Podcasts about housing committee

After more than 11 hours of debate, a massive housing bill passed in the Connecticut House of Representatives. House Bill 50-02 has been called an aircraft carrier bill that focused on zoning control, transit-oriented development, incentives to build, parking requirements and fair rent commissions. We got more details on the bill from Rep. Kadeem Roberts, Vice Chair of the Housing Committee. Image Credit: Drew Carrano

A meeting between the ESRI and the Oireachtas Committee on Housing to discuss housing supply for the coming year has just finished up.Joining Kieran to discuss the latest is Newstalk Reporter Jessica Woodlock.

Even though Portland's housing crisis has led to rising rents and limited affordable housing access, plenty of residential and commercial properties remain vacant throughout the city. That's why the City Council's Homelessness and Housing Committee is looking for ways to fill vacant properties. Today we're talking with Portland City Councilor Jamie Dunphy, who's leading efforts to explore how a vacancy tax might help ease our city's housing crunch. Get more from City Cast Portland when you become a City Cast Portland Neighbor. You'll enjoy perks like ad-free listening, invitations to members-only events, and more. Join now at membership.citycast.fm. Who would you like to hear on City Cast Portland? Shoot us an email at portland@citycast.fm, or leave us a voicemail at 503-208-5448. Want more Portland news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter, Hey Portland, and be sure to follow us on Instagram.  Looking to advertise on City Cast Portland? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise. Learn more about the sponsors of this May 15th episode: League of Women's Voters Babbel - Get up to 60% off at Babbel.com/CITYCAST Prolonlife.com/city - Use this link for 15% off Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From Jeff Faller, President of the Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc.AB 1157 is a dangerous rent control bill that will worsen California's housing crisis. If passed, it will push more rental housing off the market, hurt responsible housing providers like you, and ultimately harm the very renters it claims to protect.We need you to EMAIL and CALL key Assemblymembers TODAY and urge them to VOTE NO on AB 1157. It comes up for a vote in the Housing Committee on Thursday, April 24th.You can submit your official position letter opposing AB 1157 through the California Legislature's advocacy portal here: https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/faces/profile.xhtml.Here's a link to the sample letter: https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/xJo0h801qpV_NH8I4f0STQYou can also email the Assemblymembers that are on the housing committee:

A proposal to block towns and cities from banning multi-family housing options either permanently or temporarily has advanced from both the Housing Committee and Planning and Development Committee. Senator Jeff Gordon is a Ranking Member on the Planning & Development Committee and explained how this bill really impacts towns, like Fairfield and Trumbull, that have housing-related moratoriums in place right now.   Image Credit: Getty Images

It's feared more Clare people will become homeless on foot of a change to Government policy. The tenant in-situ scheme, where councils can buy a property and continue renting it out to someone who's received a notice to quit, will now only apply to households who've been on social housing support payments for at least two years. Clare County Council says the majority of the 300 households it's supported after receiving termination notices so far would still meet these conditions. Clarecastle Sinn Féin Councillor Tommy Guilfoyle, who's a member of Clare's Housing Committee believes, however a sizeable minority will be affected.

A marathon hearing in the Housing Committee earlier this week may result in expanded rights for CT renters! Jon Kamal spoke to the CT Tenants Union to find out more!

Conor O'Connell, Director of Housing and Planning at the Construction Industry Federation, and Ivana Bacik, leader of Labour Party and a member of the Housing Committee in the last Dáil, discuss the avenues Government can take to ramp up housing.

WA Rep. Sam Low: Housing Committee by KGMI News/Talk 790

Brian interviews Brad Bradford. Brad is City Councillor for Ward 19, Beaches-East York. Brad believes that as our city grows and prospers we must work hard to ensure the benefits are felt by everyone. By bringing a pragmatic, energetic and results-focused approach to local government, Brad supports community-led change throughout Beaches East-York. At City Hall, he serves as the Vice-Chair of the Planning and Housing Committee. Brad ran for Mayor in the last election. Tonight Brad talks about our housing crisis in the GTA and his solutions.

Greg (@GregBradyTO) speaks with Gord Perks, Gord Perks, Toronto City Councillor Parkdale - High Park and Chair of the Planning and Housing Committee, about the impact red tape and zoning rules has on getting housing built in Toronto. Is there a way to speed up timelines? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady focuses in on what constitutes reasonable force… this in relation to an ongoing court case involving an off-duty Toronto police officer – who's accused of assault causing bodily harm – after a confrontation with 19-year-old Brampton man who died hours later.. 640 Toronto Crime specialist and former police inspector Hank Idsinga joins us to discuss. Next, Joey Scoleri, Senior Vice President of Industry Relations for Live Nation.. talking about the new Rogers Stadium coming to Downsview in North York. How many people will this venue hold? And what big acts does this venue have the potential to attract? Also, Scott Aitchison, MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Conservative Shadow Minister for Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, talking about housing building starts.. and why development costs are out of control.. how will a Conservative government step in and FINALLY get housing built.  Lastly, Councillor Gord perks, who is Chair of the Planning and Housing Committee to talk about the revamped development applications process and if there's still too much red tap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg (@GregBradyTO) speaks with Gord Perks, Gord Perks, Toronto City Councillor Parkdale - High Park and Chair of the Planning and Housing Committee, about the impact red tape and zoning rules has on getting housing built in Toronto. Is there a way to speed up timelines? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady focuses in on what constitutes reasonable force… this in relation to an ongoing court case involving an off-duty Toronto police officer – who's accused of assault causing bodily harm – after a confrontation with 19-year-old Brampton man who died hours later.. 640 Toronto Crime specialist and former police inspector Hank Idsinga joins us to discuss. Next, Joey Scoleri, Senior Vice President of Industry Relations for Live Nation.. talking about the new Rogers Stadium coming to Downsview in North York. How many people will this venue hold? And what big acts does this venue have the potential to attract? Also, Scott Aitchison, MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Conservative Shadow Minister for Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, talking about housing building starts.. and why development costs are out of control.. how will a Conservative government step in and FINALLY get housing built.  Lastly, Councillor Gord perks, who is Chair of the Planning and Housing Committee to talk about the revamped development applications process and if there's still too much red tap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A member of Clare County Council's housing committee fears the country will suffer "across every vein" unless a new government with a plan for boosting housing delivery comes to power. The spotlight has fallen on the shortfall of social housing here, as a new report has identified Clare as having the eighth lowest rate of local authority housing, as a percentage of total housing stock. Clare FM's Seán Lyons reports. ===== As a General Election looms larger on the horizon, housing looks set to be a critical issue once again. The Government's Housing For All Plan has an overall target of 33,450 new builds including private homes this year. Upon assuming the office of Taoiseach, Simon Harris said he expects quarter of a million homes to be delivered between 2025 and 2030. The opposition parties meanwhile have been vocal on their aspirations for increasing housing stock - with Sinn Féin stating its intention to build 50,000 affordable homes to rent and buy over five years. The Social Democrats have pledged to deliver 50,000 homes including 10,000 affordable homes and 12,000 social homes each year if in Government after the next election. Hilary Tonge was the Social Democrats' candidate in the Ennis Local Electoral area in the most recent Local Election and is currently contesting the branch nomination to be Clare's General Election candidate. She insists the focus must be on delivering affordable homes that are truly affordable. [CLIP] The Parliamentary Budget Office's most recent report states 4,646 households in Clare - or 3.6% of the county's population - are eligible for social housing but not in receipt of it. The report claims Clare County Council must boost its social housing stock by 58% and suggests this would cost over €732 million. Clarecastle Sinn Féin Councillor Tommy Guilfoyle believes only a change in government will result in housing policy that addresses the needs of this county.

Toronto is often accused of being over-regulated. It's a fair criticism. For example, photographer and urbanist commentator Dan Seljak tells us how he stumbled upon the small Finch Store selling espresso, fighting to stay open in the face of City zoning laws. For more of the story, and how Finch Store was granted a reprieve, we speak to local City Councillor Alejandra Bravo. And we speak to Councillor Gord Perks, chair of the Planning and Housing Committee, about why Toronto works on complaints-based bylaw enforcement, and how we can improve the system for small businesses, special events, and more.

Senator Bob Duff is a state senator from Connecticut and has been the Majority Leader since 2015.  Bob's Norwalk family ties go back five generations. His passion for public service began at the age of eight. That's when Bob voiced his concerns for the future of Duffy Field to then-mayor William Collins. Today, we still have Duffy Field — now renamed Veterans Park. Since joining the legislature, Bob has been a tireless advocate for job creation in Connecticut. Bob has also earned a reputation as a consumer watchdog. As Chair of the legislature's Housing Committee, he created the state's first Housing Trust Fund to build more affordable housing in Connecticut. As Chair of the Banking Committee, Bob worked to safeguard Connecticut homeowners from the ravages of predatory lending by creating a package of first-in-the-nation reforms to reduce the number of home foreclosures in the state. Included was the foreclosure mediation program, Mortgage Crisis Job Training Program (the first iteration to the federally recognized and nationally acclaimed Platform to Employment program) to help those unemployed or underemployed avoid foreclosure and a law that provides tools to municipalities ensuring lenders maintain their vacant properties.  Bob's consumer advocacy continued as he went on to Chair the Energy and Technology Committee. As Chair, Bob championed two major pieces of energy legislation which taken together implement a new comprehensive energy strategy for Connecticut: restructuring support for renewable sources of electricity to provide for cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy for consumers and businesses. Bob also supported the nation's first cybersecurity report by a state government relating to safeguarding our electric grid and water utilities.  In addition, the Senate Democratic caucus with Bob has achieved numerous legislative victories. Most recently, the caucus passed legislation standing up for DREAMers, the National Popular Vote, net neutrality, data privacy, health care access, Time's Up, gun safety, LGBTQ rights, equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage and Paid Family Medical Leave. Bob has also been involved with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) serving on both the Foundation Board and Nominating Committee and active in their leadership programs. Throughout his legislative career, Bob has been honored by The Workplace Inc., AARP of Connecticut, the Lockwood-Matthews Mansion Museum, the Save Cranbury Association, Side-by-Side Charter School, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Greater Stamford Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Women's Business Development Council, the Maritime Aquarium, the Norwalk NAACP, the Norwalk Marching Bears, Inc., Action for Bridgeport Community Development and the Norwalk Public Schools Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Committee. After graduating Norwalk Public Schools, Bob earned his bachelor's degree in political science from Lynchburg College in Virginia. There, Bob honed his political skills as a student senator, campus leader and intern for then-U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT). Bob, his wife, Tracey, and their two children live on Toilsome Avenue in Norwalk with their rescue dog, Molly.

If we had a house for every report, review, investigation, and new policy and recommendation then we probably wouldn't have a housing crisis. So why does Rob Callister want to set up another committee investigation on housing? Should public sector housing be more accessible for people on low incomes and if so how do we pay for the new houses required to satisfy demand? Surely it's time for more obvious action rather than endless words, excuses and “jam tomorrow”?

This episode is sponsored by Lodgify, an all-in-one solution that will help you start, manage, and grow your short-term rental business. > Click here to visit Lodgify.com to start your free trial today Getting involved in advocacy means more than just making a token appearance at a council meeting when they are discussing short term rental issues.  It means having a voice and getting a seat at the table.  When Ben Pereira started to build his Yukon-based business, he took this seriously and realized that you have to show up to be heard.  Now, as the Chair of the Housing Committee on Whitehorse City Council, he can make his stakeholders' views known and considered. In this episode, Ben talks about the uniqueness of his business, which involves a wide range of guest personas, from sports teams and adventure seekers to families preparing for imminent childbirth.   It's a fascinating look into a model of business that requires a good deal of flexibility, tolerance, and empathy.  On top of that, there's the ever-present threat of regulations, and we hear how Ben uses his position to share the benefits of short-term rentals in his community. ______________________________________________________________________ Discover the THRIVE Training System and attend an information session to get your questions answered about our foundational team training: https://thrive.vacationrentalformula.com/thrive-live-webinar Are you listening to this podcast on the move? Get to the show notes here: https://www.vacationrentalformula.com/VRS556

Dave Glowacz returns! And Ben is so happy, he riffs about it. Then they get down to business, breaking down clips from the April 1 City Council meeting dedicated to the question: Should Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez be stripped of his chairmanship of the Housing Committee? We got clips of Aldermen Lopez and Hadden and Sposato and more. Dave runs the websites inside Chicago Government.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The City of Gastonia is having a third-party study done that analyzes barriers to housing and gives in-depth recommendations on how to remove them.  The goal is to implement city policies that create more affordable options and address disparities in housing. However, the same study was done five years ago and according to the research, the city hasn't addressed some of the identified disparities from 2019. Gastonia City Council's Housing Committee received an update Monday on the federally required housing study that's done every five years. It found five main issues that are making it harder for people to find fair housing in Gastonia.Read more: https://www.wcnc.com/article/money/markets/real-estate/affordable-housing-crisis/affordable-housing-crisis-gastonia-nc/275-dbc643d1-00e0-4e94-82cb-6709756cc81dWatch WCNC Charlotte each weekday morning from 4:30 to 7 a.m.WCNC Charlotte To Go is a daily news and weather podcast you can listen to so you can start your day with the team at WCNC Charlotte.  SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts || Spotify || Pandora || TuneIn || Google Podcasts || iHeartAll of WCNC Charlotte's podcasts are free and available for both streaming and download. You can listen now on Android, iPhone, Amazon, and other internet-connected devices. Join us from North Carolina, South Carolina, or on the go anywhere.Click here to sign up for the daily WCNC Charlotte newsletter

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith! Crystal and Rich discuss the significance of the Stranger endorsing “Uncommitted Delegates” in the March 12th Presidential Primary. They then celebrate the legislature's passage of the Strippers' Bill of Rights and mourn the deaths of rent stabilization and even-year elections at the hands of the Senate Ways & Means Committee. Finally, they cover Seattle City Council's inexcusable silencing of protesters with arrest. 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, Rich Smith at @richsssmith.   Resources Check out our audiograms about proposed Seattle surveillance technologies and get your public comments in by the NEW deadline, March 22nd!   Vote Uncommitted WA   “The Stranger Endorses Uncommitted Delegates for the March 12, 2024 Presidential Primary Election” from The Stranger Election Control Board   “Donald Trump has a massive lead over Nikki Haley in Washington's 2024 Republican presidential primary, NPI poll finds” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “Washington Passes Strippers' Bill of Rights” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Senate Democrats Stiff Renters for the Third or Fourth Time, It's Honestly Difficult to Keep Track” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Conservative Senate Democrats Stiff Renters Yet Again” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Ways & Means declines to take up NPI's even year elections bill, ending its 2024 run” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “Police Arrest Six of Sara Nelson's Political Enemies After She Refuses to Hear Concerns of Asylum-Seekers” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “6 protesters arrested during council meeting at Seattle City Hall” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “King County, Tukwila announce new investments to help asylum-seekers” by Anna Patrick 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 show and 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. An update from last week's Tuesday topical show - public comment on bringing three surveillance technologies to Seattle has been extended from the original February 29th deadline to March 22nd. Check out our audiograms from this week and get your comment in now. Today we are 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: Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:01:20] Rich Smith: Hey, Crystal - how you doing? [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Doing? I mean - I'm doing. All things considered, I'm all right. All things considered is doing heavy lifting in that statement, but here we are. But hey, we have a presidential primary going on. We have ballots now, and there is a movement that The Stranger has endorsed for Uncommitted Delegates - for those who identify as Democrats - in the March 12th presidential primary. What is that? And why has The Stranger decided to endorse that? [00:01:55] Rich Smith: Great questions. Yeah - well, you've got your primary ballot. You've got some options there. They include Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson - who dropped out, and Uncommitted Delegates. Uncommitted Delegates is just a delegate that will, if that bubble gets more than 15% of the vote share after the primary, go to the national convention - which is scheduled for August of this year in Chicago. And in the first round of balloting, when voting on the nominee, they just aren't pledged to vote for any particular candidate unlike the pledge delegates, which Joe Biden will almost certainly win the vast majority of at the conclusion of the primary. So functionally, that's what it means - uncommitted delegate is someone who can decide who they want to vote for at the convention rather than just doing it ahead of time. And The Stranger endorsed it for a number of reasons. Chiefly, we do not like Joe Biden's response to the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. We do not like his hard right turn to the right. We do not like a number of other things that he did or did not do during the course of his four years in office. And this is the only time - the Democratic primary - where we get to raise an objection, make our voices heard in a language that he can hear, which is the language of delegates at the convention. The thinking is - if we send some uncommitted delegates, if the movement gets big enough, then during that first round of voting, the delegates can make a little noise if the war crimes are still going on. [00:03:39] Crystal Fincher: Now, one important note in this effort, because a lot of people were saying - We're going to write-in "Ceasefire," we're going to write-in a different candidate. That is, in Washington state - because of state law - a suboptimal option because officials only tally write-in votes from candidates who file "timely declarations" of a write-in candidacy and who also exceed the number of votes earned by the second place candidate. So that "Ceasefire" vote, that write-in is not going to be tallied or reported. It'll get lumped in with people who write-in some random name of a friend or someone who they wish would be president there. So the actual most organized and impactful way to register that vote is Uncommitted Delegates. There also have - heard some people who typically vote for Democrats say - Well, I want to cross over and vote for Nikki Haley instead of Donald Trump because I find Donald Trump offensive and don't want that. I don't know how much of an impact that is going to have here in Washington state. One, ultimately, most of the votes will wind up going to a Democrat - we're a blue state, that's not controversial. But two, even on the Republican side, NPI just came out with a poll this week showing Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the Republican primary among Republicans - about 75% of Republicans saying that they planned to vote for Donald Trump in that poll. So what's the hope - to get Nikki Haley from 20% to 25%, 25% to 30%? I don't know how much of an impact that is. Obviously, people are free to choose however they do want to vote, but very important that you do make your voice heard, that you are aware of what the options are, what the ballot looks like. And again, for the Uncommitted Delegates option, that's actually a bubble that you can fill in - you don't have to write-in anything, and that's how that would be registered. Also, a reminder that the presidential election ballots are due by March 12th, 2024. Don't forget to sign the outside of your ballot. In presidential primaries, we have to declare the party on the outside of the ballot - without those things happening, your ballot can't be counted. So make sure that you - one, participate and vote your conscience. There is a very effective way to do that right now. [00:06:10] Rich Smith: Yeah, we need as many people to do it as possible so we can send as many delegates as possible and show Biden that his behavior on foreign policy matters and on immigration - two domains over which the executive branch has almost exclusive control. I know that Congress has the purse or whatever, but as we've seen with the sending of weapons to Israel in December - Joe Biden, if there is an emergency, the executive branch can skirt Congress and send the money anyway. And the way that the national security apparatus is set up, especially with the continued authorization of use of military force, Biden can bomb the Houthis without talking to Congress much. He's got a lot of power and it's just so rare to get the opportunity to speak directly to a president about foreign policy. We don't have a draft, people aren't really talking about foreign policy when they vote - foreign policy isn't at the top of their list of things that they vote on. And so, presidents don't feel like they have to respond to Democratic pressure because there's not a lot of Democratic pulleys that give us power over him, basically, on those policies - on immigration and on foreign policy. So we rarely, rarely get this opportunity - it's certainly worth doing for that reason. [00:07:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I've talked about this a lot of times before, but primaries are your opportunity to truly vote your conscience. There's a lot of pressure in a lot of different directions in general elections. And it's not just a referendum on one person - sometimes we are in the position of picking the lesser of the two evils. But when that is ultimately the choice, it is on us to do all we can - in the meantime and around that - to lessen the evil overall. And so it is the time to be able to vote your conscience. There are lots of people who are having lots of discussions about voting in November, about Biden versus Trump. But this isn't that time. This is a Democratic primary where you can vote your conscience and you can send a message in a way that is stronger than just about anything we can do, especially as Washington state residents. So I certainly will be taking advantage of this option and want to make sure that lots of other people know that this is an option for them too. [00:08:35] Rich Smith: Hear, hear. [00:08:37] Crystal Fincher: Also want to talk about the legislature this week. There was a positive thing - a positive, I mean, maybe there are more positive things - but there was a positive thing that happened that's worth talking about. A Strippers' Bill of Rights passed. What did this bill do and why is it important? [00:08:55] Rich Smith: The bill did a lot. The bill established and added a bunch of labor protections for strippers in Washington state who have been needing them for far too long. It repealed the lewd conduct codes - the WAC, as they call them, Washington Administrative Codes - which were used and cited to raid gay bars in Seattle in January. And in doing so, it creates a pathway for strip clubs to apply for liquor licenses, so they can help offset the cost of some of the labor protections the state will now force them to implement - having panic buttons in certain areas, more safety training, lowering the house fees or the rental fees that strippers have to pay to clubs before they go on stage for the night so that they start the night indebted. And if the fees are too high - sometimes they're as high as $150, $200 a night - they will work a whole shift and just give all that money to the club owner and go home empty-handed. So this bill capped those fees to help strippers make money and express themselves sexually without the burdensome fees. What does it do? It frees the nipple and the jockstrap in queer bars so that the police don't have a reason to barge in as they did in January with their flashlights and their photographs - taking pictures of people in jockstrap in the clubs. It will more or less revolutionize the strip club industry in Seattle and give the workers the protections that they've long needed. I don't know if you've been to a strip club recently in Seattle, but it's kind of sad in there. It's not really a social atmosphere. People are there to sort of drink Dr. Pepper, and watch people dance, and then go get loaded in the parking lot, and then come back in. And that creates a kind of menacing atmosphere. And so the hope is - and that's supported by a state report released in 2020 - that having a more social atmosphere, having stuff to do there that's not just watch dancers and mull a lap dance will create a safer and funner environment for everybody and liberate sexual expression. But before this, with the lewd conduct laws - everything that a stripper did on stage was criminalized. They technically couldn't walk off stage with too sheer a bra or they would be having a threat of arrest. They couldn't take tips while they were dancing on stage without actual threat of arrest. There was a bunch of proximity rules in the codes that would have made lap dances illegal, basically. And so it decriminalizes stripping, essentially, in Washington and makes us the last state in the union to allow alcohol sales - in a kind of roundabout way. Basically, the repeal of the code means there's no enforcement of alcohol sales in clubs and it allows them to apply for the state's other liquor licenses - so that's the kind of roundabout way they're doing it. But it's incredible. It takes the boot of the state off the neck of marginalized communities and is a real win. [00:11:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is a marginalized community of workers. Workers that have been denied rights, been at risk of criminalization and penalties and everything that comes with that. Workers deserve protection - starts just as fundamentally and as simply as that. And every employer owes safety and fair compensation to their employees or to contractors working on their behalf. And so, this certainly brings us in-line with the modern world in many ways. And so just pleased to see that the legislature took action to protect workers in this way. Now, the legislature failed to take action, unfortunately, in some other very key areas - in areas that Democrats, certainly the House of Representatives, defined as priorities, defined as very important. Starting with the failure to pass rent stabilization, which would have, among other things, capped rent increases at 7% annually - which is still a healthy increase. But right now there is still continuing virtually unlimited rent increases across the state. I have talked about before - my neighbors received a 45% rent increase annually - in one year - from previous year. And this is contributing to housing insecurity. This is contributing to our homelessness problem. This is contributing to income inequality. And it's contributing to rising house prices across the state overall. This, in particular, really does fail to help our problem of displacement here in our communities - was just so disappointed to see this. Why did this happen? [00:13:48] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was a little bit - the short answer is that two men with somewhat adorable electoral ambition decided to quietly strangle the bill in the Senate's Ways and Means Committee, after a State senator representing Southwest Washington - Annette Cleveland - strangled the bill in a kind of clumsy and public way in the Senate's Housing Committee. And they don't offer many reasons for doing so, and the reasons they do offer are not good and unsupported by evidence. So in the Ways and Means Committee, you could only lose two Democratic votes, basically, to get anything through. The Ways and Means Committee is stacked with conservative Democrats, certainly fiscally conservative Democrats. And so Mark Mullet is on the Ways and Means Committee - he represents Issaquah, and he's just a true believer. He thinks that a rent stabilization package at 7% will decrease construction of new housing in the medium to long-term. And so it is not worth protecting the 40% of households in Washington who rent now from astronomically high rent increases that push them out of their communities - that's too great a risk - a potential medium to long-term decrease of indeterminate size in the number of housing units constructed in Washington. This is the kind of information that they're providing. Van De Wege did not give a reason. Rep Strom Petersen, who had talked to Van De Wege, asked him if he needed any amendments on the bill - they were willing to negotiate cap size, they were willing to negotiate all manner of exceptions. And Van De Wege shrugged and said, No. So not even giving a full-throated principled reason for quietly doing this to millions of Washington renters. And Annette Cleveland beforehand strangled the bill in her committee, saying that - it was spreading, basically, misinformation as far as I'm concerned. She said that the rent cap of 15%, which was the one that she was considering at the time - extremely high, almost comically high rent cap - would only catch the most egregious abusers because landlords would, as a matter of course, raise rates 15% every year. Because if they can't raise it however much they want, then they'll raise it to the cap every single time. This is silly. Everyone will tell you, even the f**ing landlords will tell you that a 3% to 5% rent increase on an annual basis is the kind of norm. That's what the developers and lenders are both agreeing on when they sign their contracts. That's the stuff that they're counting on when they're figuring out their returns on investment. So a 7% rent cap is more than genuous, especially with the exceptions in the bill. In any event, aside from that, she also cited a bunch of old papers talking about first-generation rent control, which is much more strict than the rent stabilization measures that the legislature was discussing. Those arguments are also - in recent review from academics - a little bit suspect, a little bit rosier, actually, for rent stabilization, and we could have a whole show on that. But anyway, she cited those disingenuous anti-rent control arguments to justify her support of killing rent stabilization measure, which is a completely different policy. And she insulted her colleagues while she was at it by citing the Urban Institute report that was actually less critical of rent stabilization than she made it out to be. But showing that she was concerned with the bill's impact on Black and brown people - doesn't want to raise the rents on those communities - and so decided to kill a bill that would make sure that they wouldn't face high rent gouging prices that have been pushing them out of their communities for the last two decades. I know I'm ranting here, but I can't underline this enough. This bill is too late, but must pass. We really could have used rent stabilization at the beginning of 2010 when rents started shooting up, and would shoot up over 92% over that decade. Rents have been sort of flat in aggregate for the last couple of years, but that doesn't mean, as you say, that landlords aren't jacking up rents on people to economically evict them because they can. That sort of stuff needs to stop - that bill would have prevented it - the Senate Democrats didn't let it happen this year. [00:18:08] Crystal Fincher: Didn't let it happen. And it should be noted that two people who were critical to killing this bill - Mark Mullet and Senator Van De Wege - are also running for statewide office. Mark Mullet is running for governor as a Democrat. Kevin Van De Wege is running for lands commissioner. Really interesting choices to refuse to help 40% of the state's population. [00:18:35] Rich Smith: Just a number of coalition partners - the Members of Color Caucus in both chambers prioritized this bill. The LGBT community came out, especially in Seattle, to do a big rally in support of this bill. Hundreds of people descended on the Capitol steps in Olympia during this session to support a bill from every part of the state - east, west, north, south. Every renter has been feeling this pressure, and the state legislature on some bulls**t about potential long-term costs to the housing supply - which they cannot quantify or have not quantified, I haven't seen the number. If so, please send it over to me - I can't wait to have that discussion. And the only salvo that they're giving us - and I'll stop talking after this - is, Well, next year, Mullet won't be there because he's giving up his seat to run for governor. Van De Wege won't be there because he's giving up his seat to run for land commissioner. A couple of other senators are going to announce their retirement - Sam Hunt has announced his retirement, we've got maybe a couple more. So those places on Ways and Means will be replaced by politicians who don't have the same politics as these conservatives. So next year, it'll be a whole new legislature. The complexion will change and yada, yada, yada. And in the meantime, renters are going to face massive rent increases. So that's the consolation. [00:19:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And we really don't know if the next legislature - if the Senate is going to be constructed differently. We don't know who's going to be elected to those open seats. And so what I will say is moving forward this year, it's important to get people who are running on the record, to talk about how important this is. As local party organizations are going through their endorsement processes, this be a question that's going to impact whether you decide to endorse or not. Those are the types of decisions that should be being talked about now and decided now, so as we move forward we have a better idea of who stands where and what we can expect from this legislature. The last thing I would say is - as people are running, it's so clear how much more power chairs of committees and leadership have. So it's great to be elected as a senator, as a representative. But as we've seen, chairs of committees can just flat out refuse to hear a bill that has wide popular support, that would pass on the floor if it got there. They can prevent it from getting to the floor. So who do these senators expect to support, or will they rule out supporting people for chair and leadership positions? This matters and this is very impactful for the type of policy that we're able to pass here in Washington state. Those are very important things that usually get less attention that need to be getting a whole lot more. [00:21:32] Rich Smith: That's right. [00:21:32] Crystal Fincher: I also want to talk about another bill that died. Even-year elections, which we have talked about, certainly in our conversation with Andrew Villeneuve from the Northwest Progressive Institute. They were instrumental in helping to write and shape that. Representative Mia Gregerson from the 33rd LD sponsored that in the House. It passed the House, got to the Senate. And what unfortunately happens to so many bills in the Senate, it died. What happened here? [00:22:03] Rich Smith: Well, based on the reporting from NPI, the bill was sent not to the Senate Governance Committee, but to the Ways and Means Committee where it quietly died. So another way that a bill can quietly die - because people can take executive action on it and vote on it, and it can die that way, certainly. But they can also just decide not to take it up in the committee and then die that way - then no one has to go on the record with who doesn't want more democracy, who doesn't want to give cities the opportunity to have more democratic elections in Washington. So yeah, that's my understanding - the Ways and Means Committee strikes again. They killed the bill by not taking it up in time. And now cities don't have the option to move their local elections to even years, which studies show and King County proves increases turnout. It's a loss for democracy. It's inexcusable. And Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and a number of power players came out against it - saying that it was going to be costly and there's other complications that election officials were going to encounter. But the state's Office of Financial Management - when sending it to the Ways and Means Committee - said that the bill had an indeterminate fiscal impact. In short, the state doesn't know what the fiscal impact would be. And I struggle to understand how holding fewer elections costs more money than holding an election every year does. But maybe initially with changing stuff around, maybe you have to buy more software or whatever. But yeah, I don't understand that math - haven't seen that math. But that was the political dynamic that killed the bill. [00:23:39] Crystal Fincher: An opportunity to improve our small-D democracy. Has failed to take advantage of the opportunity and basically assurance - we see what even-year elections versus odd-year election turnout is. Even-year elections routinely have turnout 20-plus percentage points higher than odd-year elections. It's always better to have more people weighing in on who represents them and how their community should be shaped. So again, disappointed to see this. And hopefully we can take this time, as we have elections throughout the state at the legislative level, that we press candidates on this, and see where they stand, and try and set this up for success next session. [00:24:26] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was interesting that they decided to send it to the Ways and Means Committee. So Jamie Pedersen - Seattle senator - is the Floor Leader. He decides which committees bills go to. So one question would be - why didn't this bill go to the Governance Committee, which is chaired by Sam Hunt, who's retiring this year? And then another question would be - what was the conversation in Ways about why they wouldn't pass the bill? And those would be two people to ask, in case you're interested in contacting your representative about why the bill died or you want to add your support. [00:24:55] Crystal Fincher: Yep, absolutely. Now we will turn to local politics and policy in the City of Seattle. This week, we saw a different approach from the Seattle City Council in dealing with protests. And coverage, even in The Seattle Times, noted that protest has been a normal, consistent part of public meetings in Seattle for most of the last decade, for decades before that, and beyond. Seattle, as a city, has such a long and storied history of protests in favor of change - and successfully creating change also, by the way. And this is happening while other councils across the state, from Spokane to Tacoma, are dealing with largely the same things - have managed to de-escalate these situations, have managed to listen to people in their community who are passionately advocating for issues - many of which are crisis levels within communities. But in the city of Seattle, we saw insults from the Council perspective and calls for arrest, which did result in several people getting arrested for protesting. What happened? [00:26:18] Rich Smith: Yeah, so the council met to pass a resolution to rename a street after George Fleming, who was a Black state senator. Sidebar, nerd thing - not a big deal, but worth noting. The resolution called George Fleming the first Black person elected to the State Senate, but he was actually the second or third, kind of depending on how you want to slice it. The first Black person was bi-racial - William Owen Bush was elected to the House of Representatives in 1889. He wasn't a senator - okay, fine. But the first Black senator was elected in 1921 - that's John H. Ryan, out of Tacoma. And so George Fleming would be the second Black senator. Minor note. But they basically framed the protesters as interrupting this resolution that was supposed to honor a Black pioneer in Washington politics, but not getting his achievement correct is not particularly honoring him either. So I see it as a little bit disingenuous. But in terms of the facts of what happened, they were going to do this resolution. 20 people showed up during public comment to advocate for the refugees who are in crisis now in Tukwila - in a church parking lot, basically - they don't have anywhere to sleep. The shelter is unstable. And they wanted to say that maybe spending a little bit less money on police would give us more money to help these disadvantaged communities. That was the people's agenda that day, even if it was slightly different than the City Council's agenda. So knowing that, Sara Nelson, Council President, decided to comment by 20 minutes rather than giving them an hour to say their piece. And the people continued to want to talk after 20 minutes and so decided that they were going to stay right there and protest until she made public comment longer. She did not. They called for security. They told people to leave. Some people left. Six people did not leave. The six people who stayed were arrested for trespass and sent to jail. And the people who left were banging on the window outside of the chambers and chanting - Shame, shame, shame. At which point, Seattle City Councilmember Cathy Moore, who's a former judge, said that she felt as if her life was threatened and demanded the police to arrest those people outside of the chamber who were banging on windows. Everybody made a big stink. And I think another councilmember - I can't remember which one - also said that she felt threatened by the mob out there who was interrupting this moment of democracy. As you said, protests in City Hall - that's the job. We tried to tell people that this slate of City councilmembers did not know what they were talking about, had very little understanding of the normal workings of City politics, and of the City in general. And this is just another way to show that they didn't read the job description. You gotta listen to the people when they talk. First of all, because they will stop talking and chanting when they feel like they've said their piece. And so it's just better for democracy to hear their voice. You all ran on listening to community. And one of your first major operations as a council is to sic the police on the community who is voicing their dissent in Council chambers where we have voiced our dissent forever? That's not listening to community. That's saying you listen to some community and you'll use state violence to shut down other members of the community. So that's what happened. And it was inexcusable and dumb - at the same time. [00:30:05] Crystal Fincher: Strategically, it does not seem like that was a wise decision. This isn't even a progressive versus conservative issue on why this was just really poor decision making. That's why you see councils across the state - and country, really, but certainly across the state - not resorting to arresting people for protesting. All that does is escalate issues and create more passion around issues that is going to manifest itself during your meetings. I will say a lot of councils have been struggling with how to better deal with and manage dissent. The reason why I am more familiar with what councils are doing across the state is because of that reason - it's something that a number of people are looking to figure out and respond to, particularly because there have been actual threats of violence - actual threats made during meetings, people carrying guns into meetings - that is happening as well as not even commenting on stuff. Insults, threats coming to people in meetings. Racist, sexist attacks we've seen across the state. So there have been efforts from a variety of councils to implement rules to be able to get through their agendas while enabling people to express their First Amendment rights and make their voices heard to their public representatives. That has not included calling for arrest. That has not included saying that people chanting - maybe in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable or that you disagree with - is threatening to your safety. And that particular thing sounds real familiar to a lot of people in my position and a lot of different positions - and if you know, you know - that conflation of, I am uncomfortable, I don't agree with this, to - I am being physically threatened, my safety is in danger. Those are two very different things, and the conflation of them is something that is a very cynical and harmful thing to resort to that I hope we don't see much more of. I hope they take this opportunity to really explore what it does mean to hear from people who do and don't disagree with you. And I hope they do that quickly because they are going to put the City in a position where they're going to face legal scrutiny, where there are going to be lawsuits that are going to cost the City a lot of money if they continue down this path. So we'll see how this materializes, but certainly this is not the best start to this council that they could have. [00:32:43] Rich Smith: Hear, Hear. There was a moment when Abolish ICE protests were particularly salient and the Council was having a meeting. Abolish ICE protests came in - disrupted the meeting. Immediately, Kshama Sawant stands up with her fist in the air. Teresa Mosqueda starts clapping from her seat. Other progressive members of the council are nodding and listening. Bruce Harrell was the Council President at that time - immediately calls for security to get people out of there. And eventually - they chanted, they stayed a little bit, and eventually they left, and the meeting got brought to order. This is a normal course of events in City Council chambers. And them making a big stink of this is them being politically opportunistic - trying to gain civility politics points with their base. And as you said, it may open them up to liability and it's just unwise. And I agree - I hope they take this opportunity to do a little research on the positions that they have, and on the history of those positions, and how to de-escalate and manage dissent. [00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: Just a side note on that - those protesters were protesting in support of asylum seekers who are trying to secure a place to healthily stay. The county is taking action - it was announced this morning that the county actually authorized grants to organizations that will be assisting the asylum seekers, as well as funding that should secure a stay through June with an enhanced heated tent - better amenities, I guess, than they have now, or just better basic shelter than they have now. It certainly is a conundrum. That is a short-term solution, there needs to be a medium and long-term solution put together. It does look like the governor and the legislature have included allocations to help both migrants and asylum seekers overall, and specifically those in Tukwila - with it looks like $5 million to $8 million allocations is what is proposed. We will see what that turns out to be by the end of session next week. But it's a challenge. Interesting to see the differences in how the different jurisdictions have handled it. People do ask - Well, why would Seattle even be taking that up anyway? Because this is a regional problem and that's why they involved themselves in it before. So these were people returning to the body that had itself involved themselves in it - I think it was a month ago that they decided to take action to help extend stays in some hotels throughout cities in the county. [00:35:23] Rich Smith: By the way, it's the right thing to do. We should be bending over backwards to help these people seeking asylum in our sanctuary city. They want to work. They want to be members of society. And we should be doing everything we can to help ease that transition and help them. It's going to pay off in the long run, and it's morally indefensible not to help them in the short term. I don't know why they're throwing up their hands and saying - Oh gosh, go talk to the county, go talk to the state. We can't really do anything here. That's not particularly welcome in this Portal to the Pacific. And it speaks volumes about how they feel about immigrants, how they feel about people coming into the city, and who they think they're serving. [00:36:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this feeds into the larger problem that we're having with not having enough housing or shelter for people overall. These are people who don't have it and what we have to contend with - people are like, Well, these are migrants. Other people just want to be homeless. They had the opportunity to get off the street. They could take advantage of shelter if they wanted to. The fact is, there are thousands fewer shelter and housing spaces available than there are people out on the street. We cannot offer housing or shelter to people currently on the street. There is nowhere near enough. Even if we offer shelter to three people, there are eight more standing next to them where it's just not possible. Until we build more, we're going to have this problem. It's going to get worse. It is on us as a society to fix that problem, so that we can move people off of the streets. It's not acceptable to anyone to have people languishing outside - it's unsafe, it's undesirable. These conversations about offers to do stuff are really irrelevant until there is enough space for everyone. Then you can talk about - Well, they decided not to. And then a conversation about penalties could potentially be appropriate then. But before that - how is it valid to talk about criminalization of being outside if there aren't enough spaces to bring people inside? This is what has always perplexed me. [00:37:36] Rich Smith: Yeah, the only way you can believe that is if you believe two things. One, every homeless person is a drug addict and a criminal on purpose because they like it. Two, we have enough space in the jails for all of these drug-addled criminals who just want to steal TVs all day. Neither thing is true. Most people on the street develop drug addictions as a way to cope with being on the street. It is not drug addictions that send them there to the first place, at least not the majority. And the jail - we do not have big jails. And when they go in there, we don't have enough staffing for the jails. And people think that people get treatment in the jails - they do not get adequate treatment in the jails. Staffing issues prevent them from getting the treatment they need. The treatment they need does not meet their needs because they get buprenorphine in lower doses - if you're on fentanyl, bup is not going to be enough to help you or to treat you in jail. And when you get out, you're going to have a higher risk of overdosing and dying. So people's misunderstanding of the criminal justice system leads them to believe these silly things. And I really wish they would read three articles before talking. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, March 1st, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter, @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms - and soon, Hacks & Wonks on all platforms and a few new things going on - at officialhacksandwonks.com. If you like us, please leave a review - that is a very helpful thing. And be sure to subscribe for the full versions of our Friday week-in-review and the Tuesday topical show. You can always 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.

Paul McAuliffe, Fianna Fail TD for Dublin North West and Vice Chair of the Housing Committee; Eoin Ó Broin, Sinn Fein TD for Dublin Mid West and Party Spokesperson for Housing;

Deed restrictions allow you to make contractual obligations with other homeowners–often, dead ones. How do deed restrictions and HOA's drive up housing costs and hurt density? How do we allow private contracts to exist without running into the downsides of neighborhood covenants. Chris Gannon works with the American Institute of Architects on their Housing Committee. He joins to discuss.

Paul McAuliffe, Vice Chair of the Housing Committee & Fianna Fail TD for Dublin North West & Cian O'Callaghan, Social Democrats Housing Spokesman and TD for Dublin Bay North.

The Chair of Clare's Housing Committee is calling for urgent clarity on the living conditions of tenants across the county. It follows a report which shows that the vast majority of rental properties inspected by the local authority failed to meet regulation standards upon inspection last year.

A Department of Integration response to an issue raised by the Chair of Clare County Council's Housing Committee has been branded "an insult to public representatives in Clare". Clare County Council recently called on the Government to "have consideration" for tourism-dependent business in the county, whose trade has suffered due to reduced availability of tourism beds, owing to a high proportion of asylum seekers being placed in their area. In reply, a letter for the Department of Integration has stated its aims is to "enhance communications and engagement and give communities more access to information on what is happening in their communities". Shannon Independent Councillor Gerry Flynn, who put forward the motion, claims the government hasn't made good on its pledge to improve services in areas where there's a high proportion of international protection applicants.

NCUA Board Member Rodney Hood Announces at September Board meeting he will support Chairman Todd Harper on his initiatives coming up, including the 2024 Budget.Hours later President Joe Biden announces his intent to nominate Hood's replacement:U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs – released the following statement after the Biden Administration announced the nomination of Tanya Otsuka to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) board. Currently, Otsuka works for Chair Brown as Senior Counsel for the Senate Banking and Housing Committee.“Tanya Otsuka is an exceptional choice to serve as a National Credit Union Administration board member. As a public servant, Ms. Otsuka has dedicated her entire career to fighting for consumers, credit unions and other small financial institutions, and a strong financial system,” said Brown. “On the Banking and Housing Committee, she has earned a reputation as a respected leader, reliable teammate, and a trusted advisor. She will bring a fresh perspective and support for the President's work to build an economy centered on working families. If confirmed, she would be the first Asian American to serve on the NCUA Board in the agency's 53 year history. I fully support her historic nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.”ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Sept. 21, 2023) – National Credit Union Administration Chairman Todd M. Harper issued a statement welcoming President Joseph R. Biden's nomination of Tanya Otsuka of Virginia to the NCUA Board:“Tanya Otsuka is a committed public servant and a well-qualified nominee to serve on the NCUA Board. Tanya's past work has strengthened the U.S. financial system, protected consumers, and advanced the ability of credit unions to innovate and compete. Tanya would also bring a different point of view to the work of the agency as the first Asian-American NCUA Board Member. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Tanya to protect the deposits of America's nearly 138 million credit union members and to expand access to safe, fair, and affordable financial services to under-resourced communities. I hope the Senate acts quickly on her nomination.”

Nora and Esther discuss some of the stories people told at the Maine Legislature’s Labor and Housing Committee hearing Thursday on LD 1964 and share some clips with listeners. Ask a question or leave a comment for a future show at (207) 619-3182 or by writing to podcasts@mainebeacon.com Subscribe to the podcast using any podcasting app… The post Podcast: Scenes from Thursday's Paid Family and Medical Leave hearing first appeared on Maine Beacon.

Today's Capitol Ideas touches on Washington's housing crisis, abortion rights in a post-Dobbs world, equity for foster youth, and plenty more. The guest is Rep. Emily Alvarado, and that means this is a high-energy, solidly informative, and very entertaining conversation.

In this Hearing the Council interview, we sat down with At-Large Councilmember Robert White to discuss his new committee chairmanship, with the Committee on Housing. For the first time in several years, both housing and homelessness are under the jurisdiction of the same committee, so we discuss the recent clearing of an encampment at McPherson Square. We talk about the infamous and perpetual waiting list for housing vouchers. We return to the topic we first broached on the show back in 2021, which is now attracting broader attention: the conversion of downtown office buildings into residential use. We discuss the current Congressional and Presidential interference with the Revised Criminal Code. Plus, to lighten things up, Councilmember White picks which of his colleagues he'd assign to a variety of oddball tasks. Be sure to watch!

A new report shows no state in the country has enough affordable housing for the families most in need. Reset discusses what's driving the shortage in Illinois, how a lack of affordable housing can put a family's health at risk and how organizations and lawmakers are working to close the gap with Bob Palmer, policy director of Housing Action Illinois, Amanda Henley, community expert of the Housing Committee at the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Nancy Heil, chair of the Housing Committee at the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Guacolda Reyes, chief real estate development officer of the Resurrection Project and Illinois State Rep. Will Guzzardi (D-Chicago).

Connecticut is in the midst of a housing crisis. About 34 percent of residents are paying more than a third of their income to housing costs. That's according to the Connecticut Mirror. From subsidizing construction to studying rent stabilization, lawmakers are currently figuring out how to best address the state's housing crisis. Rent caps were one of the many housing-related policies being debated at the state capitol this session. But just last week, the state legislature's Housing Committee decided not to bring the rent cap bill forward for a committee vote. That's despite a report from affordable housing advocates that says 72 percent of Connecticut voters expressing support for rent caps. This hour, we check in on housing reform in the state. Plus, lawmakers are also taking up the issue of birth control access this session. We get the latest on legislation that would allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control. GUESTS: Ginny Monk: Children's Issues and Housing Reporter, Connecticut Mirror Jacqueline Rabe Thomas: Investigative Reporter, Hearst CT Media Luis Quintero: Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University Christine Stuart: Editor-in-Chief, CT News Junkie Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Paul McAuliffe, Fianna Fáil TD for Dublin North West, and deputy chair of the Housing Committee and Richard Boyd Barrett, People Before Profit TD for Dun Laoghaire & Housing Spokesperson.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos! Now that the Washington state legislature has passed a major bill cutoff deadline, Crystal and Melissa discuss a long list of bills that died and those still fighting to survive - including landmark gun safety and housing bills. They also discuss Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's still-unfulfilled promise to advance alternate 911 response programs that can make our streets safer and help mitigate the SPD staffing crisis that the mayor says we have. They also discuss Mayor Harrell's decision to postpone the removal of cherry trees at Pike Place Market after community pushback. 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, Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.   Melissa Santos Melissa Santos is one of two Seattle-based reporters for Axios. She has spent the past decade covering Washington politics and the Legislature, including five years covering the state Capitol for The News Tribune in Tacoma and three years for Crosscut, a nonprofit news website. She was a member of The Seattle Times editorial board from 2017 to 2019, where she wrote columns and opinion pieces focused on state government.     Resources Shasti Conrad, Newly-elected Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party from Hacks & Wonks    “Rifle ban, housing bills and more advance in the WA Legislature” by Joseph O'Sullivan & Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut   “WA House votes to ban assault weapons” by Jim Brunner and Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Ban on selling assault weapons clears state House” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “The Olympia Waltz Continues for Middle Housing and Other Vital Legislation” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist   “WA's Missing Middle Legislation Threatened by Grab Bag of Municipal Excuses” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   “State Democrats Stiff Renters Again” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Legislative Cutoff Fizz: Police Pursuit Bill Moves Forward While Tenant Protections Die” by Andrew Engelson and Ryan Packer from PubliCola   “High-Speed Police Chase Bill Still Unpopular Among State House Democrats” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “WA police a step closer to resuming pursuits under bill passed Wednesday by Senate” by Shauna Sowersby from The Olympian    “Innocent Bystanders are the Losers in this Week's WA Senate Shenanigans” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “Bills aim to protect abortion patients who travel to Washington” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle's alternative 911 response program falls behind schedule” by Melissa Santos from Axios “Removal of Seattle cherry trees near Pike Place Market paused” by KING 5 News     Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I spoke with new Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party, Shasti Conrad, about what the role of chair entails, lessons learned from the previous Chair, Tina Podlodowski, and her plans for continuing forward as a strong and effective political party in Washington state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's cohost: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. Hey. [00:01:23] Melissa Santos: Hi, Crystal. [00:01:23] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back. Glad to have you and always enjoy the Axios newsletter in my inbox every morning. [00:01:30] Melissa Santos: I'm so glad - good, good. [00:01:32] Crystal Fincher: It's good stuff - good updates and easily digestible, which is good. Today we have just passed a significant deadline in our legislative session. We're just about halfway done. And with that comes the deadline to pass bills out of their house of origin. They need to pass a floor vote, and get to the other chamber in order to survive. So now we have a list of bills that have died, as well as those that go on to be heard in the other chamber. So I guess starting a roundup of what is living and what is dead, what is going on still in our legislature? [00:02:14] Melissa Santos: Oh, you're asking me - there are so many things that actually lived this year - I'm actually kind of surprised. For instance, a ban on selling assault weapons did pass the State House, and this has never happened before in our state. The governor and the attorney general and a lot of Democratic lawmakers have been trying to pass a ban on assault weapons - different versions of it - for, I don't know, six, seven years now, maybe since 2015. I don't know how many years that is 'cause time is like a vortex, but a lot of years - and this time is the first time it's passed a chamber. So that's actually fairly significant. [00:02:44] Crystal Fincher: Very significant and nationally significant. And was an issue that a lot of Democrats ran on in this past election - promising to take action, saying thoughts and prayers are no longer enough, we have seen enough of this. But this is a pretty substantial, major piece of legislation that we can expect to see also wind up in the courts. [00:03:05] Melissa Santos: Yeah, there definitely will be challenges. I think there are challenges happening in Illinois over there's - they've already been promised if they're not already in progress. And Illinois was the most recent state, I think, to enact one. We would be the 10th if we do so, unless someone somehow gets to it first - a couple of months before our legislative session ends. But there's still a big road. It has to pass the Senate. And you know - that we've had some shifts in the Senate, though. I think that legislators did take a message from last year's election results in which Democrats gained seats - didn't lose ground - after passing high-capacity magazine bans. There's no backlash, even in what was supposed to be a big Republican year. There's a lot of factors that go into that, but they're like this is not something that is hurting us at the ballot box at all. And in fact, Washington voters - I think you and I have talked about this before - they have been voting for stricter gun control measures for several years now. It's not an issue that loses in Washington state, or even the polls don't really show nationally. I think there's a big shift to - this is not 1994 when it comes to these gun laws. It's just not, and it's not the political football it was. [00:04:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And especially given the amount of mass shootings that we've seen, of just gun violence overall, of people dying by suicide using guns - it is just a lot. And we've had just about everyone say that we need to do something, and expecting our elected officials to do something. And we did see them take action - pretty significant action - in responding to the calls of parents, of students. We even saw students from Seattle's Ingraham High School, which experienced a school shooting, advocating for some of these gun bills, saying that they needed it to be safer in their schools. So this is something that Democrats promised - they took action on. This is something where they heard, and they've delivered - and we'll see how this legislation withstands court challenges - but certainly a big step here in our Legislature. Another big bill that was talked about - has been talked about really since last session - big time is the state's hallmark missing middle bill, HB 1110, which passed out of the House. [00:05:13] Melissa Santos: It did. And one thing I think that is one reason maybe why - I think there has been some conflict, not just the cities not wanting regulation - that was an argument that worked last year, cities saying - Hey, we don't want the state telling us what to do, essentially. We need local control over these things. Maybe it was an argument that worked last year, but I think the housing crisis is so deep that I think that that wasn't necessarily gonna work forever. But what I think was a genuine concern is whether allowing four to six units per lot, in basically all residential lots in some of these cities, might contribute to displacement. I think that's a concern for some people, and whether - there's a lot of stuff that goes into that. But what they did do was essentially make it so if you have neighborhoods where this upzoning would contribute to displacement - I'm not describing the bill very well, I'm jumping right in - but they basically said you can zone only 75% of your residential area to have these upzones and requiring four units or six units per lot. So that's a change that I think was made to try and assuage those who are worried about displacement. And it's possible the displacement argument is a front for other concerns - and that's just a - but that was a change they made this year that makes it a little more flexible. There's an alternate way to comply other than just saying - Hey, it's a strict four units per lot. You have to build a duplex on every lot - I should back up - zone for a duplex. God, you know what, Crystal? I really got ahead of myself. But my point is, changing zoning doesn't necessarily mean that there's a duplex going everywhere. It just means that the next time someone wants to do something, maybe they can do this thing. So yeah, there was never gonna be just suddenly everything's apartments. That never was gonna happen with any of these versions of this bill, but - [00:06:52] Crystal Fincher: Right - and we saw some hyperbolic headlines over the past week saying the Legislature's banned single-family zoning - which you can still build single-family - it just prohibits the exclusion of other types of housing. And the reason why this is so important and necessary - and there was such a broad coalition of business, labor, environmental groups, others saying - Hey, we absolutely need more housing - is because study after study has shown that we are behind on building the amount of housing necessary to house people who currently live in this state, even before we get to others who are moving to the state. And it's because so many areas have been prohibited from building anything but single-family homes - and the areas where you can build a duplex, a triplex, a sixplex, or a larger building are so small in comparison to all of the other areas. There just isn't the ability to build the appropriate and necessary density without a change in this zoning. And the way this manifests is - we have seen these rent hikes, these price hikes - when you have constrained supply and you have people moving here, that in and of itself has contributed to a lot of displacement and affordability crisis. And most people now recognize that we do have a housing affordability crisis. And so this is what has been proposed as a remedy - giving homeowners more control and property owners more control over what they can do with their lots and how they can build, and making sure that cities can absorb the amount of density that is there without the escalating costs that are driving so many people out of cities, out of housing, preventing seniors from being able to age in place, and their families from being able to live near them. And we've seen a shift in public opinion in support for this, where before it was something where it's like - Ah, it's dicey, a lot of people don't - but we've seen poll after poll showing northwards of 60% of residents across the state believe in this. And we've seen cities like Spokane and cities in Pierce County and Clark County take action on this already. This is actually an area where Seattle is behind the bend of several other cities. So interesting to see this going. Certainly there are a lot of cities who - judging by just some city and municipal meetings over the past week - who were hoping and thinking this would probably not get out of the House, but now it has made it to the Senate and they seem like they plan on stepping up their opposition to this bill. So people who are trying to get this passed also need to step up their advocacy of the bill and make sure that their elected officials know that they support this - even if they're homeowners, even if they're in higher income brackets, even if they're seniors - that this is something that they want in their communities if they want this to succeed, 'cause there certainly is a continuing battle ahead. Absolutely - and so other things that have survived, or are talking about housing and talking about the issues of displacement - for those really concerned about the issue of displacement - a couple of bills that didn't make it out, would have been nice and helpful for that. And those included some renter protections. One bill would have capped rent increases at 7% a year. Another would have required six months notice of rent hikes for more than 5%. Some cities also currently have some of those provisions, but certainly the majority of cities in the state do not. That would have certainly helped people. Rent increases are having a devastating toll on our communities and on homelessness, frankly. And those would have been really good to see pass the House - would have directly addressed issues leading to displacement and homelessness - and I'm disappointed that they didn't make it through. Other bills that didn't make it include a bill raising the age of juvenile sentencing from 8 years to 13 - that didn't make it through. A bill that would have ended design review statewide for residential developments didn't make it out of the House, nor did a WRAP Act bill that attempted to improve the state's solid waste system through bottle deposit and packaging reform. As well as a really common sense bill to ban jaywalking laws which are disproportionately enforced against BIPOC and low income people without an impact on public safety, it looks like, and so that didn't survive. One thing that looked like it was on its deathbed, but that was snatched out was a police pursuits bill. What happened with this? [00:11:36] Melissa Santos: Essentially, interestingly, the Senate had looked like it was not gonna advance this bill at all. This is a measure that kind of - it would roll back some of the stricter standards for police car chases that were passed a couple of years ago in 2021. It would say - We're not gonna be as strict in restricting when police can chase people in vehicles. Now, the Senate wasn't looking like it would advance it at all, but it was pulled from the floor and kind of skipped the whole committee process, basically - on Tuesday or so, I think - and it passed the Senate. And interestingly, what bill that looked like it had been moving on this issue in the House did not actually pass out of the House. So now we have a little situation where we don't really know what's gonna happen with it going forward. But, it essentially is just saying the Legislature, following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and the protests against police brutality that we saw - one of the things they did in the Legislature was say - Hey, you can't just chase people over stolen car or whatever and go on a high-speed chase that could be deadly for people. And it applied to more things too. It basically said that you have to have probable cause to chase people in some of these scenarios. You can't chase people for low-level crimes. Police have just been saying that they can't really do their jobs - that's been pushed back on quite a bit. But, there's been a lot of pressure for the Legislature to change this law and make it easier for police to engage in these pursuits again, especially when it comes to certain crimes that are violent. They still can chase them under the current law, but it would make it easier to with a lower-level evidentiary standard that that's the right person in the car - basically is what these bills would do. So we'll see what happens there. It is a weird bipartisan interest in this bill, I would say - the sponsor of the bill in the House is a Democratic lawmaker from a swing district. And I've got to look at the vote count again, but there are some Democratic votes for this. It's not like one party against another. So that makes it hard to figure out how it'll play out. But the House wouldn't take it up, so I'm not sure they'll take it up now - what's coming from the Senate - on the actual floor. [00:13:31] Crystal Fincher: We will see what happens with this. I think the House probably will end up taking it up, but maybe they won't, but - I hope they don't - because this is a bill that frankly, in my view, lacks the data behind it to justify what its proponents are saying. To your point, a lot of police have said - Ah, we just can't pursue anymore - and have been in community meetings where police officers and departments have suggested that their hands are tied, that they can't pursue anyone. It's never been the case that they straight up could not pursue anyone or that pursuits were outlawed. It really is a question between, as you said, two evidentiary standards - that of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Probable cause having a much higher - or not a much higher, but a significant - a threshold that is significant, that is also higher in terms of what they can do and when they are authorized to chase. And so when it came to serious things, if they had proof of something - they can and have been pursuing vehicles, including continuing to pursue in ways that have endangered the public and have injured the public, even in recent weeks and months. And so really a challenge here is addressing the potential harm and expected harm to the community as a result of these chases that in many jurisdictions already - certainly across the country - they have limited when this can happen because of the collateral damage that occurs, especially when oftentimes they're able to identify who is in the car, apprehend them after the fact, or apprehend them in a way that doesn't endanger the public through a chase. And they've also, I think, tried to say - Well, we've seen some increases in certain types of crime and it's because these criminals know that we can't chase them. And so they're just doing stuff and chasing, running away from us and laughing at us. And it doesn't really look like there's much evidence to back that up. In fact, they've talked about auto thefts and tried to suggest that auto thefts were increasing because they were limited in pursuing somehow, when it actually looks correlated to the price of used cars and that being much more correlated there. So it seems like it would make sense to pass legislation that would deal directly with the challenges that are having instead of some of fighting to re-enact and re-allow practices that have just frankly been harmful to innocent people in the public. [00:16:03] Melissa Santos: I think the data is a little lacking. There was this weird data war going on on both sides with this bill at one point. And it was kind of like, but it is a little - some of the data that's being used to say - Look, look, look, this is all is a huge problem. It's incomplete. It is incomplete. Like for instance, there's a lot of been, did a lot of citing of the State Patrol saying - We've had more people fleeing stops - basically, and that sort of thing. But then they don't - there's not any sort of follow-up about - were they caught from another means, some other - like later, which you can do through investigation or if further down the road, if they're doing something, maybe you would find them and be able to pull them over for something. There's not complete data there. They weren't tracking the stat exactly before. So there's not a good way to compare. It's just really hard. So I think that that's one reason why the Senate committee chair and the Democratic side on this has really been saying - Can we, do get some more data on this before we change the law? And the Republicans have been like - We should have gotten the data in the first place before we changed the law in the first place. But it is true that people die. Vehicle chases are dangerous. There are people who die. And it looks like we've seen fewer deaths - but the number from police pursuits since the law passed, but the numbers are so small, that the percentages can fluctuate wildly. I think there's an argument to be made to get a little bit more information for sure on this. And there has been crime increases in a lot of places, so it's just - there's a pandemic, there's been a lot of stuff happening. Sometimes when people are attributing the rise in crime to certain things, there's just - there's been a lot going on in the last few years and there's been a lot of contributions to crime rising, and there's been a lot of economic problems and that corresponds, and other places have seen crime rise. So it's just really hard to pinpoint it on this law. It's really difficult to do that as much as people want to. And honestly, some of the stories actually - when I followed up on them - haven't quite been accurate about how these things have played out. So it's just really messy to untangle. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: It is. And it seems like even when things are messy and in need of being untangled, we find ways to expand and support increased policing, especially of Black and Brown bodies. Also, things that passed this legislative session - passed their house of origin - made it out of their house of origin into the other chamber to be discussed to see if it will be passed, include a new drug possession bill that increases penalties for drugs such as fentanyl, meth, cocaine - and pushes those convicted into treatment, mandated treatment - a lot of people consider that coercive treatment. And really addressing laws in the wake of the Blake decision and the subsequent legislation, which had a sunset provision, meaning that they need to take action again now. Anything notable you saw with this bill in the process? [00:18:41] Melissa Santos: Honestly, I think this bill is gonna be totally different potentially by the time the session ends. It's one of those - it passed out of a chamber and they're being viewed as like a vehicle. You know what I mean? They can, it maybe will look very different by the end. But I think it's - the problem here a little bit is you want people to basically make drug possession a felony again, especially on the Republican side. Some people want that and then other people want the state to have it be totally decriminalized. And people are trying to, I think, thread the needle on it and there's not really a lot of - those sides don't really agree. You're not gonna find a compromise on - between make it a felony and decriminalize drug possession - that makes any of those folks feel like it's a good policy. So I think it's gonna be a really tricky one for that reason. I think this compromise of being like - Let's make it a gross misdemeanor, it won't be a misdemeanor anymore, but it'll be, it won't be a felony. I don't think that's gonna make people who think that the War on Drugs has been damaging to communities of color and everyone happy that it's still criminalized. And then I don't think that Republicans think that's strong enough. And so that's another one where it's - I think you're gonna see some weird vote counts. You're gonna see some weird coalitions build and it could be very different by the end. [00:19:49] Crystal Fincher: This definitely could change by the end. I think one thing that is useful to just recall is that - in this reality that we're in, we have been enacting and tinkering with criminalization for drugs for basically my entire life. I went to DARE assemblies when I was in elementary school. [00:20:13] Melissa Santos: Does that mean we're old if we went to those? I just wanted to check. [00:20:15] Crystal Fincher: I am definitely old. [00:20:16] Melissa Santos: Oh, okay - I went to those too. [00:20:16] Crystal Fincher: I won't lump you in with me, but I'm old. [00:20:18] Melissa Santos: No, I went to those too, so I guess - I don't know, all right - [00:20:21] Crystal Fincher: But I'm okay with being old. [00:20:22] Melissa Santos: It's fine. We all accept it, but I just wanted to check if that's what that means. I don't know - [00:20:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, it does, it does. [00:20:27] Melissa Santos: Okay, all right. [00:20:29] Crystal Fincher: But we have seen this big War on Drugs - billions upon billions spent - for what? To be in arguably a worse position than we've been in - to have this entire criminalized approach that has supported mass incarceration, that hasn't reduced recidivism, that hasn't reduced addiction, that has allowed it to proliferate really. And what we really need is a public health approach, and we've seen a public health approach to substance use disorder be much more effective than that. But that's not what a number of people have grown up watching on TV, have grown up being told from the DARE assemblies - anything about drugs is just bad and illegal and immoral. And if you touch those things - especially if you're poor or Brown, really, or in a low wage job - you're bad and horrible and immoral. Even though, my goodness, drug use is rampant among high income and high powered people. It doesn't seem to carry the same social stigma with them that it does for people who don't have the benefit of a home to do their drugs in, or can't do it as privately as others are able to do it. But man, this thing has failed, and it just feels like we're doubling down on a failed policy here because of fear - some of the same fear that went into the vehicle pursuit bill conversation - of not looking sufficiently tough on crime, of not doing that. Even though the public really is in a better place than most of our elected leaders are here - on not looking at this as such a binary and understanding that public safety includes a lot more than policing, a lot more than punitive punishment penalties. And if we focus on people being well, and if we focus on building a healthy community, and focus on stopping the harmful behavior, addressing root causes - that we prevent a lot of the problem and do a lot better in fixing the existing problems that we have. But that seems like a conversation that many people are not entertaining about this right now, but I certainly wish they would and hope that legislation improves. Also a bill survived that would reform the state's criminal sentencing system so that the juvenile convictions no longer lead to longer sentences for crimes that people commit as adults. Also Growth Management Act climate change provisions. This was also discussed last year - forcing and mandating that counties, cities, as they go through their Growth Management Act planning, which is mandated by the state, consider climate change impacts throughout that and build that into this process. Certainly helpful. Another bill promoting transit-oriented development - that's assigned to the Housing Committee - a lot splitting bill, easing barriers for ADUs or accessory dwelling units. A bill which was - I think we talked about it last week - near and dear to my heart, especially this session, for free school meals was watered down significantly to now - what passed is if a school has 30% or more of their students eligible for free and reduced lunch, then any student at that school can request a free meal - which is better than nothing certainly, but would love to see that expanded to be universal for everyone. As well as a bill that creates a task force for promoting research into psilocybin and developing a pathway for legal access to that psychedelic substance. So a lot of things are still alive. A lot of good stuff is still alive. A lot of good stuff still looks like it's moving forward. Other stuff - there are some abortion bills that are still alive this session. What will they do? [00:24:22] Melissa Santos: There's been ones trying to protect people from other states with restrictive abortion laws who might come here for an abortion. So we have some bills that basically create a shield law so that - trying to say - doctors here really can't be, putting them out the reach of those abortion laws if they perform abortions on someone. So they would basically - one of those bills that did pass the House - would make it so courts here can't participate in subpoenas from other states that are trying to get information about abortions that maybe happen here, if someone from their state travels to our state. And so that's designed to protect the doctors as well as the patients who come here. And that's something that Democrats have been going for. Similar bill dealing with data and health data on apps, because we have federal protections for health data under this law called HIPAA, but that doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't apply to period tracking apps. And there's also apps that track if you're trying to get pregnant and then maybe have a miscarriage - that there's data in there that maybe could be used, is the fear, from some states trying to prosecute abortions if they've criminalized it or have created civil lawsuit potential. Getting that data could show you had a miscarriage, you terminated pregnancy, this shows that. So they're trying to say - You can't get that, basically. So those are some of the things that are still alive. [00:25:33] Crystal Fincher: We will continue to follow this legislation as they make their way through the House and Senate. Also, they will - the Legislature will be taking up Governor Inslee's proposed budget, $70 billion biennial budget, before adjourning on April 23rd. So a lot to be done - still special education and other educational funding is wrapped up also with the budget - so many things are, so we will follow along. Also wanna talk about some Seattle news that you covered this week about Seattle's alternative response - another leg in the public safety stool - running behind schedule, at least Bruce Harrell running behind schedule on the promise and commitment that he made for this. What is happening? [00:26:23] Melissa Santos: It's actually interesting to me to see the mayor's office have actually laid out a commitment, a bunch of commitments, in writing like this. 'Cause sometimes at this mayor's office, it's not really - I'm not really clear on what's happening with them. That's the case sometimes with a lot of administrations, I suppose. But in this case, there was a document that the mayor's office agreed to in September - I think under pressure from the council, basically, to be honest, from watching that meeting - just saying we need some deliverables. We have this program we've been talking about since, again, the Black Lives Matter protests. It's now 20 - as of last year, it was 2022 - we still don't have this pilot program that we said to the community - Okay, we're going to reimagine public safety. This is going to be part of it. We're going to try and not send police officers to some calls where maybe it's not warranted and it can escalate into police killing someone or injuring someone, or just even an arrest that's traumatizing, potentially. So they're trying to say - We want to have a way of sending mental health responders and others to some of these calls. But there was supposed to be a pilot program that was supposed to have a plan from the mayor's office in December that was actually delivered and it hasn't been delivered. So the mayor's office is driving this - it looks like that's part of the agreement - waiting on the mayor to develop sort of some policies, proposals for the permanent program, as well as this pilot. And they have not come forth. There's also some intermediate steps that I didn't get into in my story, but that were missed. The mayor was supposed to narrow down what calls would this would actually apply to, what calls would some mental health responder go to? Is it officer down calls? Is it welfare check calls? And that really hasn't been narrowed down, which means there's not really - when someone asks me, for instance, how does this interact with our new 988 system? You can't really, we don't know because we don't know what calls they're going to be directing this to. But the idea is at least the 911 center would be able to dispatch something other than a cop - even though it's called a dual dispatch for some reason, which I found very confusing - the cop wouldn't necessarily have to be on site for these responses. And it's just - if this was a response to this - I have a policy document that says the social outcry for justice for policing, this is a City document - and it's been now three years and we don't have a pilot in range of being started. I think there's a lot of frustration on the city council saying - What the heck? And they expressed that at a meeting last week in the Public Safety Committee. I think Andrew Lewis, one of the city council members said - It seems like the mayor's office is behind on every deliverable that was asked for. The city council staff was - demurred on that, was like - I don't know if I would say that, but they have working relationships to maintain. As much in Seattle speak, it could be - as much as a WTF could be said in Seattle municipal speak - that's what happened last week, I think, on this, honestly. And yeah, it's just, I don't know where, how things - things don't seem very far along, is what it seems fair to say. [00:29:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's challenging for me - looking at this administration and how confidently they talked about their ability to handle public safety in the City, particularly during the election and the commitments that were made. Bruce Harrell having sat on the city council and had been a former mayor of Seattle - very familiar with the workings of the City, the size of the bureaucracy, and the scope of what needs to be done. He has seen that from every angle for over a decade. And the response when you asked that office - Hey, why is this behind schedule? - was like, Okay, but it's really hard, is what the response boiled down to. And it's yeah, no kidding. That's what you signed up for when you say you wanna be mayor and can handle that job - and not only can handle it, but can handle it better than everyone else in the field. We want to see what's gonna happen. And this isn't just for good feelings and responding to a community call, even though listening to the community is absolutely important. This is also about public safety. This is about reducing the amount of people who are victimized. It's about keeping the entire community safe and making it safer. This is about a more effective response that keeps people safer. And that can eliminate the frustration that a lot of people have with seeing a revolving door issue where they're being arrested for a problem - that isn't primarily a desire to commit whatever crime or to be loitering in whatever area - that are exacerbated by a variety of different things, where if we actually addressed those things, we can also eliminate any criminal or harmful activity and more effectively deal with an issue of someone who is creating a disturbance or causing discomfort or whatever that is. This is good for the City. This helps keep everyone safer. And it seems like there is no bigger priority than getting this spun up. [00:31:13] Melissa Santos: If there's a concern - the mayor's office and the police department are concerned they don't have enough officers to send to important calls - if that's a concern, the people who are concerned about that, right? This theoretically could make it so officers aren't responding to stuff they maybe shouldn't even be responding to, or aren't the best equipped at responding to. Theoretically, freeing up officers to respond to stuff for which an officer is really needed. It seems like both people who want to have a less aggressive police response, and then also people who want to have more police response in a way - both kind of are coming together to say - This would be good for us. The business people want it - for again, more cops to respond to crime crimes would be - they want. And then people who want to not have traumatic police encounters want it too, which - theoretically, everyone wants to not have those, I would assume. But, people who, that's their focus, also think this is good. It's okay, so what - and I don't even think it's gotten to, to be honest, I don't know if it's had the chance to get to the part that's actually really complex. 'Cause I think the mayor's office and a lot - honestly, city council and everyone - it's easy to say the police union won't let us do this, or something. I don't even think they've gotten to the point where they're even talking about that, really, with labor yet. It's okay, so if that's always the hurdle in doing police reform and you're not even really - you haven't really decided what you want to do. It's like the Legislature passed a bill to create an independent office for police investigations that theoretically should have been ready to have takeover jurisdiction of police killings last summer. And I haven't checked on it for a couple months, I'm gonna say, but it still was not up and running six months after that. And there's still a lot of hiring to do and a lot of policymaking to do. And you could argue - Okay, maybe that was too fast. Maybe a year - okay, so some people would say maybe a year plus was 18 months or so. You can't really set up a whole agency in that time. I'm like - Well... eh, like, how long? I don't know, I don't know. This just seems like - there's a lot of stuff that ends up taking a long time and then other cities do have some of these programs in place already, so it seems like there should be some models. And I don't have great answers about - could you, Denver does this thing - did you ask them? What's going on? It's hard to get a sense of what conversations are happening within the administration about this stuff. [00:33:24] Crystal Fincher: It is. We know they've had tons of conversations about graffiti and there's definitely an action plan and things happening for that, so priorities - seems to come down to priorities. I hope this becomes a higher priority in this administration for sure. Also this week, we have seen trees at Pike Place Market make a lot of news. How come? [00:33:49] Melissa Santos: Seattle people love cherry trees. Everyone loves cherry trees. Does anyone dislike cherry trees? So there are cherry trees, one of - yeah, there's cherry trees by the entrance of Pike Place Market that kind of frame one of our city's biggest landmarks, biggest tourist attractions. And they were set to be removed on Tuesday, maybe Monday and Tuesday possibly, and there was a group that's called, I think, Save Our Market Entrance, something along those lines, that put out some press releases on Sunday and also went and demonstrated and were like - Why are we tearing these down? There's some - it's been raised that there's some significance potentially in the Seattle's Japanese and Japanese-American community of having these cherry trees. The origin is being traced to maybe there was a significant gift to these potentially, but even if there's not - it's just, there's some people asking - Why do we need to replace these trees? They're part of the sort of fabric of our city and what we love about our city. I think the mayor did, someone in the mayor's administration did press pause on the removal of the trees this week, so that was a pretty successful effort by people who wanted to see those trees stay. And their future isn't really certain right now because there's gonna be some probably very Seattle-esque discussions about the trees. And there's some disagreement about whether the trees are healthy and will be healthy for the next 50 years or not. And so that's just all kind of being worked out. But I think people in Seattle like their cherry trees and also there might be some cultural significance here to pay attention to, so that's - at least for now - saved the trees for time being. Yeah, definitely. And this is also happening amidst discussions of Seattle's waning tree canopy and a need to increase the amount of trees - mature and other trees - and certainly not lose trees in the process. And I know some people are concerned about that as we go through this whole thing. But with that, we will wrap it up for today, Friday, March 10th, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is produced by Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Twitter @MelissaSantos1. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on Twitter @FrenchFries - it's two I's at the end - @finchfrii, I don't even, whatever. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever 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 almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a 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.

This week, the National Park Service cleared out the homeless encampment at McPherson Square, the largest encampment in the District. This happened two months earlier than scheduled because of a request from D.C. Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Wayne Turnage. We talk with Turnage about the clearing, and pushback from unhoused residents and advocates. Then, we talk with D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At Large), who chairs the Housing Committee on the council. What's his response to the clearing, and what's the council's role in connecting unhoused residents with resources? Plus, we ask White about what he thinks about the mayor's D.C. Public Schools budget. Then, we talk about what's happening in Richmond, where lawmakers are quickly approaching the end of their session. University of Mary Washington's Stephen Farnsworth breaks down what's happened so far, and what — if anything — will pass.

Rep. Strom Peterson (D-21st, Edmonds) visits Capitol Ideas to talk about public safety, octopus farming, and his bipartisan approach to easing the housing crisis. This is one you don't want to miss.

With the passing of Bill 23 by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, it is becoming even more clear to voters that developers run the Province. Their sphere of influence goes beyond the carving up of the Greenbelt.This episode uses Ontario examples to show how detrimental the relationship between ultra wealthy developers and politicians is to the wellbeing of our communities. It isn't just campaign donations, developers are wining and dining politicians, founding and funding right-wing third party 'advertisers' and clearly writing policies that cater to their every need. Resources linked to the show:Who Control's Toronto - ACORD Report - “In the 2018 Toronto Municipal Election, 34% of all campaign contributions came from people with ties to the development industry” Doesn't think any other industry is as heavily invested in municipal politics Toronto 9 out of 9 Planning and Housing Committee took funds (25%) Pasternack 59% of the funds raised Follow the Money Report - Horizon Ottawa - Nearly half of donations came from folks tied to developers Chair of planning Committee had 96% raised this way Results in bylaws and other things under the control of the local governments to be created/changed to suit developer needs - and contrary to public good. Already normalized rezoning and bylaw amendments. Now they don't even need to do that - leaving local officials unable to push back on critical items (affordable housing, green initiatives) Bill 68 (banned union/corporate donations) BUT: raised individual limits and allowed for 3rd Party Contributions (see ONTARIO PROUD) Ontario Proud's Election Advertising Was Mostly Funded By Developers - Sold as some grassroots campaign to defend Ontario values - really just a few very wealthy donors (87%) “Mattamy Homes, at $100,000; anti-union contractors association Merit Ontario, at $50,000; Nashville Developments, also at $50,000; Opportunities Asia Ltd. at $30,000; and Shiplake Properties Limited at $25,000. Seventeen other companies, mostly related to housing development, donated $10,000 apiece.” Ontario Proud: Takes credit for Doug Ford's win. Boasting that unions spent so much more and got a lesser result. Had ads, lawn signs “Unplug Wynne”. They only need to declare what they raised and spent during a specific time period. Outside that time they can do anything (and do). INVESTIGATION: Developers with ties to Ford government stand to cash in on Hwy. 413 | Canada's National Observer - -Lots of very powerful developers set to profit big time from Highway 413 (which has fierce opposition from environmental critics “Four of the developers are connected to Doug Ford's Progressive Conservative government through party officials and former Tory politicians now acting as registered lobbyists.” Article details these relationships and highlights the key players. All donors of Ontario Proud as well. Project will cost upwards of $10B to save folks (MTO says) 30 minutes of travel. Just so happens one of these developers takes Ford and Lecce to a Florida Panthers game, in a box (but swear no government business was discussed) Provide a map where it shows how PC top donors dot the land associated with the highway. I don't think this points to collusion between the PC Party and developers but of one between capital and anyone in power. Architects respond to Ontario's proposed Bill 23 - Ford says “ proposed legislation is to accelerate the construction of 1.5 million homes over the...

On today's midweek show, Representative Jessica Bateman of the 22nd Legislative District joins Crystal for an in-depth discussion on housing policy in Washington State. After laying out the Department of Commerce's 20-year projection of a needed million homes of which half need to be low-income housing, Representative Bateman walks through plans to address issues of supply, stabilization, and subsidized housing in the 2023 Legislative Session. Crystal outlines common opposition arguments to addressing the housing crisis - such as pushing growth into rural areas and maintaining local control - and Representative Bateman debunks these claims as not rooted in reality or equity. The two then make hopeful observations of the urgency of the problem being reflected in a tone shift in the conversation as well as the election of younger and more diverse legislators with closer ties to the matter - as a result, the House is redoing their committee structure and a broad coalition of stakeholders is coming together to elevate solutions to an issue that affects all of us. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Representative Jessica Bateman at @jessdbateman.   Representative Jessica Bateman Representative Jessica Bateman lives by the commitment that no one should be left out or left behind. A lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, she grew up in a single-parent, working-class household. Watching her mom work hard to provide for her family deeply shaped Jessica's worldview and later motivated her advocacy for those most vulnerable in our communities. Since then, Jessica has dedicated her career to serving the 22nd Legislative District, where she envisions an inclusive, equitable future for all who call this region home. As an organizer and coalition leader, Jessica has worked to create affordable housing, assist struggling families, and empower at-risk youth. Jessica also worked to pass a Sanctuary City Resolution in Olympia and is a passionate advocate for accessible health care. Jessica is a first-generation college student who earned her master's degree in Public Administration from The Evergreen State College and her bachelor's degree in environmental science. She currently works as a health care policy analyst, and served on the Olympia City Council and as staff in the House of Representatives.   Resources Washington House Democrats: Representative Jessica Bateman   “What Washington's housing legislation could look like in 2023” by Joshua McNichols from KUOW   “Poll: Strong Majority of Washingtonians Support Middle Housing Options” from The Sightline Institute   “What Will It Take to Get Statewide Housing Reform?” by Matt Baume from The Stranger   “18 Reasons Why Washington Should Legalize Middle Housing” by Dan Bertolet from Sightline Institute   Representative Bateman Twitter thread on creation of new Housing Committee Futurewise: We work across Washington to create livable communities, ensure clean healthy waterways, and protect farms, forests & habitat for this & future generations.   Transcript   [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. So today I am really excited to be welcoming Representative Jessica Bateman to the show to talk all things housing. How are you doing? [00:00:48] Representative Jessica Bateman: I am fabulous. Thank you so much for having me. [00:00:50] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm really excited to talk about this. Obviously, housing affordability has been a major issue on the minds of a majority of people across the state. Going through election season, we see polls and we hear about what are the most pressing issues that voters are thinking about and that people are facing in their communities - and consistently the cost of housing and affordability comes up as one of the predominant concerns. Housing is usually people's biggest expense that they have, and the cost of housing has just been skyrocketing and has caused a lot of problems that people are trying to figure out how to deal with. You have been working on that. So I guess starting off, I just want to back up a little bit and talk about what brought you to the Legislature - I mean to politics, you were on the Olympia City Council and then the Legislature - and what got you so passionate about housing? [00:01:46] Representative Jessica Bateman: Well, I worked on housing on the Olympia City Council for five years during my tenure there, but I'll go back even further. When we talk about housing policy, we can get really into the weeds and we're on a show right now that has "wonk" in the title - so I definitely can go there and have those conversations. But I think it's really important for us to remember - when we talk about the need for housing - abundant housing and housing options for everyone, housing that's affordable for families - we're talking about people. Because every single person and every single family has to have a home and a place to live. And for me, it's personal. My mom grew up in poverty - she was born and raised in a trailer park in rural Montana. She moved out here to get a job and after having me, she was able to get a job at the county, King County, working as a janitor. And that job was a union-paying job and it helped provide the economic security for her, healthcare benefits - to buy a home as a single mom for $117,000 in Maple Valley. She took the equity that she built in that home and helped me buy a home when I was in my early 30s. I was able to sell that home, pay off all my student loans, and buy a second home with financial security and stability. Fortunately for me, I was one of the lucky ones. I went on to earn my Master's degree, ran for City Council, and now I'm in the Legislature. I want every family to have that opportunity - and right now with the current conditions that we are experiencing with housing, that is not the reality for people across Washington state. And my major concern is that the status quo is not working and we have an obligation - a moral obligation - to make changes so that that opportunity is available to everyone. [00:03:30] Crystal Fincher: Completely makes sense. It mirrors the story of so many people in our communities right now. So what are you working on? What is the fix? What do we need to do to get this issue under control? [00:03:43] Representative Jessica Bateman: I don't want to imply that there is a single solution, or that this is an easy problem to solve. The reality is that it has been decades in the making. It's also multifaceted. We've seen construction after the last recession - we saw a lot of people exit that workforce and we haven't seen them come back since then. So we've got a workforce issue underlying what is a barrier to the construction of housing. The fact of the matter is that the majority of cities across Washington state only allow one type of home to be built - single-family homes - in the vast majority of the residential land use areas. So when we're experiencing a shortage of housing - the numbers that we've been talking about in the last year are the quarter of a million homes that we're behind. We've now got estimates from the Department of Commerce - what our housing need is over the next 20 years - it's a million, and half of those - 500,000 - need to be homes that are affordable for people earning 0-50% AMI [average median income], which would be considered low-income housing. So we have this desperate need to build housing commensurate with our population growth - that's really what we have not been able to do. We've been growing as a state, growing as an economy with jobs, job recruitment. You in Seattle definitely know and see that every day. While we do that, we also have to - must - allow for the construction for homes for those people to live in. Because when we don't have enough homes, the supply imbalance creates this environment - because everyone needs a home. People - what we saw in the last year with the astronomical prices - people in Seattle bidding $200,000 over asking price - really just eliminating the option for middle-income families right out the gate. People that were buying homes in this last year were people that had wealth. So what we're trying to focus on going into the 2023 session is focusing on the multifaceted nature of this issue - triaging the issue of housing - because we know one single solution will not solve it. So it's about increasing supply - making sure that we have homes available to Washingtonians of all shapes and sizes. So that's meeting you where you are and what your needs are and what the demand is. If that's an ADU for a senior that wants to live on the property of their children so they can age in place and provide childcare. If that's a college student that would like to work at the record store down the street and be able to walk to work every day. That's a duplex, if you want to be able to buy into a home and build equity - or a sixplex or a fourplex or a cottage home - we should have all of these options available to us. There's also additional barriers and we have to make it legal to build those homes - we have to lift the bans on those homes. We also need to do things like make it easier for lot splitting - so if you have a piece of property, you can split that line and you can actually sell it - making that equity yourself, that profit. And you can also allow someone else to buy it - build a duplex - so they can then have that opportunity. We're also focusing on things like condo liability, permitting, impact fees. We can get into all those details, but there's all these other things that impact our ability to impact supply. We also want to focus on stabilization because ultimately it is much more effective to keep people in the homes that they're in. So that's weatherization support for low-income people. That's rent stabilization - helping people stay if they're getting behind on their rent. It's also increased notice for people when rent increases are going to happen. We had a bill last year that would have required six months' notice for a tenant if the rent increase was going to be 7% or more. That bill did not make it out of the House last year. We can talk more definitely about the challenges of a bill like that. I also think we'll have a rent cap bill. So actually keeping a cap on rent - maybe similar to what we saw in Oregon, which was a 7% or inflation, but it could be - like in a case where we have inflation, it could be higher. And then also the last tier of that stool is subsidized housing. So that's the public investment in permanently affordable housing. You can call it social housing, you can call it public housing - but it's subsidized housing by the government to keep it affordable in perpetuity. And there's a number of different ways that we do that. Primarily at the legislative level, it's through the Housing Trust Fund. We need to vastly increase our investment in that. So the numbers that I started off with - the 500,000 that are 0-50% AMI - that's very difficult to build considering how expensive it is to build housing, with the cost of land, infrastructure, materials, workforce, permits, timeline, all the things, impact fees. So we really do need the government to step up and help support the subsidized lower-income housing. Over the last 40 years - since 1986 - the Housing Trust Fund has only built 55,000 homes. So if we're looking at a 20-year horizon of a need of 500,000 homes - that is pretty simple math for the common person to just say that does not add up. So we've got a significant gap in the need and what we're investing. That number just came out recently - I had been telling my colleagues we need to add a minimum double our Housing Trust Fund investment. Now that those numbers have come out, it tells me we need to make a significant investment, much more than double. So that's just the start of what I'm thinking for 2023. [00:09:15] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that does certainly seem like it would make a significant difference and addresses many of the different elements of challenge in the whole issue. When I hear people - who have been less excited about this bill, or about taking on housing challenges, or even in opposition to - saying things, there are a few things that I hear. One is just, and I think there was a local meeting last night where it was expressed - hey, this is all growth. Why do we need to accommodate people who are coming here? Somewhere else can accept the growth. That's for big cities and not necessarily for all of the other communities. What would you say to- [00:10:00] Representative Jessica Bateman: I would say that is not a factual statement. It's not based in reality or evidence or fact. Cities in Washington state - when you take an oath to serve the Constitution of Washington state - you take an oath to obey its laws and to fulfill them as a local elected official. And in our state law - under the Growth Management Act - we are required as local municipalities to plan for future population growth. It's a requirement. We can't just opt out of that and say no - although I have heard that before. I've doorbelled and had someone tell me - let's just build a wall around our city and tell people they need to move somewhere else. I think it's a fantastical idea. It's convenient to think we just don't have to welcome people into our community - I like it exactly how it is. The reality is that's not an option. If it's not an option and we know population growth will happen and that we have to accommodate it, our choice and opportunity is, what do we want that to look like? What do we want our community to look like? [00:10:57] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. And I think the entire business community would be pretty unhappy with just saying - no, we don't want anyone else in this community. Definitely would not be a community that thrived. [00:11:10] Representative Jessica Bateman: If you walk through that argument - think about doctors, nurses, construction, waitresses, waiters. Our lives depend upon people being here, people working here - solutions, creative thinking, schools, everything we have - we want people to be here. [00:11:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. What do you say to other people who - there was another recent local meeting where folks were - well, we're supposed to absorb growth within these existing boundaries that - in either special districts or existing areas where there are homes. But there's all this other land that we have out in these suburban and rural areas and we can, instead of "burdening" single-family neighborhoods, we can just build new housing elsewhere. What do you say to people who say that? [00:12:02] Representative Jessica Bateman: Also a fantastical idea about reality. Going back to the Growth Management Act, which stipulates that we concentrate population growth in our urban environments, in our cities - for good reason. That's where the infrastructure already exists. It's much more cost effective to build there. And because we want to retain green spaces, habitat conservation for our environment, for farmland, for habitat for endangered species and different animals - we have to have those green spaces. That's why the Growth Management Act stated its intent to have cities - population growth to occur in cities. Cities have processes for annexing and for expanding out, but there's a process for that as that's not something that happens every day and it's complicated. The reason is because we know we have to abide by the law and that population growth has to occur in our cities. [00:12:53] Crystal Fincher: Last session, we heard from a number of cities - through a number of advocacy organizations and lobbyists - that cities don't want a one-size-fits-all solution for the state. They want to be able to come up with their own solutions for their own cities on their own. Unsurprisingly, not many cities have figured out that solution, despite the fact that this has been a growing crisis for years and years. What do you say to those who say - we need local control? [00:13:24] Representative Jessica Bateman: I think local control is a 20th century ideology - it's outlived its use in this conversation. And it's vastly inadequate as a defense when we're looking at not enough housing for the people in Washington state to live in. The argument just falls incredibly flat. In addition to that, I would say I heard it for five years when I was on the Olympia City Council. We passed middle housing there - legislation, ordinance - after years of work, after 44 public meetings, after 1200 pages of written comment, after 3 public hearings. We went through it and we passed it anyway because we had - fortunately, an organized group of residents that were supportive and wanted livable, walkable communities. And we also had about a half that were really vocal and opposed, which is traditionally the people that show up at City Council meetings. We have data that tells us in fact that people that show up at City Council meetings are predominantly older, whiter, male property owners - so I would argue that the very process that we go through to receive public input on things like zoning changes and proposed zoning changes - where we're considering whether or not we want to grow as a city, which means allow more people to live here and be here - and the people that show up are the people that have the investment, the financial stake in maintaining the status quo is not equitable. And as government, as elected officials, we should - especially as Democrats, with our values - we should be looking at this system and analyzing - is it equitable? Who is benefiting from this? We have to think of the future that we want. When I think of the future that I want and the problem that we're currently experiencing where we have not enough homes for the people that are here resulting in homelessness, resulting in people spending a third to half of their income on their housing, being vulnerable to falling into homelessness, not buying basic necessities like medicine because they cannot afford their needs because their rent is so high, or people that are terrified of a rent increase over a hundred dollars - the stress that that causes. When I hear those things and that's the problem that I'm trying to solve and a city comes to me and says - but I want to maintain local control. That's why it falls flat. And the data doesn't lie - the vast majority of cities do not allow middle housing. 5% of the permits in Washington state for new construction are for middle housing. The data doesn't lie. The consensus among social scientists - people that study this work - doesn't lie. There's, at the local level, not a lot of incentives for individual residents to support new housing. That's just a fact. It's not a judgment. I'm not judging people. I think it's a very natural inclination to say - I want things to stay how they are when you give a choice. Like I mentioned before, the way that we go about getting public input for these decisions really is inherently getting input from people that are already housed, not the people that are working two jobs, single moms, or someone that speaks English as a second language, or someone that has a reaction to an institutional setting like a City Council meeting. We need to be aware of that and we need to be thinking collectively about the good of Washington state. I would also argue that we've got over 220 cities in Washington - the vast majority of them are small ones. Does it make sense when we have something that's impacting cities across the state that we would want them to be doing it on an ad hoc individual basis across the state? I would argue that we would want a floor statewide, and then if they want to add additional incentives and additional density increases - that they can do that. [00:16:54] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense to me. I think one interesting thing that I've noticed, as this conversation has taken place over the last several years, is that there's been a hesitance on behalf of a lot of elected officials because of what you just described - in hearing from the most vocal people who, as you talk about, usually are wealthy landowners who are profiting handsomely on the status quo, being vocal and saying - no, we don't need this. We don't want this. This isn't the right way to go. We don't need to grow. Just leave things the way they are. And a real hesitance from a number of elected officials to take action because they feel like it will come with a lot of pushback. However, I think what has been really encouraging to see is that over the, especially the last couple electoral cycles, we have seen voters in districts where this has been a big topic of conversation - in a number of districts where some of the most outspoken critics or people who have been hesitant to take action on this have been - and their districts and their jurisdictions, overall in voting, when this has been an issue in the election - and basically where candidates have taken opposing views on the ballot - voters have voted overwhelmingly in favor of candidates who are saying - hey, this is not sustainable, we have to take action, we need to implement middle housing, we need to make housing more affordable, we need to protect renters and just make sure people can afford to age in place, live where they are. Hearing from a number of parents who have raised kids and who were not paying attention so much, but now their kids are in college and in early careers - and they're seeing through their kids' eyes a lot of times how hostile this housing market is, how hard it is to get your foot in the door as a homeowner, and how hard it is just to afford rent year after year - and that creating a different kind of a sense of urgency and need than we've seen before. This issue is affecting everybody, everywhere. Do you see a change in perspective among some of your colleagues in the Legislature after seeing so many voters vote in favor of a new direction? [00:19:16] Representative Jessica Bateman: Yes. I have noticed the tone change on this particular issue - because I've been working on it for eight years now - and it's significantly different today. I noticed it a lot last session when I was working on the middle housing bill. We even had an article, I think in the Auburn paper, where when they presented the middle housing bill, it was pretty - they didn't try to burn anyone at the stake with their description of the bill. It was pretty balanced - I was surprised. And what that tells me - and also the anecdotal stories that I hear from people talking to members in their district, from what I hear from my colleagues - is that as Washingtonians get more squeezed by this housing shortage, the more people it impacts, the more real it becomes. Like my little sister - my dad worked at Boeing 40 years, something like that. My little sister is the baby of the family. She's a nurse. She can't afford a home in King County. She makes a good living at her wage. She has a partner too that makes a decent living. But the median home price last year when I was working on this bill, or earlier this year, was $830,000 - which they just cannot afford. They want to live near downtown because they don't want to spend an hour commuting every day and it's just impossible - there's no way that they can do that. So they're postponing starting a family, postponing building equity, building a future, getting roots in a community. That's happening all across the state, so we're seeing people that have children, like you mentioned, that are experiencing that. We're also seeing people that have relatives - like parents - that are stuck in these big suburban homes that are going - I would move to a smaller home if there was an option for me, and there aren't. Because we're not seeing the construction of - those smaller homes and condos really aren't being constructed. They're being constructed at a very low rate. So because it's impacting more and more people, I think you're seeing that dialogue change. Also, the younger and more diverse our legislators are, the more connected they are to this issue. It's pretty simple. And just this recent year, our freshmen incoming class is the most diverse class - both racially, lived experience, and economically. So I'm very optimistic that we're going to take this issue seriously, that we're going to work on solutions for the people of Washington, and that we're going to get some major things accomplished this next year. [00:21:30] Crystal Fincher: All right. So talking about getting things accomplished - is middle housing going to pass this year? [00:21:36] Representative Jessica Bateman: I am very hopeful. So a couple of things have happened. First, we have changed our committee structures. Every two years, we evaluate our committee structures and the jurisdictions within them. And so going into 2023, we heard from our members in the Democratic caucus on the House side that housing was the number one issue that they wanted to focus on. So we took a look at the committees and we decided to create one committee that's just housing and everything housing. That might seem like an obvious choice, but it wasn't. Before that, the current committee structure - until the end of this year - I'm on the Housing, Human Services and Veteran Affairs Committee, which includes veteran affairs, developmental disability, social services, and housing. So we're putting everything other than housing - we're pulling it out - and then we're going to take zoning and GMA out of Local Government and put it into the Housing Committee. Makes sense because we want to look at not just the symptoms of not having enough housing - like the need for rent stabilization, for instance. We want to look at the cause, the root of the problem, and look at all of those things together - condos, HOAs, rent stabilization, Housing Trust Fund dollars, and above all, supply. Because to be honest, we have not been focusing very much on the supply side of this problem. It's almost been like a dirty word amongst politicians. And I think there may be subconscious reasons for that - it's really easy to vilify developers. When we get into the nitty gritty of why housing is so expensive, it's because it's expensive to construct housing. And actually the government's responsible for a lot of that. So we need to be honest about that - it's the first step in coming to terms with a solution is being honest and accepting the current conditions. So we need to look at those things and figure out how are we going to solve them. And I'm very enthusiastic and excited about this committee. We'll decide later on this week who will serve on committees and it will be adopted by our caucus next week. But I think that indicates that we're really taking this seriously and want to put a concerted focus, like I mentioned before, triaging the issue of housing. I'm going to be bringing back my middle housing bill this year. It will be more ambitious than it was last year. It will be impacting cities - last year it was cities 10,000-20,000 duplexes everywhere, and cities 20,000 and up fourplexes everywhere, basically. And this year we're starting at cities of 6,000 or more - and it will be legalizing fourplexes on every current residential lot. In addition, if two units are affordable, there's a density bonus and they could have a sixplex. So on any current single-family residential lot, a sixplex could be allowed if two of the units were affordable - up to 80% AMI. And then in addition to that - same as last year - allowing sixplexes within a half a mile of transit. So that's the basic gist of the bill. It will impact - oh, and cities that are contiguous with any city larger than 200,000, which will impact some of those smaller cities that are up close to Seattle and larger cities in King County. And so we have a coalition working on it this year - Futurewise, which is an environmental organization that's been focusing on Growth Management Act policies, land use, protecting and conserving the environment - they're making this a priority this year, along with House Bill 1099 from last year, which is a climate change bill requiring cities to adopt climate change policies in their comprehensive planning processes. I'm thrilled that these two bills are together a priority, because we often don't talk about the connection between climate change and land use. But the reality is we will not accomplish our climate change, our carbon reduction goals in Washington state if we do not change land use. Because utilization of public transit and multimodal transportation is predicated on density. And that means we have to do infill. And so having those two priorities and bills together and talking about them together is my dream come true. Because ultimately this is about solutions and we need solutions that actually work. And these two really are - the intersection of climate change with all of the things that we want to focus on - equity, racial justice, conserving and protecting the environment, economic stability, all those things. It all works together, housing and climate. And so I'm happy to have them on board and working the issue. And working on getting more and more support from my colleagues - I had a good number of colleagues that co-sponsored the bill last year, I'm hoping to have even more this year. We've been doing a lot of work over the interim and I'm excited. [00:26:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, when you talk about you've been doing a lot of work and the coalition that you've been able to put together with this - how have you gone about this? How have you involved stakeholders in the process? How did you get to where you are today with this bill? [00:26:26] Representative Jessica Bateman: So last year was my first - I sponsored it in 2022. But prior to that, Representative Nicole Macri, who is my housing shero, sponsored that bill. She asked me to take it over last year because she had a lot of other bills she was working on and I was happy to do so. It was Governor request last year, and there's a process for Governor request - they have to go through their whole internal process. So this year is different because I'm drafting it on my own. Last year, the public engagement process was kind of me on Twitter - that was the extent of it, which I really didn't use before that bill. But the response that we got was overwhelming. The number of people that signed into the bill last year - I've got it on a sticky note - 548 people signed in Pro on the bill last year, which is phenomenal. And we had quite a few people that were signed up to support it - I think 37 people were signed in to actually comment. That's a lot of people for a bill, especially a wonky land use bill. So what that tells me is that this is impacting so many people - that they're motivated to come and talk to their legislators about it and to sign in to support a bill, they're engaging on social media, they're listening to podcasts - and we did interviews and news and all the different things - that's happening because it's an issue. It's top of mind for people - that's the only reason why this issue continues to be focused on - is because the people in Washington are saying - fix this, we need a solution. And so after session ended and the bill died, I got together with my labor stakeholders and advocates, environmental advocates, some racial justice advocates and said - this is something that intersects all of these issues. We need to work together and we need to work together on a package looking at this holistically. What are all of the things that impact our ability to create housing and enough housing for Washingtonians? And then how do we keep people stable in the homes that they have, and how do we build enough subsidized low-income housing that will only be built by the public because the private sector won't be able to make it pencil out? And so in doing that, we saw - over the summer, the Washington State Labor Council passed a resolution stating that they supported ending exclusionary zoning because it impacts working families and their ability to take those wage gains that they've earned - hard-fought over years - they just dissipate when the cost of rent and homes go up so much. We've also seen the environmental organizations and supporters come on board and say - this is impacting climate. And the Black Homeowner Initiative has a 7-point plan for creating homes - and included in that is legalizing middle housing. So what we really saw was a consensus among these stakeholders and organizations that this is something that they want to focus on in 2023. They really see the intersection and the connected nature of these issues. And that's really enabled us to work and educate lawmakers. We held a town hall last night - a webinar for folks to learn about this package proposal. And then I think what we're going to see is - Democrats working with Republicans - I think this is going to be a bipartisan issue, at least the supply side of this package. Ultimately, that package that includes supply stabilization and subsidy, there will be people or organizations that cannot support certain bills or certain tiers of that stool. But they also recognize that all of those things are included in a solution. So some people might opt out of certain parts. But I think in terms of the supply conversation, we'll see some bipartisan support. [00:30:12] Crystal Fincher: So in terms of the stabilization issues, are there any conversations about lifting the ban on rent control? [00:30:21] Representative Jessica Bateman: Yes. So the bill I mentioned before, that we had last year in Local Government, was just simply providing advanced notice - six months' notice. And that bill was killed. The people that were opposed to that were successful in that bill never making it to the floor. My impression, having been there for two years, is that rent control remains politically very, very difficult to take away - to give cities the ability to actually to have a rent cap, or rent control, or even doing it statewide. I don't actually understand why that is because it's very popular politically. People, my mom included - over the summer, we were garage saleing and we were talking about housing and I said - Mom, does it make sense to you that we can't put a cap on rent? She was like - Nooo. So I think we're going to see probably a rent stabilization bill - a bill that will allow for a cap on a 7% inflationary increase - so with inflation, with a couple extra percentages just as a buffer for things like maintenance or if you need to do some upgrades on the unit, but within reason. Some kind of a stabilizing - you can see and predict how much and it's not excessive. They did that in Oregon when they passed their middle housing legislation a couple years ago, and I really like the combination of the two of those. We'll probably see just one that's straight rent control. Whether or not those can pass - I think it's a really heavy lift and I haven't seen evidence of a coalition organizing around that in a strong way. [00:32:00] Crystal Fincher: What can people do to help organize around that and middle housing and funding - increasing funding for the Housing Trust Fund? How can the public engage, get involved with this, and help make sure their Representatives and Senators are in the right place on this? [00:32:18] Representative Jessica Bateman: I think - and it's tough when I hear that question, because I know having been a renter and a person earning minimum wage and living in poverty, poverty wages - it's really hard to tell people - take time out of your day, your stressful life, and put the onus on them to then contact their elected officials. However, I do think that those stories really resonate with people in the Legislature. Personal stories are the most important. I was a legislative assistant years ago before being elected to City Council. And I can tell you, even as a staffer, those personal stories really resonate and they do far more than a fact sheet does. That being said, I know it's difficult for people. So even - if you have a tenants' union, they probably have legislative priorities. You can sign on to bills and track bills and just sign your name - that's important. Also, the Low Income Housing Alliance has a legislative priorities - they're very, very organized and they have a really great outreach and engagement with their members to tell those stories. Ultimately, we need more people that are directly impacted by our housing shortage and rent increases. I'm surprised - because when I go out to my community, I hear from seniors - like this summer, the senior resources center in my community - the woman who manages that told me she gets two or three calls a day from a senior that says they can't afford their rent increase. And she looked at me and she said - you know what I tell them? What I give them? And I said, what? She says - I give them the phone number for homelessness services because that's all I have. There's no resources for them. There's no bucket of money for them. Nothing. That's all I have. And she has to do that every day - because there's no special funding for seniors. And seniors are on a fixed income - it's so obvious. But then, we hear these stories - $400 increases, $500, $1,000 increases. People can't afford it. So that's the reality of our constituents across the state. And it's a huge problem - both from a humanitarian perspective, also from a cost-effective perspective - because once you're unhoused, it is so much more expensive to get you back into housing and the destabilizing impact that has on you, your family, your children, school, for everything. [00:34:40] Crystal Fincher: What else can be done to help stabilize, or what else is on the agenda this session to help keep people in their homes, to help people be able to manage the rent increases? I have a neighbor who this past year had their rent go up over 40%. And just really, really hard to manage and negotiate through. Obviously, their income did not go up at all and trying to squeeze that in. And there just seems to be no kind of incentive for landlords - many of them corporate landlords or corporate entities, not even people you can talk to - doesn't seem to be any kind of incentive for them to slow down or moderate the rent increases. It seems like it's going to have to happen through regulation or it's not going to happen - and we'll continue to pay the consequences until then. [00:35:33] Representative Jessica Bateman: I agree with everything that you said. And I think what we're going to see is a big push for a significant increase in the Housing Trust Fund. And I know that sounds vague. It's the beginning of a conversation around what does that look like and what does that entail? There's a couple - so when we say an increase in investment in the Housing Trust Fund, we have to identify where that money comes from. And we have to identify what revenue source because there's a lot of reluctance to move money that's going towards something now into something else. We don't want to have a scarcity mindset where we cut things that are really important in order to fund other things that are important. Revenue is a tricky thing for us to address. It takes a little bit of organization and demonstrated support. A lot of things have to kind of line up in order for that to happen. I have heard of two revenue sources. First is an additional local REET option for cities to pass that they can use for affordable housing. Cities have - [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: And is the REET a real estate investment tax? [00:36:41] Representative Jessica Bateman: Real estate excise tax. [00:36:42] Crystal Fincher: Excise tax - thank you. [00:36:44] Representative Jessica Bateman: Yes. And cities have a couple of different tools in their toolbox right now. They have a 1% property tax or sales tax that they can implement for the use for affordable housing. They also have a sales tax that they can get back from the state as a form of credit - that was a June Robinson bill from before I was in the Legislature that I cannot recall right now. It's not a significant amount of funding, but it would add to if they were to do the Home Fund - which is what we call it in Olympia - the 1% sales tax. Those are two revenue sources. Not all cities are doing that - a handful are and counties. First, I would say the Low Income Housing Alliance has been really great about educating local electeds to know what revenue options they have. We need cities to be a partner in this. In addition to that, we also need to identify revenue sources at the state level so we can make a big investment. It'd be really lovely if we had a sense of urgency and investment from our federal partners as well. I'm not going to bank on that. However, I have a fabulous Congresswoman, Marilyn Strickland, who's working on that. So REET local option. Also, we have a progressive REET - we changed it a couple of years ago. For the higher properties, there's a discussion about lowering the threshold for when the higher rate would apply, which would increase the amount of revenue that we're collecting from that. There's also discussions about wealth tax - that was something we considered a couple of years ago when we passed the capital gains excise tax. A wealth tax is very popular amongst Washingtonians, and it makes sense to have the wealthiest Washingtonians paying their fair share. However, going into what some people might call a recession - we're feeling recession, inflation - we're hearing a little bit of talk about that. I think that it remains very politically popular and feasible, so I would push us to do that. We do need to increase our investment in the Housing Trust Fund for the reasons you identified. We need to have rent stabilization. We have a doc recording fee Rent Stabilization Fund for the first time - that was created last year or the year before - and that goes directly into rent assistance for people. We need to provide more investment in that and we need to vastly increase the number in the Housing Trust Fund. The Association of Washington Cities is advocating for a billion dollar a year increased investment in the housing trust fund. [00:39:09] Crystal Fincher: That is significant. [00:39:11] Representative Jessica Bateman: That's six times what we're currently investing right now, so it's significant. [00:39:16] Crystal Fincher: I would love to see it. I think the final thing I just want to cover - you had mentioned that government does have a role to play in how expensive it is to build housing and challenges. We hear challenges about design review and the time it takes to permit, just the time it takes to build and all the different factors involved with that. Are you looking at anything to address those issues? [00:39:42] Representative Jessica Bateman: We are. First, there's going to be a bill on eliminating minimum parking requirements near transit, which would save - I think in Seattle the last time I heard, it adds an additional $75,000 per unit. In addition to that, an impact fee deferral bill. As a developer, when you go to start building, you can defer out the impact fee until after you sell the property. Permit streamlining in Washington state - cities are supposed to turn around a permit in 120 days. There's no accountability or action that happens if they don't meet that timeline. We need to provide them with resources and support so they can actually honor that timeline and hold them accountable if they don't. There's another bill for condos that will allow condos of 12 units or less to be subject to residential energy code and residential building code instead of commercial - will significantly reduce cost. I know Representative Duerr is working on a bill that's similar to that for middle housing, but it's going to be a study to get them to come up with a plan for how to do that - so we can have middle housing only have to go through the residential building codes, which would reduce the costs as well. Those are just a handful of the bills that we've talked about so far. I think there will be more, but there is a significant area of interest in reducing the cost and our role in creating the high cost of constructing housing. [00:41:17] Crystal Fincher: Sounds good. Then the issue of just some notoriously bad actors who are landlords - and hearing from cities that code enforcement resources are short, seeking funding for that - are you looking at anything to help hold bad landlords accountable for illegal and negligent actions? [00:41:43] Representative Jessica Bateman: That hasn't been an issue that has been brought to me. I'm happy to work with folks and see additional revenue that we could provide for cities. I know - in the city of Olympia, we have code enforcement, so if you've got a violation of a code, I guess it would depend upon how active the code enforcement department is. In Olympia, it's pretty active and if you have - I've called them before - and they come pretty quickly. If cities are saying they need more resources to enable them to actually take those complaints and actually go out and investigate, I'm happy to have that conversation. Because while we focus on making sure there is housing available, we want to make sure that it's healthy housing for people. [00:42:23] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. How can people follow the work that you're doing throughout the Legislature and just stay up to date on what you're working on? [00:42:33] Representative Jessica Bateman: So first, my email - you can reach me at jessica.bateman@leg.wa.gov. You can also follow me @jessdbateman - B-A-T-E-M-A-N - on Twitter. And you can also find me on Facebook - I have a legislative Facebook account. It's frozen right now, I think, because of the elections. I think it'll be active starting next January. I would say that the most fast-paced information is on my Twitter account, and I will be posting updates on my middle housing bill as I introduce it, which should be happening in the next week. I was really hoping to drop it today on my birthday, but it didn't work out that way. So I'll be posting information for people so they can get engaged. Also, Futurewise, I'm sure, will be doing that. And Futurewise has an account as well on Twitter. [00:43:29] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. Well, thank you so much for taking this time to explain all this to us, for working so hard on this for so long. I wish you a very happy birthday. Thanks for joining us. [00:43:42] Representative Jessica Bateman: Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure and thank you so much for hosting the opportunity to have this dialogue about this really important issue. [00:43:50] Crystal Fincher: Thanks so much. [00:43:51] Representative Jessica Bateman: Thanks. Bye. [00:43:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow me @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Toronto, among many cities across Canada, is facing a generational housing crisis. With soaring costs, those looking to buy in the city are being shut out of the market and renters are faced with limited options for an affordable place to call home. This week, Adam sits down with Brad Bradford, Toronto City Councillor and Chair of the City's Planning and Housing Committee to talk about the “Housing Action Plan” that City Council recently adopted, and to discuss whether it has what it takes to overcome the city's biggest challenge.

Toronto, among many cities across Canada, is facing a generational housing crisis. With soaring costs, those looking to buy in the city are being shut out of the market and renters are faced with limited options for an affordable place to call home. This week, Adam sits down with Brad Bradford, Toronto City Councillor and Chair of the City's Planning and Housing Committee to talk about the “Housing Action Plan” that City Council recently adopted, and to discuss whether it has what it takes to overcome the city's biggest challenge.

The Chair of Clare's Housing Committee has branded changes to the planning process a 'distractionary tactic' to cover the 'incompetence' in efforts to tackle the housing crisis. The government approved a radical overhaul of the planning system this week, including changes to An Bord Pleanala and judicial reviews. Independent Councillor from Shannon, Gerry Flynn and Inagh-based Green Party Senator, Róisín Garvey have been speaking to Clare FM's Morning Focus.

The Minister of Electricity and Renewable Energy confirmed that there are approximately 100,000 MW of renewable energy that will be directed to producing green hydrogen over the next 10 years.Egypt is in negotiations with three major global entities to export 3,000 MW of power to the European power grid through a submarine electrical line to Cyprus and Greece.The amount of carbon-intensive mazut fuel oil Egypt uses in power stations has reached five-year highs as it seeks to maximize the amount of natural gas available for export. The shift towards mazut allows Egypt to generate electricity more cheaply and export more gas to alleviate an acute foreign currency shortage. The Parliament's Budget Committee approved a one-article amendment to the Unified Tax Procedures Act that would allow foreign tax authorities to access individuals and businesses' financial information.The Parliament's Housing Committee approved amendments to the building reconciliation law.The United States will commit USD55 billion to Africa over the next three years.The Cabinet approved plans for Egypt to join the New Development Bank set up by the BRICS economic group to fund infrastructure and development projects in member countries.Vicat acquired additional 16.6% stake in SCEM, at transaction value of EGP139.5 million (21.5 million share at EGP6.49/ Share), increasing its stake in SCEM to 67.18%. Telecom Egypt and Grid Telecom, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Independent Power Transmission Operator (IPTO) in Greece, signed a collaboration agreement to build a subsea system connecting Egypt and Greece. Vodafone Group has transferred its 55% stake in its Egyptian unit to its South African subsidiary Vodacom in a EUR2.37 bn cash and stock transaction. Local feed and plant-based oils prices are still under pressure. Rally is not only driven by a weak local currency or local shortages due to imports issues, but by rising global prices as well due to supply shortages with solid demand as global shipping fees rise.EFG-Hermes executed the first of its kind dual listing of Americana Group in Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange and Saudi Arabia Stock Exchange with a total amount of USD1.8 bn.The Egyptian Stock Exchange has received a request for listing Damietta Container and Cargo Handling Company in the main market.Consumer finance firm Premium Card has issued EGP200.6 mn worth of securitized bonds. The total value of securitized bond issuances brought to market this year now stands at some EGP45.4 bn, almost triple the EGP15.8 bn taken to market last year.E-based tech investor Astra Tech is looking to invest USD 400 mn in four Egyptian financial services and consumer finance companies next year.  Dr. Mostafa Madbouly, The Prime Minister, appointed Dr. Ahmed Galal as the Chairman of the BoD of EXPA, and appointed Mohamed Abu Al-Saud as Vice-Chairman of the BoD for 3 years.Weekly Commodities Update:  | Chems & Petchems | | Last Price | WoW Change, % | Brent, USD/bbl | 75.7 | -13.7% | Diesel-HSFO Spread, USD/ton | 475.4 | -15.8% | Egypt Urea, USD/ton | 562.5 | 0.0% | Polyethylene, USD/ton | 1,030.0 | 0.0% | Polypropylene, USD/ton | 940.0 | 1.1% | Steel/Iron Ore Spreads, USD/ton | 460.1 | 0.0% | LME Aluminum Cash Price, USD/ton | 2,447.3 | -1.8% | Egyptian Retail Cement, EGP/ton | 1,713.0 | 5.4% | Steam Coal FOB Newcastle Australia, USD/ton | 401.0 | 0.1% | SMP, USD/MT | 3,102.0 | 1.5%

Paul McAuliffe TD Vice Chair of the Housing Committee and Fianna Fail TD for Dublin North West; Brid Smith TD for the Dublin South-Central constituency.

A Shannon Councillor is expressing his confusion at an admission from Clare County Council it needed clarity on the process to apply for affordable housing funding. Councillor Flynn, who's also the Chair of the Council's Housing Committee, says it's strange that a meeting has only been organised now to learn how to apply.

A Clare developer is warning it would take 22 years to meet the current housing demand in the county unless the pace of delivery by the local authority is increased. It comes as the government was €2bn behind its annual expenditure target for housing by the end of September. Chair of the Council's Housing Committee, Cllr Gerry Flynn and Larry Brennan from Woodhaven Developments have been speaking to Clare FM's Morning Focus.

There are no plans to deliver affordable housing for county Clare until 2025 at the earliest. Chair of Clare County Council's Housing Committee, Councillor Gerry Flynn, says the news is very disappointing.

The Chair of Clare County Council's Housing Committee says he's hopeful of further 'positive engagement' with the Housing Minister regarding affordable homes in Clare. Shannon-based Independent Councillor Gerry Flynn says he was satisfied with his engagement with the Minister on the matter during his visit to Clare.

The Chair of Clare County Council's Housing Committee claims owning a home is only 'aspirational' for young people under current Government policy. Access to Clare County Council under the Government's Affordable Housing Fund is currently only available in settlements of over 10,000 people, such as Ennis. Minister for Housing Darragh O' Brien is due to visit Clare later this month and is set to be quizzed on the matter by elected representatives. Shannon-based Independent Councillor Gerry Flynn says current policy needs to be reviewed.

The Chair of Clare County Council's Housing Committee says the government has 'scored an own goal' by introducing a concrete block levy. Shannon Independent Councillor Gerry Flynn believes the coalition has lost all focus on the housing crisis.

Host and NewDEAL CEO Debbie Cox Bultan talks with Quentin 'Q' Williams, a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives and Chair of the Housing Committee. Q makes it clear - all communities within Connecticut are facing the same problem: not enough housing. He talks through the housing crisis and how we can mitigate intersectional inequality's negative consequences. Q uses his expertise as a teacher, leader, and politician to explain the effects of changing existing housing policies and making new ones. He walks us through solutions to help people who need it most, and explains why there is a desperate need for supportive, safe, and rehabilitative housing. Tune in to learn how Q is changing the narrative by representing a demographic often silenced.

This episode listen as Mayor Siddiqui and Vice Mayor Mallon discuss the recent statewide primary results, how much we both love Fall, items on the first regular City Council meeting since August, DHSP afterschool, increasing Linkage fees, proposed Cannabis moratorium extension, recent BEUDO and Housing Committee meetings, Danehy Park Family Day, and more. Stay up to date on all the Cambridge happenings with us!

Campaigners will tell the Oireachtas housing committee today that the mica redress scheme agreed last year by the Government is not fit for purpose. The committee will sit for some seven hours today to scrutinise the bill. For more on this Shane spoke to Sinn Fein Housing Spokesperson, Eoin O'Broin

Campaigners will tell the Oireachtas housing committee today that the mica redress scheme agreed last year by the Government is not fit for purpose. The committee will sit for some seven hours today to scrutinise the bill. For more on this Shane spoke to Sinn Fein Housing Spokesperson, Eoin O'Broin

Housing Committee chairman Chris Thomas MHK answers your calls on housing, homelessness, landlords, prefabs, market manipulation, first-time buyers and public sector housing. It's The Mannin Line with Andy Wint #iom #manninline #manxradio

State Senator Barbara Blackmon joined the show to talk about her roles as Chair of the Housing Committee and Vice-Chair of Highways and Transportation, ARPA money, her thoughts on the income tax debate and more. Show intro, introducing State Senator Barbara Blackmon - 00:15 Get to know State Senator Barbara Blackmon, how she go into politics - 00:59 Why she got back into politics after leaving in 2003 - 03:00 Role as Chair of the Housing Committee in the Senate - 4:34 Overview of what's going on with the Highways and Transportation Committee - 05:49  Future of the Emergency Road and Bridge Repair Fund - 07:07:52 Any other legislation looking at, ARPA money - 08:26 State Senator Barbara Blackmon's thoughts on the income tax debate - 09:25 Favorite place to get a bite to eat at when traveling around Mississippi - 11:52 Best way for constituents and the public to contact State Senator Barbara Blackmon - 12:40

On this episode of Iron Sharpens Iron, Leon and De'Wayne sit down with Andy Toy, Policy Director at PACDC. Amidst a season of tragedy surrounding affordable housing during the harshest weather season of the year, Andy talks about what has caused our affordable housing crisis, the pros and cons of Accessory Dwelling Units, and some of the housing victories we have seen locally. Andy Toy is the Policy Director at PACDC, where he chairs the Housing Committee among many other things. Andy is recognized as a thought leader and innovator when it comes to community and economic development. Andy's policy and advocacy work has included efforts to ensure everyone has a voice in their community. He founded United Voices for Philadelphia and still engages in voter registration and voting advocacy. Andy also helped garner support for our public schools by founding the Philadelphia Public School Giving Circle and serving on the Philadelphia Public School Notebook. Andy was an appointee on the Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission where he championed mixed income zoning policies as well as Accessory Dwelling Units. In 2006, Andy was selected as one of the top 101 Connectors in Philadelphia, and in 2021, he was named to Pennsylvania's inaugural 50 Over 50 list by AARP and City&State. Episode transcript available here: https://pacdc.org/2017/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/How-Did-We-Get-Here_-Affordable-Housing-Policy-with-Andy-Toy_otter_ai.pdf Producer: Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, Sound Editor: Andrew Heppard, Cover Art: Jennifer Selpa, Music: Needed You by Will Ellsworth

As one of the largest cities in the South, Atlanta has recently been the focus of news coverage on everything from election controversies to significant social justice reforms. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has found herself at the center of many of these headlines. Through the lens of her One Atlanta initiative, Mayor Bottoms sees the future of Atlanta as a “an affordable, resilient, and equitable city of commerce and compassion.” Her efforts have led to major reforms in financial transparency, diversity and inclusion, criminal justice, and policing, both locally and nationwide. In conversation with former Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, Mayor Bottoms will discuss the importance of cities, like Dallas and Atlanta, in terms of the role they play on the world stage. Keisha Lance Bottoms is the 60th mayor of Atlanta. She currently serves as chair of the Community Development and Housing Committee and on the Census Task Force for the United States Conference of Mayors. Honored as 2020 Georgian of the Year by Georgia Trend magazine, Mayor Bottoms is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, Jack and Jill of America, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. Mayor Bottoms is the first Atlanta mayor to have served as a judge, city councilmember, and mayor. She holds an undergraduate degree from Florida A&M University and a J.D. from Georgia State University College of Law. . . Do you believe in the importance of international education and connections? The nonprofit World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth is supported by gifts from people like you, who share our passion for engaging in dialogue on global affairs and building bridges of understanding. While the Council is not currently charging admission for virtual events, we ask you to please consider making a one-time or recurring gift to help us keep the conversation going through informative public programs and targeted events for students and teachers. Donate: https://www.dfwworld.org/donate

Building fusion reactors and interplanetary spaceships is easy. What's hard is getting a permit from the local Planning and Housing Committee. Take the quiz after listening to the episode at programaudioseries.com/quiz Visit programaudioseries.com/21-homepage-not-found/ for full transcript, credits, and list of references. Make a donation to keep the show running at programaudioseries.com/support/ or buy some merch at store.programaudioseries.com Buy advertising on advertisecast.com/TheProgramaudioseries

As Covid mist begins to lift, it is becoming clear two big items will dominate the political agenda: housing and climate. Fianna Fáil TD Paul McAuliffe who is deputy chairman of the Housing Committee joined presenter Paul Cunningham, Mícheál Lehane and Sandra Hurley on the podcast.

In this episode of the Master Builders Podcast, host Max Rafferty and co host Robert Shaw talk about the business of building with Jock Merrigan.  Jock is the founding Director of Urban Habitats and has over 20 years of experience in the residential building industry. As an active member of the Master Builders Association of South Australia, Jock chairs the Housing Committee, and is a member of the Council of Management. Jock is also the State Representative for the National Residential Housing Committee. Jock is passionate about building design and in achieving quality construction outcomes that are unique to each of his clients.   This episode is sponsored by Master Builders Insurance Brokers (MBIB) Master Builders Insurance Brokers (MBIB) is a leading broker in the building and construction industry. They use their national muscle to leverage great ‘value for money' insurance arrangements with preferred underwriters, ultimately keeping premiums down and policy coverage broad. Their brokers help you understand, select and manage the right cover for your business by using their years of experience in the building and construction industry. So if you're a builder and want more than just an insurance broker visit mbib.com.au today. Get in touch with your local Master Builders at masterbuilders.com.au

The shared equity scheme proposed in the Affordable Housing Bill could raise house prices.  That’s the warning the ESRI are due to issue before the Oireachtas’s Housing Committee today. To discuss this Shane was joined on the show this morning by Financial analyst Karl Deeter. Listen and subscribe to Newstalk Breakfast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.     Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.    You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'.

As COVID-19 cases continue to rise nationally, state officials sound the alarm over the growing rates of coronavirus transmission.Then, a Senate Committee hears from housing advocates about the need for affordable housing as they prepare to draft legislation.Plus, how the Mississippi Arts Commission is aiding artists and organizations during the pandemic.Segment 1:Cases of coronavirus are reaching new highs nationwide and Mississippi is reporting the highest numbers in three months. Yesterday marked the second consecutive day of new COVID-19 cases in excess of 1,200 and COVID-related hospitalizations are also reaching levels unseen since the summer wave of infection. Governor Reeves addressed the elevated numbers in an statement of Facebook.The high cases also has the attention of the state's top health officials. State Epidemiologist says the number of new cases in the last two weeks is astounding. State Health Officer Dr. Thomas Dobbs says mitigation is most effective if everyone wears masks.Segment 2:The need for affordable housing for low-income Mississippi families is a growing problem, especially during the coronavirus pandemic according to housing officials. To assess potential solutions, the Senate Housing Committee is holding hearings to help draft legislation to combat the problem. Scott Spivey is with Mississippi Home Corporation. He explained the pandemic is affecting housing differently than the sub-prime mortgage crisis a decade ago.Segment 3:The coronavirus pandemic has had a tremendous impact on the nation's economy. And while some businesses are starting to bounce back, the arts and entertainment industry is still struggling. To assist local artists during this difficult time, the Mississippi Arts Commission is offering Rapid Response Grants in response to the changing needs of artists and arts organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAC's Director of Grants Melody Moody Thortis shares more with our Michael Guidry. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This Reboot Republic discusses the recent proposal to hold a Referendum to insert a Right to Housing into the Irish Constitution. This is an issue that is close to Rory’s heart and something he has campaigned on for a number of years. He is joined in the podcast by fellow members of the Home for Good coalition, Wayne Stanley from the Simon Communities and Chairperson Home for Good, and Rebecca Keatinge, Managing Solicitor of the Mercy Law Centre. The wording of the proposed referendum is discussed, as is the what would getting a right to housing in the constitution achieve practically for ending homelessness, for Generation Rent, for homeowners, for housing policy and our housing system. We also discuss the significance of the cross party support for the Home for Good proposal for a Right to Housing Referendum at the Housing Committee for the Referendum, the question of separation of powers between the Oireachtas and Judiciary, what are the next stages to progress the Referendum, a civil society campaign and how can the public be convinced. This is an important issue, and this podcast has the key information on it. To find out more check out www.homeforgood.ie. Support Reboot Republic to continue to bring the voices and analysis from the frontline, experts and change makers - become a patron - sign up to patreon.com/tortoiseshack

Roqayah is off this week, so Kumars is joined from the top of the hour by returning guest cohost Shanti Singh along with René Christian Moya, California-based housing rights activists extraordinaire, for a deep dive into Proposition 21, the statewide rent control expansion up for popular referendum in next week’s elections. Shanti, who is based in San Francisco, is a leader in DSA SF’s Housing Committee, the former deputy data director for the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign in California, and currently serves as the legislation and communications coordinator for the statewide renters' rights group Tenants Together. René is based out of Los Angeles, formerly of the LA Tenants Union and is the Campaign Director for the Yes on 21 campaign. René, Shanti, and Kumars begin by outlining the looming eviction crisis which has already begun thanks in part to the Trump administration’s so-called moratorium at the federal level. René, who was last on the show discussing Prop 10, the previous iteration of Prop 21, explains how the new ballot measure differs in terms of specifics, and why the political situation is more favorable than in the 2018 midterms. The gang talks about the real estate industry’s $70 million, Republican-aligned campaign to defeat the proposal as well as Prop 21’s biggest backer, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They round out the conversation on a positive note, discussing Shanti’s work with the elderly residents of SF’s Midtown Park Apartments, who just concluded the longest rent strike in the city’s history.  Follow René on Twitter @rcmoya84 and find out more or get involved in the final push, visit yeson21ca.org. You can follow Shanti on Twitter @uhshanti and Tenants Together @tenantstogether and learn more about how you can support their work at tenantstogether.org. If you want to support the show and receive access to tons of bonus content, subscribe on our Patreon for as little as $5 a month. Also, don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts. We can't do this show without your support!!!

Please tune in today to check out Enrique Morone's interview with Vivian Moreno. This Councilwoman for San Diego’s 8th district is passionate about honoring her Mexican roots and heritage and creating opportunities for residents of her district to create beautiful, healthy, and prosperous lives within the neighborhoods that fall under her jurisdiction. Her professional career has developed from nurturing great relationships with elder local representatives such as David Alvarez. Her success comes from taking the advice of mentors who guided her, as she now strives to guide younger women on their paths in social and public service.  As a young woman Vivian Moreno saw her future in the Foreign Service. Traveling is a huge passion of hers, in college she studied political science with an emphasis on International Relations and Latin American Studies. She can proudly claim to have visited 27 countries, she loves traveling, and the value of collecting stamps on her passport has outweighed the desire for a luxury vehicle. There are no car payments necessary to pay off her 2007 Mazda i3. That extra cash is stowed away for plane trips and checking off countries from her bucket list.  Councilmember Vivian Moreno was elected to represent the City of San Diego’s Eighth City Council District in 2018.  She has dedicated her career to improving the region’s most underserved communities through experience, volunteer work and public service . Currently she is very concerned with protecting the health and well being of families in her district that are being over proportionately affected by Covid 19.The Councilmember currently serves as Chair of the Land Use and Housing Committee, Vice Chair of the Committee on the Environment, a member of the Committee on Budget and Government Efficiency, Committee on Infrastructure and the Committee on Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods.  She also serves on the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board, the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee, the SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Working Group, SANDAG Borders Committee, SANDAG Public Safety Committee, San Diego Consortium Policy Board and Chairs the Otay Mesa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Public Financing Authority. Subscribe to our podcast at https://www.buenhombre.org/ (BuenHombre.org) or https://www.magnificentmujer.org/ (ManificentMujer.org), on AppleItunes, TuneIn, Stitcher and on Youtube at Buen Hombre Magnificent Mujer. Please like our podcast and videos on these platforms as it helps us reach more listeners and grow our community. Join Enrique Morones as he talks to important influencers on issues regarding human rights, activism, creativity and how we can all make this a better world. Hear their inspiring stories, Amor Si Se Puede! Love is an Action not just a word. Buen Hombre Magnificent Mujer is a project of GenteUnida.net A 501c3 nonprofit corporation and all donations are tax deductible… Donate to Buenhombre/MagnificentMujer https://my.captivate.fm/BuenHombre.org/donate (BuenHombre.org/donate) orhttps://my.captivate.fm/MagnificentMujer.org/donate ( MagnificentMujer.org/donate) https://www.facebook.com/VivianMorenoSD/ (https://www.facebook.com/VivianMorenoSD/) https://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd8/staff/moreno (https://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd8/staff/moreno) http://www.vivianmorenosd.com/ (http://www.vivianmorenosd.com/) Support this podcast

Please tune in today to check out Enrique Morone's interview with Gil Cedillo.  Find out how this union organizer from Los Angeles's Boyle Heights neighborhood became a f reckoning force within the democratic party and is most well known for authoring the California DREAM act. He has also worked on increasing and expanding access to health care, developing regional solutions to combat homelessness, and encouraging economic development in his Downtown Los Angeles district. Gil Cedillo is a member of the Council of La Raza. Find the podcast at  http://www.buenhombre.org/ (www.buenhombre.org) and http://www.magnificentmujer.org/ (www.magnificentmujer.org). and on the Buen Hombre Youtube channel.  Enrique’s podcast interview will also be streaming on Apple Podcast, Spotify, TuneIn, Stitcher, Youtube  and Captivate.fm   Councilmember Gil Cedillo brings 15 years of legislative experience to the City Council.  Having served as a member of the State Assembly and Senate, he authored over a hundred bills that were signed into law by four different Governors that include Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jerry Brown. Most were groundbreaking and innovative pieces of legislation that included cleaning up California’s brownfields, state oversight and fair share zoning for transitional and emergency homeless shelters (SB 2), workers’ right to organize (AB 1889), Downtown Rebound (AB 2870), and the California Dream Act (AB 130 and 131). His long running legislation to grant drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants (AB60) was finally signed into law by Governor Brown on October 3, 2013, nine months after he was termed out of state office. Councilmember Cedillo’s advocacy on behalf of underserved communities is legendary. His causes have ranged from becoming a formidable counterweight to the inhumane crusade against undocumented families, to his unwavering support for Filipino American World War II veterans, the uninsured, low-income and working families, the homeless, and AB 540 “dream” students. He has worked diligently to mainstream all of their agendas, one community at a time. As Chair of the Housing Committee, Councilmember Cedillo continues to advocate for equity while expanding tenant rights. He was the first to declare a ‘Housing Crisis’ in Los Angles, citing decades of neglecting to build the housing necessary to meet demand. He is committed to building 100,000 units of housing over the next ten years, promoting smart growth to help revitalize our neighborhoods and create jobs, while stabilizing neighborhoods with the creation and protection of affordable housing. Subscribe to our podcast at BuenHombre.org or ManificentMujer.org, on AppleItunes, TuneIn, Stitcher and on Youtube at Buen Hombre Magnificent Mujer. Please like our podcast and videos on these platforms as it helps us reach more listeners and grow our community. Join me as I talk to important influencers on issues regarding human rights, activism, creativity and how we can all make this a better world. Hear their inspiring stories, Amor Si Se Puede! Love is an Action not just a word.  Buen Hombre Magnificent Mujer is a project of GenteUnida.net A 501c3 nonprofit corporation and all donations are tax deductible… Donate to Buenhombre/MagnificentMujer BuenHombre.org/donate or MagnificentMujer.org/donate Support this podcast

Protests against police brutality have put systemic racism in the spotlight. But how do the written and unwritten rules in communities perpetuate racial inequality? This hour we take a look at how town zoning rules keep out affordable housing and cause racial segregation to persist in Connecticut. Connecticut Mirror reporter Jacqueline Rabe Thomas joins us and we talk with  housing officials and lawmakers. We want to hear from you, too. Have you participated in protests against racial injustice in your town? What role should suburban residents take to housing segregation in our state? GUESTS: Jacqueline Rabe Thomas - Reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. She has written about housing segregation for the Mirror and Propublica Crystal Carter - Simsbury resident; her story was profiled in Separated By Design from Propublica Karen Dubois-Walton - President of Elm City Communities, the Housing Authority of New Haven Senator Saud Anwar - State Senator representing East Hartford, Ellington, East Windsor and South Windsor; he is the co-chair of the Housing Committee in the Connecticut General Assembly Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donate

“It takes a community to raise a village,” it says on the Cortes Community Housing website (at cortescommunityhousing.org This has clearly been the case on Cortes Island with two upcoming housing initiatives undergone by the Housing Committee of the Cortes Island Seniors Society.

Meeting Toronto's Housing Challenges Today and Tomorrow

Meeting Toronto's Housing Challenges Today and Tomorrow

City leaders have set in motion a 30-year plan for Mission Valley that flips the region's focus from its roads to the San Diego River and the trolley system. It simultaneously creates room for 50,000 additional residents and 7 million more square feet of commercial development. Tuesday, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt the Mission Valley Community Plan Update and certify the associated environmental impact report. The approval is the last needed in a process that dates to 2015, when city planners first teamed with community members to come up with a new framework for Mission Valley. The land-use and policy document also cleared without a hiccup the city's Land Use & Housing Committee and the Planning Commission earlier in the summer.

On this episode of HAR On the Move, we spoke with Belinda Everette, Head of the Housing Committee for the NAACP Houston Branch. She told us all about affordable housing programs and classes available in Houston and surrounding areas and how Realtors® can get involved!   Connect with the NAACP on Facebook. Check out their Website. Email Belinda if you want to get involved. Have a topic idea for the podcast? Let us know! Submit your thoughts and feedback to social@har.com Get Social With HAR! Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,YouTube and LinkedIn Get Social with the Hosts! Cristina- Twitter and Instagram  David- Twitter

Senator Fagan and Senator Golden talk about their public hearing on SB 608 in the Housing Committee.

City Councillors Alanna Mallon and Sumbul Siddiqui discuss the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, the city's walk out in support of survivors and its two day training on diversity and inclusion. Also, the YWCA Outstanding Women awards, the Council's Housing Committee hearing, the Yes on Question 3 order, and policy discussions on cannabis and taxes. Recorded at Cambridge Community Television. 

If you want to support the show and receive access to tons of bonus content, subscribe on our Patreon page for as little as $5 a month. Also, don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review the show on iTunes. We can't do this show without your support!!! This week, Roqayah and Kumars discuss gentrification and organizing for tenants’ rights with Shanti Singh and Jen Snyder, both housing rights activists in San Francisco and leaders in DSA SF’s Housing Committee. Shanti, a returning guest and past guest host, is also with the statewide tenants rights organization Tenants Together. First-time guest Jen was the campaign manager for Proposition F, a San Francisco ballot measure that passed on June 5th that guarantees tenants a lawyer if they’re being evicted or otherwise forced out by their landlords. Shanti and Jen give a lay of the land when it comes to housing rights in SF, including defining the terms YIMBY, NIMBY and PHIMBY, before getting into the specifics of the “Yes on F” campaign. They discuss how DSA SF, in spearheading the effort, strategically linked up with coalition partners and picked their battles to reach sympathetic residents and bolster turnout on election day. They also respond to recent tenants’ rights victories in Oakland, like the activities of the Defend Auntie Frances campaign and the Tenant and Neighborhood Councils project of the East Bay DSA Communist Caucus. Shanti and Jen conclude by pointing to both ground-up tenants’ rights organizing and more radical policy measures as potential next steps for the struggle for housing justice in the Bay Area and beyond. Follow Shanti on Twitter @uhshanti, and Jen @ohjennyboy. A transcript for this episode will be provided upon request. Please send an email to deleteuracct @ gmail to get a copy sent to you when it is completed.

Cambridge City Councillors Alanna Mallon and Sumbul Siddiqui discuss the upcoming Women Elected in Cambridge panel at the Cambridge Public Library next Wednesday May 23 at 630pm as well as the Housing Committee tenant protections Ramadan the Citys Outstanding Employee Awards and cannabisRecorded at Cambridge Community Television

In this their TENTH episode City Councillors Alanna Mallon and Sumbul Siddiqui discuss how much they miss CCTV since they have been recording at City Hall for the past two episodes and CCTV misses them too Also the 12th Cambridge Science Festival the Women in Comedy Festival Affordable Housing Week Evicted by Matthew Desmond the Housing Committee and the MBTA Better Bus Project

Tonight, we feature organizing at the state and local level. Celi Tamayo-Li with SF Rising talks about their work on the College for All campaign in California. Deepa Varma from the San Francisco Tenants Union talks about the effort to repeal the California Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. She brings us breaking news from the state Housing Committee. And we talk with the people involved with Barangay Broadside, an art and activism project in San Francisco's SOMA Pilipinas Cultural District. Tonight, we're looking at movement building and legislative change that is mounting in the new year. But if you take a bird's-eye view, we'll see that the repression has been year's in the making. Whether we're talking about the increase in higher education tuition, the dramatically increasing rents throughout California, or the forced displacements of communities there has been resistance through people powered solutions. College 4 All The first to join us is Celi Tamayo-Li. Born and raised in SF, Celi is the field organizer at San Francisco Rising where they're focus is on “youth” which is defined as up to 30 years old. Celi taught history at Hilltop High, SF's school for teen parents, and was the campaign manager for Vote 16 (a measure to lower the voting age to 16 in SF), which only lost by 2 percent. Celi talks about SF Rising's College 4 All campaign. Our next segment is hope for housing in the new year with an effort to repeal the Costa Hawkins Act. Our guest is Deepa Varma, the executive director of the San Francisco Tenants Union. Deepa has worked as an organizer, litigator and activist on social justice issues including women's rights, public benefits, criminal justice reform and immigration. She was a tenants rights attorney in New York and at San Francisco's Eviction Defense Collaborative. She helped to train a new generation of eviction defense lawyers in San Francisco to enforce the tenant protections we have in the city, and to provide last minute litigation support for tenants in housing court. YOHANA getting down! Photo by Anth Bongco. Finally, we we are joined by artist Colin Kimzey and Claire Amable, the youth health coordinator at SOMCAN or the South of Market Community Action Network. Colin and SOMCAN were awarded $3,000 from Southern Exposure's Alternative Exposure grant to “invigorate and transform the San Francisco Bay Area arts community”. The project is called Barangay Broadside and it pays for silk screen workshops at the South of Market Community Action Network.   The post APEX Express – Hope for the New Year appeared first on KPFA.

On March 7th, the Senate had a 4+ hour hearing. In this second condensed section, we hear from experts on California's housing crisis and SPICY PUBLIC COMMENT! For the full hearing audio and video, go here: California Media Senate Archive

On March 7th, the Senate had a 4+ hour hearing. In this first condensed section, we hear from experts on California's housing crisis, subsidized affordable housing, how zoning and permitting restrict housing and more! For the full hearing audio and video, go here: California Media Senate Archive

The stories this month feature baby rats, traumatised soldiers, uppity moths, self-consuming metafiction, 80s action figures, and a very sinister housing committee. No narrator is too unusual, no story too strange for our Us & Them event, as we hand over the mike to collective voices, extraordinary viewpoints and life-or-death clashes and connections. WINNING STORIES in order of reading We/She by J. A. Hopper, read by Charlotte Worthing Sharing by Judy Birkbeck *NEW AUTHOR*, read by Carrie Cohen PT Fuckin' SD by Richard Jay Goldstein *NEW AUTHOR*, read by Nick Delvalle INTERVAL & BOOK QUIZ The Reading by David Guy *NEW AUTHOR*, read by Peter Kenny Five Baby Rats by Michael Sano *NEW AUTHOR*, rad by Silas Hawkins Letters from the Housing Committee by Joel Blackledge, read by Louisa Gummer

When California's redevelopment agencies were eliminated, affordable housing took a crushing blow. Advocates throughout the State are mobilizing to create a new dedicated funding source for affordable housing through the California Homes and Jobs Act. On this episode of the Affordable Housing podcast, brought to you by Eden Housing, host Joanne Greene speaks to our guest California Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chairman of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee and sponsor of SB 391, the California Homes and Jobs Act. SB 391 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9, 2013. As chair of Transportation and Housing, Senator DeSaulnier has fought for greater accountability on the state's transportation infrastructure projects. Through other committee assignments Senator DeSaulnier has been a strong advocate for California's more vulnerable populations, introducing legislation to support underserved, homeless and foster youth. In late 2011 - early 2012, the California Supreme Court rendered a set of decisions that resulted in the elimination of redevelopment agencies. That effectively eliminated a billion dollars a year that local governments were using to help create and preserve affordable housing. Senator DeSaulnier was a leader in efforts to save housing funding. RESOURCES * Listen to this and prior episodes of the Affordable Housing Podcast on Eden Housing's website. * For more information on SB 391, please visit www.cahomesandjobsact.org. * Free subscriptions to the monthly Affordable Housing Podcast are available on iTunes. What topics and special guests would you like to see featured on the Affordable Housing Podcast? We want to hear from you! Send your ideas to Eden Housing's Communications Department. Thank you for your continued support and partnership!

When California's redevelopment agencies were eliminated, affordable housing took a crushing blow. Advocates throughout the State are mobilizing to create a new dedicated funding source for affordable housing through the California Homes and Jobs Act. On this episode of the Affordable Housing podcast, brought to you by Eden Housing, host Joanne Greene speaks to our guest California Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chairman of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee and sponsor of SB 391, the California Homes and Jobs Act. SB 391 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9, 2013. As chair of Transportation and Housing, Senator DeSaulnier has fought for greater accountability on the state's transportation infrastructure projects. Through other committee assignments Senator DeSaulnier has been a strong advocate for California's more vulnerable populations, introducing legislation to support underserved, homeless and foster youth. In late 2011 - early 2012, the California Supreme Court rendered a set of decisions that resulted in the elimination of redevelopment agencies. That effectively eliminated a billion dollars a year that local governments were using to help create and preserve affordable housing. Senator DeSaulnier was a leader in efforts to save housing funding. RESOURCES * Listen to this and prior episodes of the Affordable Housing Podcast on Eden Housing's website. * For more information on SB 391, please visit www.cahomesandjobsact.org. * Free subscriptions to the monthly Affordable Housing Podcast are available on iTunes. What topics and special guests would you like to see featured on the Affordable Housing Podcast? We want to hear from you! Send your ideas to Eden Housing's Communications Department. Thank you for your continued support and partnership!

Senator Joe Simitian was elected to the California State Senate in November 2004 to represent the 11th State Senate District, which includes portions of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. His public service over the years includes stints as a State Assemblymember, member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of Palo Alto and President of the Palo Alto School Board. He has also served as an election observer/supervisor in El Salvador and Bosnia, and participated in refugee relief and resettlement efforts in Albania and Kosovo. In the Senate, Simitian chairs the Select Committee on Privacy and the Environmental Quality Committee. He also serves as a member of numerous other committees. Senator Simitian received his BA with academic honors, from The Colorado College. He also holds his Masters in International Policy Studies from Stanford University, a Masters in City Planning and a law degree from UC Berkeley. The Capitol Weekly identified Simitian as one of the half-dozen Most Effective members of the Legislature. San Jose Magazine has repeatedly recognized him as one of the Power 100 of Silicon Valley, and in 2003 Simitian was selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the Scientific American 50 Leaders in Technology from around the world. Joe Simitian and his work have been quoted or noted in publications as diverse as the Atlantic Monthly, Conde Nast Traveller, Mother Jones, People Magazine, and Scientific American. His many media appearances range from CNN to the Dr. Phil Show, and he has been on our show two times before. He is our privacy hero! You can learn more about Senator Simitian at www.sen.ca.gov or www.sentatorsimitian.com. Senator Simitian is on the following committees: Environmental Quality Committee, CHAIR Budget Committee, Member Education Committee, Member Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, Member Natural Resources and Water Committee, Member Transportation and Housing Committee, Member SELECT COMMITTEES Select Committee on Privacy, CHAIR Select Committee on Delta Conservation, Conveyance and Governance, CHAIR Select Committee on Delta Stewardship and Sustainability, Member Select Committee on Climate Change and AB 32 Implementation, Member

Tom Campbell is a Republican candidate for the US Senate. Mr. Campbell served as a US Congressman for five terms representing districts in the Silicon Valley. He was also a California State Senator, and the Director of Finance for the State of California. In Congress, Mr. Campbell served on the Judiciary Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, the Banking and Housing Committee, and the International Relations Committee. He has also served since 2004 on the Council of Economic Advisors to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mr. Campbell joins the Council to outline his vision of US foreign policy priorities and what international issues he would focus on if elected to the US Senate.