, that was certainly a line of attack that I heard against her - that she was concerned with national coverage and being a movement leader, and not necessarily a district representative. But there were lots of lines of attack also, you know, that were disingenuous. So I truly do not know, but I think that's going to be the biggest difference. Because if people just have the chance to vote yes or no, that's an easy thing to do.  And I do - to your point - think people have a misconception of her district and just assuming - okay, what district is the Socialist going to get elected in? I think they think of her district like a district further south - maybe like a Tammy Morales - and assuming that that's her constituency and it is not. And so, to your point - there are parts of her district that she has traditionally struggled with - higher income, more conservative areas - those are definitely in her district to a greater degree than say a district like Tammy Morales. So it's going to be interesting. I do think that she's going to have to work to fight this - and certainly has the war chest to do it at over half a million dollars. But constituent service, man - if people just realize that if they just talk to people, listen to them, and try and help when they say they have a problem - that is the key. That is actually the key to re-election.  Marco Lowe: [00:19:32] I love the line Senator Pothole. And again, I just date myself, but Senator D'Amato - who was, I think, the last Republican US Senator from New York State - he was constituent services. He - pothole - you would call with potholes, he would take care of them. King County Councilmember von Reichbauer - his district has changed dramatically since he's been there, but I don't think - you can get him on the phone as a constituent in seconds. And it matters - that's such a great point.  Crystal Fincher: [00:19:58] Yeah, that is the key. And I wish more electeds would realize that and operate accordingly. A number certainly do, but that's the key. That is a key - for all of you folks listening, advising other people - talk to your constituents. And just listen and try and help. And, you know - man, even if you don't actually end up helping - if they see you making an effort, they will love you. Marco Lowe: [00:20:25] Yes. And even as a candidate, you can do constituent work. I mean, you do a neighborhood town hall - host an issue, write to the City, write to the County, or whomever on their behalf and let them know. It is such a powerful connection.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:40] Absolutely. And, you know, one thing I do like - we see more candidates incorporating mutual aid into their campaigns, and actually helping the community and responding to needs, especially through this pandemic and homelessness crisis - and meeting people's needs where they're at. I think that that is the essence of public service. You know, I've been in here for a while. You can - - a lot of people think, "Oh, she must be really jaded. She's been doing this for a while." But it really is about helping people at the end of the day. And if you can demonstrate that that's where your - the center and the core of your value is - then I think you're off to a good start.  Marco Lowe: [00:21:18] I think voters can figure it out pretty quick too. That's a great point.  Crystal Fincher: [00:21:23] Absolutely. You know - still in the city of Seattle, there's another issue that popped up - a proposed new rule regarding Democracy Vouchers to change and require more explicit identification and disclosure of paid signature gathering. This comes on the heel of complaints about one particular candidate, Andrew Grant Houston, who is - on the surface, a Democracy Voucher success story. He is someone who, before this race, and as all the insider-y insiders are talking about - who's likely to run, who is a contender - his name was not in that mix. And I don't think when he announced, many people looked at his candidacy as a serious contending candidacy. And then he released his donation numbers and they were sky high. And all of a sudden people are like, "Oh, I guess we have to take him seriously." He is raising resources - because of Democracy Vouchers, he's able to not have to rely on traditional PAC money, establishment money, special interest money - whether or not we agree with those special interests. But he can talk to the people, and get those Democracy Vouchers. And he has done it better than anyone else has ever done it before so far. And is actually maxed out. Through that, there was initially - I hear, kind of grumbling from campaigns. You can hear grumbling about - you know, what's he doing with Democracy Vouchers and they're doing something different. Certainly, his Democracy Voucher fundraising consultant, Riall Johnson, has done an incredible job with doing this fundraising. But then that turned to - well, there must be a problem. We don't like the way this is going. And then it was just like - hmm, maybe this is shady. And then heard reports that his paid signature gatherers might not have represented himself - themselves - fully, accurately, or said some contradictory things. Which are reports that we've heard from various paid signature gathering campaigns. And to be clear, most signature gathering efforts for major initiatives and issues that wind up on ballots use paid signature gathering. That is the norm. That's not an exception.  So this all wound up in proposed rules to change the way that people have to disclose - they have to have signage or badge that says - we are paid signature gatherers, and that they disclose who they're with, and all that kind of stuff. What's curious to me is that - one, in this rule, it cites - well, paid signature gathering encourages fraud and misrepresentation to the people. And basically just unambiguously saying - this is shady behavior, and they're doing shady things, and so we need to protect against this.  I was just wondering why that doesn't apply to the recall effort, why that doesn't apply to other initiative campaigns. It is odd to me that this is very targeted, and makes it look like it's more targeted towards a candidate, and stopping - just being unhappy at what they're doing, rather than getting at the issue of paid signature gathering. Because it is certainly a lot bigger and also happening - immediately applicable in other contexts within the City. And so, we will have to see. And it's also, certainly, to have this rule come out in the middle of an election cycle. What do you think about this, Marco? What's your take?  Marco Lowe: [00:25:17] I completely agree. Ace Houston, as a candidate, just saw how the system was designed and did a beautiful job and just shocked the world with his fundraising and it was amazing - and I think in many ways, the intention of the program. I think the candidates will complain. We all complain when we're candidates - when our candidate is not experiencing the same success as somebody else. But changing during the race, I think is a little concerning. I think you should finish the cycle and then retool - because I do think that our system is very novel. And Seattle had a public financing of elections that was actually made illegal during a state initiative that was on a different topic - they actually tucked it in. So these programs are somewhat controversial, statewide and nationwide. And I think the more that we show stability and intention, the more we are able to defend when the inevitable electoral or even an additional legal challenge comes forward. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:15] Right. And that effort that you mentioned - that was what - 15 years? How long ago was that?  Marco Lowe: [00:26:21] No, I believe it was like an early 90s initiative, so the program had been in place in the late 80s. We are talking a long time ago - but that somebody took the time to get it banned in a very odd way - tucked into a state initiative - to me, always shows the intensity of dislike in some corners of politics.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:41] Absolutely. And I mean, we're in the middle of watching nationwide - the reaction and response to pushes for more equitable voting, more broad-based voting - in all of the efforts, mainly Republican efforts, to push back against that. But we're not immune to that in Seattle. And even though Seattle a lot of times seems like this island, and two people, certainly - we can talk about the accuracy of this - but it has a perception to, definitely outsiders, of people, of just this like island of progressiveness that is immune to any forces from outside. And I hope people understand that that is not reality - that's just a mirage. And Seattle's still vulnerable.  So, I do think it's best to finish out the cycle with the rules that were established for this cycle. Especially since we have a number of candidates who have finished qualifying - the one that looks as if they've been targeted has already reached the qualifying limit. Unless and until someone spins above that limit, then that ceiling will not be raised. But just why change midstream? And I do ask - why does this not apply to any other types of paid signature gathering? It seems really odd to target, to specifically call out - well, paid signature gathering is a problem. We think that it encourages fraud and bad behavior - yet, we're only addressing it with this one specific program in the middle of the cycle. It just seems odd.  Marco Lowe: [00:28:19] And paid signature gathering is its own deep discussion on what harms or maybe positives - I can't think of any - that they bring to the political system. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:28] I mean, it absolutely is - it's this whole discussion. And even - down to the vendors that have traditionally done it, and whether just the choice of vendors and who they also work for is desirable. It's a whole entire discussion. But we - I think at its core - we have to look at what our political system and what our rules encourage and lay out. And certainly the signature gathering requirements as they currently are, both on a local and a national level, encourage this and incentivize this. And if you want to see something different, then those rules are going to have to change. That's going to be the issue - the fundamental rules of how many signatures are required, or what you need to do that - to act like anyone is doing this with just all volunteer efforts is just not reality and not the case. Signatures are gathered by major campaigns and major initiatives. If you hear about it, in terms of paid media or commercials or mail, then odds are, they're also using paid signature gatherers. That's a political reality that if you want that to change, then you can't just tinker around the edges and put a badge on someone. You have to look at, fundamentally - what we're incentivizing through the rules that are laid out in the process  Marco Lowe: [00:29:55] And what was the intention of Democracy Vouchers, but to have a candidate that wouldn't immediately garner the media attention. And here it worked, and now we're making motions to slow it down? Crystal Fincher: [00:30:06] And now they're mad - "They work too well! Yeah, we want more people included and we want dark horse candidates, but not that one and not like that. No." Yeah, it just seems odd and it seems like people are - sometimes, and again, I'm not speaking to everyone's intentions here, but there's a lot of political uproar, that at the end of the day boils down to - this person's an outsider and we don't like it. And they're doing things that we haven't done, and we haven't blessed, and we haven't ordained - as the people who traditionally do this and who are traditionally viewed as the experts. They're a them, they're not an us. And it seems like the us-es might be mad at the thems. Marco Lowe: [00:30:55] Remember Michael McGinn at the end of his first mayor's race - told people to bring their ballots to two locations in Seattle. And they took the ballots down to the 24 hour mail drop at the airport. So after eight o'clock, ballots were submitted. And it sent the Secretary of State into orbit with anger, but it was very creative and novel. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:14] Yeah, it was within the rules. And I remember that clearly, and it was very much a - the us-es were mad at the thems. They were mad at the other. And so, yeah, I think that the unusual speed, which with these rules are looking at being enacted in this process is just - it's curious. It's very curious. Well, with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, May 28th, 2021. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assisted by Shannon Cheng and Lexi Morritt. Our wonderful co-host today was Professor at Seattle University's Institute for Public Service, Marco Lowe. You can find Marco at Twitter @marcolowe, that's M-A-R-C-O-L-O-W-E. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get your Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks and Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

3PM - Sully: Could Sound Transit push a head tax to make up deficit? // George Floyd Trial Centers on Police Tactic That Is Hard to Prosecute // Our obsession with happiness is making our kids miserable // High Tech ‘Dine And Dash’ Forces Popular Korean Fusion Cafe To Close See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today Crystal and co-host Heather Weiner get into all things Seattle mayoral and city council elections, including: Who has thrown their hat into the mayoral race? Who is likely to in the near future? How will the Chamber and Amazon money affect these elections? Will big grocery store chains, some disgruntled by the $4 hazard pay increase recently passed by the city council, show up as major financial contributors? (Also, Trader Joe's is being pretty cool.) A full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Heather Weiner, at @hlweiner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Follow the South Seattle Emerald's coverage of the mayoral race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/?s=mayor Learn more about Democracy Vouchers, and how you can use them, here: http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher  Learn how to testify remotely before the legislature, and how to follow bills here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/how-follow-and-participate-washington-state-legislature    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 are available in the show notes with the podcast and at officialhacksandwonks.com in the episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host renowned political consultant, Heather Weiner.  Heather Weiner: [00:00:49] Hi, more like infamous.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:53] Well, certainly known for doing lots and lots of good work - groundbreaking, nation-leading work. So I am pleased to have you on the program again and eager to dive into these issues.  Heather Weiner: [00:01:05] Oh my gosh. I love podcasts and how they spend the first couple of minutes telling each other how much they love each other.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:12] Well, see the awesome thing about having a podcast is it does give me an excuse to talk to people who I adore and admire and who are doing incredible work. So this is - this is really a bonus and a perk.  Heather Weiner: [00:01:23] Yeah. I love - I love all the different, incredible guests that you've had on.  All right. What are we talking about this week? Crystal! I'm so excited. Like, it's like, it's kind of like Christmas. It's not quite Christmas. It's more like - I don't know - hmm, more like opening, like Thanksgiving for political folks right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:41] For political folks - or maybe it's like Christmas Eve for political folks in Seattle - as we like unwrap the presents, you know? Get the few early ones on Christmas Eve and unwrap the presents that are political candidates for mayor and city council. And we had some more announcements this week. So I guess looking at the mayor's race to begin with, what's the shape of the race right now? Heather Weiner: [00:02:06] Yeah. Well, okay. First, full disclosure - I'm currently working with Lorena González. I'm helping her out with some comms work, but that's only for a couple of weeks just to help her get off the ground on her campaign. So full disclosure there. So you'll know that I'm not biased when I say, Wow, Lorena González is so - but yes, I'm - I think this is pretty big news. You know, the city council president is running for mayor. I think she is definitely has the biggest name recognition of anybody who's in the race right now. But there's also some really great people who have already declared like Colleen Echohawk, Lance Randall, and Andrew Grant Houston, all of whom are people of color, which is just amazing to have that deep of a bench and so many great leaders of color running for mayor. I just think it's wonderful here in Seattle.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:52] Yeah. And we're seeing that increasingly, and to me it is positive and notable because so, you know, we need representation and power across the board - certainly within the political system and within policy places, in addition to others. And the leaders that we have and kind of also breaking through what so many people do very often - it's assume, you know, well, there is a Black opinion and there is a, you know, Latino or Hispanic opinion. There is an, you know, like Asian people believe - as if, you know, that is one category with an opinion. And to me one of the very healthy things is that we can have conversations about the various experiences we've had and the perspectives that we have and they're nuanced and varied. And that is - that reflects reality. And so to be able to have that seen more widely, hopefully, normalizes that, Hey, you know, I'm just going to look to one person from all of the non-white groups, because we have no problem distinguishing between white people and well, this is an environmental candidate, this is someone who is representing business and everything and in past elections we certainly have - Okay, well, that's - that's the candidate from the Black community. That's a Black candidate and it is not that simple. And so we do have a wonderful representation of Seattle so far, and there's also some other folks rumored at getting in. So who else might join the race?  Heather Weiner: [00:04:32] Well, we're still hearing rumors about Bruce Harrell, former city council member. We're hearing rumors about Jessyn Farrell, who is a former state legislator . Possibly Nikkita Oliver, question mark. So there's a lot of people out there who are still thinking about running. I think it's going to be a crowded race. If you remember, when we had an open seat after Ed Murray, we had dozens of candidates running. Full disclosure - I worked for Cary Moon during that campaign. And here we go again.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:02] Here we go again. So we're getting to the point where many candidates are announcing here in this February and through March timeframe. Usually candidates are in if they're going to be in by that time, although there could be some after. But how are people, I guess, after their rollouts and their campaign announcements - how are they positioning themselves? Heather Weiner: [00:05:26] Yeah, I was just going to ask you that question. How are they positioning themselves? I mean, who here is the, you know, in that list of people we've talked about is the Chamber candidate? Who is the far left candidate? None of these are really that clear. Even for Lorena, there's quite a bit of conversation about collaboration, about bringing sides together, about not having the yelling and frankly, a lot of hate speech that has been coming towards the Council and between the council and other folks for the last couple of years. It's no secret that the Council and the current mayor have had a rough start - now in year three - on their working relationship.  And you know, there's also confusion among the public about, well, what does the City Council really do? So I wondered - Crystal, if we could just kind of review that for a second. Let's do a quick Civics 101 here and remind ourselves that when you talk about the City Council, it's the same as talking about Congress essentially. The City Council reviews the budget, they make legislation, they make specific policy, they pass laws - but then it is up to the mayor's office and the enormous amount of people who work for the City of Seattle to implement those policies, to spend that budget wisely. And I think that Durkan - and I'm saying this on behalf of myself, not on behalf of anybody's campaign - I think Durkan has done an excellent job of - anytime there was a problem, putting it on , putting the blame on the City Council instead of taking responsibility for herself.  Crystal Fincher: [00:06:55] She is a masterful blamer - I would agree with that. Heather Weiner: [00:06:59] So I think - and I think the public and some members of the press have bought it. I've been making jokes all day today that the cruise ship industry is going to be closed this year. And because of some rules that Canada is putting forward - not allowing them to dock. And why aren't we blaming that on the City Council too? So I'm really very curious to see how these different folks who are running, who are all - seem to be kind of rushing for the middle, except for maybe Andrew Grant Houston - how they're going to handle that. Well, that was not anybody like a candidate calling. Sorry. So I think it's going to be super interesting to see how that positioning is handling out. And I think a lot of what's happening at this moment is people re-introducing themselves to the public.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:43] And I think the re-introductionis needed and useful. And also, with the rollouts that they have  and the interviews that candidates have done in various places. And I will say the South Seattle Emerald has done an excellent job with the various candidate interviews and getting more detailed than we often see in an initial interview certainly - is that it's not immediately apparent that people are trying to position themselves as, Well, I am the Chamber candidate, and I am the candidate of the people, and the left progressive candidate. And it really has been an issues focused conversation so far. But how do you see things shaping out, moving forward? Do you see front runners in this race? Do you see people starting with clear advantages in their position?  Heather Weiner: [00:08:38] Yeah. I mean, look, I mean, obviously Lorena González is the front runner here. She has the fundraising base, she has the name recognition, she has the knowledge - deep inside knowledge - of how the City Council works. She's well-known as a civil rights attorney in this town. Remember - she was the lawyer who fought for victim - fought for justice for the victim of the infamous "I'm going to beat the Mexican piss out of you" incident with SPD. So she's very well known, but Colleen Echohawk is also very well-known. She's got within certain circles, you know - she's known for her advocacy on housing affordability and philanthropy. She's on the board of the Downtown Seattle Association. So she's pretty well-known too. So I don't know - I think it's going to be interesting to see how that works out. I'm also very curious to see what happens with the independent expenditures. Now, as you remember, because it wasn't that long ago - it was 2019 - Amazon dumped $1.5 million into trying to elect their slate of candidates. And they also put - big businesses also put, including Comcast, put a million dollars into electing Durkan. So who they gonna put their money behind this year is really the question. There's been some rumors the Chamber is going to stay out of it, but we've been seeing a lot of other stuff happening that indicates, Nah, they're not gonna - they can't resist.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:07] They have never been able to resist and I don't think that this is going to be any different. They certainly seem - while they still may have a question, perhaps, on who they'll ultimately support. They certainly seem to be moving in the direction of preparing that support and putting themselves in a stance to activate for their candidate once they're chosen and official.  Heather Weiner: [00:10:31] Let's - I mean - now the Chamber is going to argue and I think Tim Burgess and Tim Ceis, that people who are really - who are advising, who are the consultants on this, I think they're going to start arguing that things have changed in the last two years. And they have - but not because of anything the City Council has done. I mean, look, we're in the middle of a pandemic, right? Once every hundred years that something like this would happen. Poverty is on the rise because people have been unemployed. There's less money circulating through our economy right now. People are facing eviction, they're facing mental health issues and also substance use disorder issues. Yeah. Crime is going up right now. Yes - people - we are seeing increased homelessness and all of these are symptoms of the larger issue of wealth inequality and what's happening with our economy under COVID. They're going to try to put all of that - the increased visualization of poverty, which is what homelessness is - they're going to try to put that on the City Council. And I don't know if voters are going to understand the big picture macroeconomics here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:36] And I certainly do see a tendency - certainly from the mayor - and she seems to have gotten that from those interests as she was running - to blame everything on the City Council. We have seen several times over the past couple years that when the Council and the mayor have disagreed, the Council with the support of the public seemingly behind them, has overridden the mayor. And seemingly won the argument with the support of the public.  Heather Weiner: [00:12:07] This mayor is probably the least enthusiastic about interacting with the public of any mayor - well before COVID - and seemed a little bit sour on the job from day one. And so I'm not surprised that she doesn't want to run again. It is a hard job. And I will have to say that almost every reporter who interviewed Lorena González this week asked, Why do you want this job? It is not an easy job, right? We've got a city that is very much divided. We've got massive wealth inequality. We are seeing the impacts of 100 years of racial discrimination, of gentrification. We are, you know - and expecting a mayor to come in and solve all of those problems. And that's a really big burden. That's a really big job.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:56] It is a big job and it is coming with more expectation of accountability and accountability in more visible ways than we have seen before. The public seems to be more engaged and less willing to tolerate rhetoric and really looking for action. Someone's going to have to prove that they have a plan that they're willing to fight for and implement. How do you think the candidates are positioned to do that?  Heather Weiner: [00:13:22] Yeah. I think the only candidate - now look, I sound like I'm campaigning, please forgive me, okay? I do think the only candidate, really, who knows how to work with the Council is the current Council President. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:35] You're listening to Hacks and Wonks with your host Crystal Fincher on KVRU 105.7FM. Heather Weiner: [00:13:45] There's two seats coming up, also at the same time - the election - even if both of those seats went to conservative candidates , the mayor, a progressive mayor, would still have a majority on the Council. So I think there is a really good position here to get quite a bit done, at least in the first two years of whoever the next mayor's reign is. And I'm wondering - let's talk about those seats. So Teresa Mosqueda, I think, thought for a couple of minutes about running for mayor, decided not to do it, has already qualified for democracy vouchers in one week, is on a fundraising tear. I think she's scaring off any other challengers to her - I don't think anybody's going to want to do it. She's already pretty popular.  And then you've got the seat that's being vacated by Lorena that's coming open and that's where everybody is flooding in.  Crystal Fincher: [00:14:30] We saw Sara Nelson declare for that seat either yesterday or the day before - this week, certainly. And she has run before. She's a business owner. She's had the support of CASE, the Chamber's campaign arm before. And so how, I guess, as she's running, how is she positioning herself and what did she present as her plan and viewpoint in her rollout?  Heather Weiner: [00:14:56] Yeah. Her talking point was - we need the perspective of a business owner on the Council. People don't remember though - that actually Sara Nelson was a staffe , City Hall staffer for quite a few years. I believe - I know that she worked for Conlin - I'm going to have to fact check this. Anyway, I know that she worked for Conlin and she is trying to say that she needs to be the business representative. I think what's going to happen though, is when people take a look at her positions and also her backers, they're going to see the same big corporate folks that we've always had. So that's going to be interesting. Ryan Calkins is also rumored to be thinking about this. He is currently a Port Commissioner.  Also a small business owner. And has been, in my view, really moving his own positions way to the left over the last year which is interesting - handsome, tall white guy. We've also heard rumors about Scott Lindsay who - former candidate for City Attorney - who lost badly to Pete Holmes. And who also has been working closely with KOMO and SPOG to foment, you know , anger towards the City Council.  And then we've also heard rumors about Brianna Thomas who's a friend of the show - I know she's been on the show before . Who is also a Lorena González staffer, who also has been named as a possible person who might be running. So that's - and I think actually Brianna has, and I'm not just saying this because I personally like her a lot - I actually think she has a good chance. Voters like to elect former City Hall staffers. Lisa Herbold - former city hall staffer. Dan Strauss - former City Hall staffer. Alex Pedersen, former City Hall staffer. All of these folks - Andrew Lewis, right - used to work at City Hall. So all of these folks are folks who have been elected by the voters. I think she has a good chance.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:44] I think she has a good chance. And I think that particularly with her - especially right now and just talking about - voters want someone who is prepared to get the job done and start executing and delivering without just talking about what is needed without the knowledge and ability to get it done. As that - as Lorena González's chief of staff - she has been intimately involved with getting policy through and implementing the passage and the implementation, the design of legislation that can withstand the legal challenges. You know, it's as important to make sure your policy can stick as it is to pass it. So I think the combination of her experience kind of within that system and also additional experience at the legislative level and then bringing a community-oriented perspective into the office and really being able to fight for what community is standing for. I know that Lorena has talked about how important Brianna has been in not just reaching out to the community which she's been very  helpful with, but also in bringing the community perspective into the office. And to say, Hey, as a Black woman, this is not trivial - being afraid for ourselves and our family, as we walk out on the streets and not knowing if we're going to see someone come home again, or if they're going to be you know, harassed for, you know, either from the police or from, you know, Proud Boys roaming the streets without consequence or a variety of things. So, so being strong in that perspective has certainly, I think, helped policy in Seattle , been valuable for Lorena, and what voters are looking to see in their representatives today. Heather Weiner: [00:18:35] Yeah. And I know you said earlier at the show - that just because you're a person of color does not mean that you just singularly represent the people who you ethnically or racially identify with. But I do - I do think from a just, you know, your average voter perspective, seeing a Black woman on the City Council would be great because we do not have any Black representation right now.  I mean, but let's talk a little bit about what's happening on the money front. So right now, most of these candidates are using democracy vouchers - which I love, it makes me so excited. I mean, Seattle - you're awesome. You are using democracy vouchers to support the candidates that you want. This is the best way to overcome big money in politics. The other thing I want to point out is the rules have really changed for independent expenditures this year. Lorena, actually - don't I just sound like I'm promoting her constantly on this podcast? Are we going to have to declare this to the PDC as an in-kind contribution? You know, she was originally an ethics and elections commissioner. And now as a legislator with the City Council, passed some really remarkable reforms to campaign financing so that corporations that have a significant foreign presence are seen as foreign contributors and cannot participate in independent expenditures. So that is really interesting. And it's going to be interesting to see if Amazon and these other big corporations are legally able to put money into PACs like People for Seattle.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:06] Yeah. And they, you know, last time around, they basically said, Here, have a blank check - whatever you want to spend, you can. To the point that they were - they were spending so much, they were running out of ways to spend it. So checking the influence of large actors, especially, who may not have the interest of the City of Seattle as their primary motivator , is something. I think that they'll find a way to participate within this campaign, but I do think you made an excellent point about democracy vouchers helping to check the power of corporations  like Amazon and of those with the most money - which buys the most communication and allows you to attempt to drown all of the other voices out. And we saw that firsthand, last city council election, where really it was because the people were engaged and did not appreciate Amazon trying to buy their candidates. And buy their way onto the City Council and influence on it, especially since the policies that they were fighting against were ones that Seattleites supported by a wide margin. You know, the Head Tax is popular among people in Seattle. The only entity that seems to be against it is Amazon and therefore the Chamber, which seems to closely follow Amazon's legislative and policy agenda.  Heather Weiner: [00:21:35] Look, I mean, Amazon still polls high in this city, you know, their political game-playing not withstanding. We - people still like Amazon. We like having our packages coming to our house. We like how the ease of Amazon, like voters still like Amazon. So - but they do not like Amazon trying to deliver a slate of candidates. So I don't know that they're going to be able to do it. And honestly, how do you spend money this year, Crystal? So remember there's no political advertising on Facebook in the state of Washington. Or - and Google says they don't allow it either in the state of Washington although people get through. Twitter definitely doesn't allow it anymore. So in terms of social media advertising and fundraising, that's off the table. You definitely want to have people knocking doors then, right? But how are you going to knock doors during COVID? We saw that Mark Mullet did it. He hired - he hired people and I think that's what helped him - pushed him over the edge. But how are you going to do it? How are you going to spend that money?  You know, I think folksCrystal Fincher: [00:22:33] are going to try it at the doors. I think that is going to happen. I think that we'll see a lot of digital advertising money spent. And so, although it may not be on Facebook and Amazon, it'll be on every other site you go to. And those, you know, customized ads that are served up. And I think that we are going to see, you know, an onslaught of radio and TV and mail and, and kind of going back to the old standbys. And frankly, what a lot of those entities are used to doing and have done for decades, really. And just trying to out-communicate on the airwaves and in the mailboxes.  But we will see - I think that people really saw the power of democracy vouchers before. And I think one thing that's underestimated is that not only does it give people the power to compete with big moneyed interests, with being able to broadly appeal to the residents of Seattle and have that add up. But it also gets people engaged to a greater degree than they did without them. The democracy voucher isn't just, Hey, one transaction, let me hand this over. It really does create a deeper bond or a deeper level of engagement with the candidate. So I think that right now we're going to see candidates have to not just be the candidate of the Chamber or with supportive unions - that they're going to have to speak to people and get the support of the public as much as they ever have before and not rely on, you know, Hey, look at my friends over here. They're going to do the heavy lifting of this independent expenditure communication without them having to make their own case and be a credible candidate that people feel is up to the task of handling the crises that we're facing.  Heather Weiner: [00:24:26] Yeah. You know, I know we only have a couple more minutes left, but I want to just say, I think one of the big players that we might see this year coming into the City Council and mayor's race might be the big grocery stores. They are big in the news this week - suing, well, some of them are - suing to stop their own workers from getting hazard pay in the grocery stores. I mean, these are people who are supposed to be the heroes, the frontline workers. People who are exposing themselves to hundreds and hundreds of people who might have COVID every single day. They are getting sick. They are the ones absorbing the impacts of this. And the grocery stores which are getting amazing amounts of profits during COVID - because we're all buying our groceries and not eating out - don't want to pay that money. And they are going to - they're suing, they're saying it's unconstitutional. They're really raising a fuss. Except - and PCC, which is supposed to be progressive, you know, co-op, awesome place to shop - is one of the people who are screaming the loudest. Except, and this blows my mind - Trader Joe's. You know, LA has done the same ordinance - Trader Joe's just went ahead and said, You know what? Good idea. We're going to do it for all workers across the country. Everybody gets $4 an hour raise.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:44] Which was incredible to see and really did not do service to their similar, large grocers who as you said, despite reaping windfall profits since the beginning of the pandemic, have said, Well, we can't afford this. This is gonna make the price of groceries go higher. You know, the sky is going to fall. Don't pay attention to our exorbitant executive pay. But if we give these employees on the frontlines who are risking their lives 4 more dollars - things are going to be horrible.  Heather Weiner: [00:26:16] Yeah. We're going to have to raise prices - blah, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, these same corporations are buying back their own stock, right? Or giving out big dividends. Their shareholders are making a bunch of money - a grocery cart of money, Crystal. Yeah. Anyway, so look for them to get, to be involved in the play. And again, they're beseeching Mayor Durkan to veto this. I don't know if she is going to do it, but I know the City Council has enough votes to override it. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:43] Well, and my goodness, you would think that Mayor Durkan would be chastened a little bit about, you know, when the Council acts in service of the people and I then move to veto it - it doesn't turn out well, it's going to get overridden and then she's just sitting there once again as someone who tried to get in the way of progress and was just repudiated by everyone. And this seems like, you know, it seems like a bad argument on its face. And one that doesn't really have a shot in Seattle 'cause as you said, these corporate executive shareholders are reaping a lot of profit and have not had the experience that so many regular people, and certainly that many of their employees on the frontlines have, in the pandemic. And struggling to pay bills, and dealing with being exposed and trying not to bring that home to other family members. And to have the CEO of PCC fight against it as she's flying to Australia.  Heather Weiner: [00:27:49] Really?  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:50] Literally. Literally was fighting against the $4 hazard pay as she's tweeting online about loving her second home and getting ready to go to Australia. I'm like, Read the room, read the room. And as you have Whole Foods CEO, again, trying to put a progressive face on a company and him saying, Well, if people would just eat better, they would be healthier - wouldn't even need health insurance. Because certainly eating well prevents injuries from car accidents and cancer and you know, just how ridiculous and detached and entitled these people making these arguments are and it's pretty transparent. So this is going to be interesting, and I do think that they're going to play a greater role in attempting to shift the discourse. And it'll be interesting to see how that is responded to and how they receive that.  Heather Weiner: [00:28:48] Well, I can't wait to talk to you about this more. I think I'm coming back next month. Let's - let's check in and see what happens.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:55] Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, February 5th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. and the producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our wonderful co-host today is Seattle political consultant Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner. You can find me at Twitter @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And you can get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.  Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time. 

Did you know that for roughly 70 years Canada tried to slow immigration from Asia with a terrible thing called the ‘Chinese Head Tax’? Listen as Rhys depresses Jesse with the facts and we develop an immigration policy against hipsters and aggressive geese.

Chop Suey literally translates to “random pieces” in Cantonese. In this episode, Kristy & Angie cook up some chop suey of random shit including filial piety, Chinese Canadian history, and Asian representation in the BLM movement. Of course, there's some Harry Potter and astrology goodness as well.  Highlights:  What does it mean to “be present”  China is basically Westeros  Juneteenth March 2020  Defining confirmation bias Old vs. New Chinese immigrants  Which Pottermore houses are Kristy & Angie in  Takeaway:  If stories are not shared, they will be lost forever  Everything we know - labels, stereotypes, astrology, even science - that is all human conjecture  Our everyday action will determine if we progress or regress as a society  Resources: (There may be affiliate links. We may make a small commission at no cost to you) IG: @blackvancouver Chop Suey Nation by Ann Hui (Book)Let Kristy & Angie what cringy and uncomfortable conversation topics you would like to listen to! Record us a 60-second voice message and share with us your thoughts, comments, or questions. Drop your love here!Instagram @shitwedonttellmom Email: shitwedonttellmom@gmail.com 

MEET GEORGE BIRRELL: After earning his master’s in taxation and scoring in the top 10% of his class on his CPA exam, George began his career in public accounting. 12 years in, he transitioned into controllership for an engineering firm. Even as his career evolved, as an innovator it was never far from George’s mind that when it came to consumer tax prep, there had to be a better way. When he found that way, the idea behind Taxhub took shape. Determined to bring customers a better tax experience, George began discussing his idea with an equally passionate Creative Director, who partnered with him to help bring this idea to the masses. When not vigorously pursuing his dream, George enjoys spending time with that same advertising Creative Director and colleagues, working out at his local CrossFit gym, and keeping up with his Morkie, Wuzzy. CONTACT: TAXHUB (https://www.gettaxhub.com/?rfsn=4356929.38ee2a) SUPPORT THE SHOW BECAUSE I LOVE PUPPIES! 1)  TAXHUB (https://www.gettaxhub.com/?rfsn=4356929.38ee2a) NEED ACCOUNTING HELP? – Sign up for A Less Taxing Way To Work With A CPA. Get a free intro call with a tax professional. 2)  Audible.com (https://www.audible.com/ep/freetrial?source_code=PDTGBPD060314004R) This podcast is brought to you by Audible. I have used Audible for years, and I love audiobooks. Click on the link to get a 30-day free trial, complete with a credit for a free audiobook download 3) BERG LEARNING Are you interested in being a super learner who can read at lighting speeds with complete comprehension? Check out Berg Learning and see how. I am currently taking these classes https://www.berglearning.com/ (https://www.berglearning.com/)   Use coupon code:Yuri10 4) ARE YOU INTERESTED IN BITCOIN? BUY MY BOOK!!! BE LEFT BEHIND: Discover Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Before Your Grandma Beats You to It (https://amzn.to/3afTmOu) https://www.beleftbehind.com/ (https://www.beleftbehind.com/)

Juneau has a new park featuring a life-size statue of a humpback whale breaching from a reflecting pool, complete with water works. The statue was privately funded, but the park where it lives was almost entirely paid for by a controversial per-person tax on cruise ship passengers. It was one of the first taxes of its kind and the cruise industry actually sued the city over it.

For this episode, we welcomed Holly Chisa of HPC Advocacy to talk about the upcoming City Council elections in Seattle, Washington. Holly gives us an overview of the current political landscape in Seattle. We discuss the dynamics of the four open seat races as well as the races with incumbents' up for re-election. Holly briefs us on the "Head Tax" and how it is still affecting the city. 

This week on Liberty On The Air, Dan and crew discuss the passing, and then quick revocation, of the Seattle "Head Tax" on businesses and new AirBNB regulations in the City of Boston.

Why would any city punish the biggest companies in town by imposing a tax on every job those businesses create? That’s the question raised by a bi-partisan coalition seeking to overturn the newly imposed “Head Tax” in Seattle. The effort to repeal this obnoxious scheme in a voter referendum has already drawn strong support. Meanwhile, nearby Tacoma isn’t hesitating with its own effort to lure frustrated Seattle businesses to relocate to a friendlier environment: instead of a new tax of $275 per job, they’d get a $275 tax credit for each new job. While Seattle leftists punish job creators to fund more homeless services, engaged voters and free market incentives can still overrule them.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On episode 56 of PRP, Greg and Grendel welcome in Seattle-based producer Spekulation to talk his latest album The Crossover Event; Cultural Appropriation; East Coast Hip Hop; Seattle's houselessness crisis and the Head Tax; Battlefield Earth; and so much more. 

I don't talk about politics often but this is something that people need to know the truth about because there are a ton of misleading articles in the press. So I'm discussing the newly passed Head Tax in Seattle and why your city should not pass a similar tax.

Now that Seattle has passed a controversial $275 per employee head tax on larger businesses to pay for homelessness services and housing, what's next for the city and its relationship with Amazon and other businesses? Political reporters Jim Brunner and Daniel Beekman break down what happened and what's next.

A shockingly stupid proposal has outraged the business community here in Seattle, illustrating the topsy-turvy values of contemporary liberalism. The City plans to enact a punitive “head tax” on every business with revenues of more than 20 million dollars. These companies would be forced to pay a special tax for each of their full-time employees, with the money providing more services for the homeless. A decent government ought to encourage beneficial behavior, while discouraging self-destructive and damaging conduct. But here, Seattle leftists mean to reverse the equation: punishing job creation—good behavior that benefits everyone—while rewarding dysfunctional and destructive behavior, like camping out in public parks or under freeways. This folly demonstrates the twisted thinking that characterizes progressive ideology.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is Matt's last show until September he is going to Alaska to do a temporary contract job and I will be doing the show solo until he returns. We talk about some movies and television shows, Trump's pullout of the Iran deal, North Korea disarmament, Seattle's new head tax on multi-million dollar corporations, the Scouts - BSA, and more. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/muddiedwaters/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/muddiedwaters/support

City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, elected in November to a citywide seat, joined The Overcast to discuss what she's working on, such as protections for domestic workers, and some headlines, such as a ruling against Seattle's first-come, first-served rental law.

The Western Producer‘s Barb Glen reports on an Alberta court ruling upholding a new feedlot head tax, the Manitoba Co-operator‘s Shannon VanRaes looks into a new book commemorating 150 years of dairy farming in Canada and Jade Markus of Commodity News Service Canada gives you a look at markets. Hosted by The Western […]

AM640's Happy Capitalist Lou Schizas believes that a new 15% tax on foreign buyers in British Columbia is nothing more than a return of the Chinese head tax. Is it nothing more than racial prejudice?

The Chinese Canadian immigration project explores the dynamics of migration flows between China and Canada from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. It is based on the Canadian Register of Chinese Immigrants, a list of almost 100,000 Chinese who entered Canada between 1851 and 1949, most of whom were required to pay a discriminatory and restrictive entry fee – the so-called Head Tax. Using this core document, the project will examine migration between China and Canada, its relationships to patterns of immigrant recruitment in China and settlement in Canada, and the socio-economic factors underlying these population movements.