Podcast appearances and mentions of jorge bar

María Gainza nació en Buenos Aires y es escritora. Ha publicado libros como El nervio óptico, La luz negra o, más recientemente, Un puñado de flechas. Reflexiona siempre con lucidez y humor sobre arte, pintura y su propia vida. Viene hoy al Hotel para charlar sobre cuadros, fotos robadas, el aura (ese misterio), el doble arcoíris, un carcaj con flechas doradas, mantener perfil bajo, patinadoras de hielo, libros y el viaje en la memoria.Libros comentados:Un puñado de flechas — María GainzaMi Antonia — Willa CatherLa Flor Azul — Penelope FitzgeraldLa radio puesta — Javier MontesEl desierto y su semilla — Jorge Barón BizaLa marcha Radetzky — Joseph RothNuestra parte de noche — Mariana Enríquez

Esta noche, Jorge Barón celebra la Fiesta de los Hogares Colombianos desde Ibagué, un evento cargado de música, emoción y talento nacional.

En motivo homenaje, Jorge Barón fue reconocido por su trayectoria en radio y televisión. Este homenaje, que lo tomó por sorpresa, es un tributo a más de seis décadas de en medios de comunicación.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El icónico programa cumple su aniversario número 60 

Jorge Barón es todo un ícono de la televisión colombiana, por esto, en SEMANA queremos conocer esos detalles de su trayectoria que lo han llevado al éxito con su ‘Show de las estrellas'.

On this Friday show, we present Part 2 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Election Roundtable which was live-streamed on November 13, 2023 with special guests Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve, and Robert Cruickshank. In Part 2, the panel breaks down results for Seattle City Council District 7 and reflects on the implications of Seattle's elections on progressive priorities. For those disappointed in the results, encouragement is given to remain engaged after the election, re-evaluate strategy and messaging, and work on building relationships around issues everyone supports. The conversation then moves outside of Seattle to encouraging results from around the region - a more progressive and more diverse King County Council, success for initiatives addressing cost-of-living concerns in Tacoma and Bellingham, promising municipal election outcomes in Bothell, Spokane, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Redmond, as well as defeat of a right wing incumbent in the Snohomish County Sheriff race. Plus, a discussion of the exciting upcoming move to even-year elections for King County races and the need to address an unintended consequence this turnout-boosting change has on citizen initiatives! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find guest panelists, Katie Wilson at @WilsonKatieB, Robert Cruickshank at @cruickshank, and Andrew Villeneuve at https://www.nwprogressive.org. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Katie Wilson Katie Wilson is the general secretary of the Transit Riders Union and was the campaign coordinator for the wildly successful Raise the Wage Tukwila initiative last November.    Andrew Villeneuve Andrew Villeneuve is the founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) and its sibling, the Northwest Progressive Foundation. He has worked to advance progressive causes for over two decades as a strategist, speaker, author, and organizer.   Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013.   Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Election Roundtable Livestream | November 13th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 2 of our 2023 Post-Election Roundtable, with guest panelists Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve and Robert Cruickshank, that was originally aired live on Monday, November 13th. Part 1 was our last episode – you can find it in your podcast feed or on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. You can also go to the site for full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show. Thanks for tuning in! [00:00:44] Crystal Fincher: We'll transition to District 7, which we saw the third incumbent running for Seattle City Council, who - this is a very, very close race still, but it looks like Andrew Lewis may have run out of runway to come back in this race. What was your view of this, Robert? [00:01:03] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I mean, Andrew Lewis won a close election in 2019 and he appears to have lost a close election here in 2023. I know that there is - we'll see the spending slide in a moment, but there's more spending certainly against him than his colleague Dan Strauss saw. I think that looking at the map - and there it is, I mean, it's almost 2:1. Similar to Davis, Andrew Lewis got nearly half a million dollars spent against him. If you look at the precinct map so far and compare it to 2019 - in 2019, Andrew Lewis held his own on Queen Anne, on the top of Queen Anne - that sort of island up in the sky of privilege and prosperity. Andrew did pretty well, won a bare majority in Queen Anne, just like he won in the district as a whole. If you look at the map from 2023, Queen Anne almost uniformly going to Bob Kettle. Now again, not all ballots are in, but I think you see - another thing that stood out to me is downtown. Downtown Seattle, Belltown - a lot of renters, also a lot of condo owners - that also seems to have gone to Bob Kettle. So I think that the narrative about public safety probably tripped up Andrew Lewis here. And I think Andrew Lewis - he voted against the drug ordinance in June when it first came up, but I think that was the right thing to do from a policy perspective. And then he wound up voting for it after working out a deal with the mayor's office to improve the ordinance. Voters may not have liked that, and certainly Bob Kettle ran pretty hard against that - putting out campaign messaging saying that Lewis was waffling, which is never a thing you wanna have said about you. I think that this is one where Strauss made the pivot that Lewis didn't really wanna make. And I think we, again, as progressives, gotta look at this and think - Lewis stood where we wanted him to stand, especially in that vote in June. And I think figuring out how to support candidates when they do things like that is going to be really important. This is another one obviously where turnout was different - a significant drop-off of turnout from 50% turnout in 2019 to 40% turnout in 2023. Again, you don't need much shift in turnout - especially if it comes among younger voters, renters, people living in dense communities - giving the victory, potentially to Lewis had they shown up. So this is where I feel like we can talk about Lewis - what Lewis should have done. I also look at the progressive movement as a whole and think - what did we all need to do differently in this election? I think finding ways to really fight for someone like Lewis, who's with us on most things, and certainly took up what I thought was a courageous vote in June - We've gotta reflect on that and think how we do better next time in these types of close races. [00:03:55] Crystal Fincher: What did you think, Andrew? [00:03:57] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, I think District 7 is the most conservative of the seven districts. And so the deck was kind of stacked against Andrew Lewis to start out with. And then as Robert said, the public safety piece was kind of big here. How much did voters see and hear about why Andrew Lewis was taking the votes and the actions that he did? Because for those of us who follow politics closely, we are interested in what happens at council, we're interested in the votes, and we pay an inordinate amount of attention and consume a lot more information. We might've been able to follow what Andrew Lewis was saying a lot more easily about why he voted the way he did in June, and then what he did in the fall - the late summer and fall - that caused him to take a vote that many people might've thought was contradictory to the vote that he took in June. And so I'm not sure how many voters were able to follow what was happening there. And it might've looked like, to use the old political cliche, flip-flopping. And if that's the case, if that's how voters perceived that, that could have been a negative. And Bob Kettle certainly being able to capitalize on that - that could be a very powerful thing if people are already feeling a little unhappy, disenchanted. We saw at the beginning of this year - we did a citywide poll right before the election that was for the initiative, the social housing initiative - we had the special election, we did a poll before that. And pretty much everyone in the council got a negative job performance rating, except for Sara Nelson, who had a slightly positive one. And I looked at that and went - Hmm - 'cause we weren't just assessing, how do you feel about the council as an institution? 'Cause that's a separate question. It's possible to like your member of the institution and dislike the institution - we see that dynamic with Congress. But here, people actually - we had in the poll, we had people rate each councilmember and the ratings were not good for most of the incumbent councilmembers. Sara Nelson being the exception, as I mentioned. So people were already unhappy, and then you take this public safety dynamic and this confusing position-taking that is going on, I think for many voters, and it becomes something that leaves you feeling not confident about voting for the incumbent. And I know Andrew Lewis worked really hard. I know he did a lot of door knocking, that I think they did try to leave it all out there in the field. But when you put together the low turnout, the money that was spent against Andrew Lewis, you put in the fact that it's a very conservative district out of the seven to start with, then you have the recipe for a Bob Kettle victory. Bob Kettle had a lot working for him. I don't think he ran the strongest campaign we've ever seen in Seattle city elections history. I think he just was lucky. He was a beneficiary of circumstances. So I'm gonna miss Andrew Lewis on the council - One of our board members is on his staff and I just think he brought a lot to the council. And I hope he runs for something else or stays involved in politics because I appreciate his vision. [00:07:01] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I do appreciate his vision. And I think you're onto something with the confusing. It's confusing to be able to explain that, and I think that wasn't the only set of confusing votes that he took. There was a notable one last year, early this year - time doesn't mean much to me anymore - that he took there, and while that does happen and while there are certainly justifications, that's a hard thing to explain. And when you do, you better be clear and hope it cuts through to the voters. And I think that's a really hard thing to do for the general public, particularly when you have hundreds of thousands of dollars painting some of your votes in a different light. We saw in one of those ads with Bob Kettle - Sara Nelson blaming deaths on Andrew Lewis, which I think was disingenuous. But it just showed the amount of spending, the type of rhetoric that was in this race and that they really felt he was vulnerable on public safety and they certainly took advantage of that. I wanna shift a little bit and talk about what this means moving forward for the city of Seattle. What does this council mean for the city? I wanna start with Katie. What are we likely to see? [00:08:25] Katie Wilson: [baby crying] Can you come back to me? [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: I sure can. We'll start with Robert. [00:08:30] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah. I share the baby's thoughts on this. It's not good, folks. I think what this election will have done is turn the 2020s into a lost decade for Seattle. I think we're going to spend the next four years until 2028, when a new council is inaugurated, playing defense. I think it's going to be very difficult to advance new policies, especially around housing, transportation, and climate. I think that especially for the next year or so, some of the most regressive forces in the city are going to feel emboldened. People who don't want new housing, people who want a transportation policy centered around cars and nothing else are gonna feel really like the wind is in their backs and they can really push harder than they might otherwise have pushed. I think there's going to be big fights over a comprehensive plan that's supposed to be approved next year. And this incoming council may not be as friendly to dense urban housing that we need to tackle the climate crisis and the affordability crisis as some of the other candidates would have been. We have to renew a transportation levy next year. Is that going to be focusing on a new sustainable transportation plan that focuses on transit, people who walk, people who bike, or is it gonna be tripling down on cars? Those are some of the things that come to mind. The fight over JumpStart and taxing corporations is going to be significant. It's quite possible that this election turns out to foretell a significant decline in the quality of life in Seattle - if we see budget cuts to major public services, to libraries, parks, and certainly human services, I'd worry a lot about that. It's also possible that we don't see an incoming council that's really focused on building enough housing, especially affordable housing, and transportation options to make it easier for people to live and work here - that we become even more polarized into a city of the very rich and the very poor. So I think we gotta be clear right here as progressives. The messaging we had on public safety, on homelessness wasn't working. Again, I don't think we should throw out our core values, but we've got a lot to learn from here. And the messaging that does work for us - housing, that people want people to fight for their rights as renters, wanna fight for affordability - we didn't do enough of that, I don't think. And finally, we need to figure out what pulls our people out to the polls. Do we need to start running ballot initiatives at the same time as mayoral elections, as city council elections in November? I think we should very seriously start considering that. But we're in for four years of playing a lot of defense and we're gonna lose a decade when we really can't afford to lose it to tackle affordability, racial justice, police reform and climate. [00:11:11] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts, Andrew? [00:11:13] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, I like to be hopeful and optimistic about the future. And I think that there's an opportunity to persuade the council to be progressive. And I think that we can see a lot of great things happen with this council if people put in the work to create the relationships and to connect with folks - I'm someone who believes you create the future you wanna see. And I'm not a huge fan of predictions either because I think it's really hard to make them and they're so often wrong. So my advice to those who are concerned about the outcome of this election is it's time to dig in and to build the relationships with those new councilmembers and to talk to them now before they get sworn in and to create that connectivity - that connective tissue - that should exist and make sure that again, people have had a chance to hear what it is we're looking for. There's a lot of research, including NPI's research that shows people want the things that progressives in Seattle have been campaigning for. We want, for example, a more pedestrian-friendly city. We want a city that's not so car-centric. We want a city that has better transit. We want more housing. We want to make sure that as we're building the housing, we're not also losing our tree canopy because that is a critical tool in the fight against climate damage. So there's a lot that can be done, I think, by the council. And the mayor and the council need to hear from people now and not after they make a decision that people are unhappy with. It's not just the public testimony that matters, but it's also the work that's being done in between. I like to think of the holiday season as a time for catch up and preparing for what comes next. And my suggestion to those who are listening is - okay, yes, celebrate the holidays - whatever you celebrate, do it. Don't lose out on your holiday traditions. But while you're preparing your plan for Thanksgiving, send off a note - find the information for the people who won their council races and send them a note and tell them what you're looking forward to in the next council and the policies you're hoping that they'll champion - and see what happens. I think that we don't put enough value on what we do after the election. There needs to be activism that comes after the voting has stopped and the counting is done - and before people take office and start governing - that in-between time to me is a critical time to get opinions shared with people who are coming in. So that's what I would encourage folks to do. [00:13:44] Crystal Fincher: I want to strongly second that encouragement. I think that there is a lot of opportunity and whether you're happy with the results or not, I think it's really important to remain engaged after the election and to push for what you want whether it's a progressive or a moderate council. I also think that there is value in building relationships and there's value in starting a dialogue. Everything that we do is a result of coalitions and sometimes those coalitions don't look exactly like we expect them to. There are several issues that are very, very popular among Seattle residents that you look at what the council ran on and it may seem opposed - maybe that's the opportunity for some dialogue and some movement there. Looking at setting up alternative response - that may be a little - I think most people have something more comprehensive in mind than the trial that just started, getting that spun out in all neighborhoods in a more comprehensive way 24/7 certainly is really popular - one of the highest polling issues in Seattle, there's opportunity there. Progressive revenue polls really high in the city as we head into this time of a pretty significant deficit in the City's budget. There's opportunity for dialogue to say this is absolutely critically important to me, my neighborhood, my neighbors and to make sure that councilmembers understand the impact that Seattle programs, that different things in your community have on your life. This is really a time to get engaged - to let the councilmembers, incoming councilmembers, know it's important. And the existing councilmembers - who knows what they're liable to do. Now, some of them don't have to worry about what voters might think - that may have been part of their equation before. So there may be an opportunity for some bold action even before some of the existing ones end up going. So I just really do second that and point out that there are still some things that are really popular among residents in Seattle that I think they're looking to see these candidates deliver on. Katie, did you wanna add anything? [00:16:00] Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I apologize if this is repetitive since I wasn't listening for a little bit, but yeah, I mean, the thing that is foremost in my mind is progressive revenue in the City budget. Knowing that the city is going into a situation where there's a more than $200 million a year shortfall starting in 2025. And I think there will continue to be efforts to basically repurpose the revenue from the JumpStart corporate tax to fill that gap. And so my kind of worst nightmare - well, maybe not worst nightmare, but one of the bad nightmares for what could happen with the new council aligned with the mayor and kind of pressured by the Chamber of Commerce and similar interests - is that they basically just gut JumpStart, take all of that money away from affordable housing, away from Green New Deal, away from equitable development. And basically it just becomes a general fund slush fund for the police budget. And I could totally see that happening. So that is, I think, something that will be a big issue next year, assuming that the economy doesn't just totally turn around and suddenly the shortfall evaporates. So yeah, I mean, and I think that to what Crystal just said - given that the councilmembers will have an opportunity in the coming weeks as they complete the budget process to vote on potential revenue proposals. I know Councilmember Sawant every year proposes some massive increase to JumpStart, like doubling it or something. So, you know, maybe on their way out, some of the outgoing councilmembers will just say, f--- it and we'll do that. But I'm sure the new council would reverse it right quick, but it would be fun anyway. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: Well, and one thing I do wanna add - another thing that is very popular and necessary in the city, and that seeing you with your baby there reminds us all of, is the importance of childcare and how critical it is that the council play an active role on making it more accessible and affordable to the residents of Seattle and how important that is to Seattle's economy. So look forward to seeing what plans and action they have there. I wanna switch gears a little bit. We have talked a lot about Seattle for all this time, but let's talk about some of the other races. Let's talk about the King County Council races. So the first one up was Jorge Barón versus Sarah Reyneveld. We also saw Teresa Mosqueda versus Sofia Aragon. I think with Jorge Barón, we saw him do one of the things that's relatively rare in Seattle politics - and that was lock down both The Stranger and The Seattle Times endorsement, which usually equates to a pretty comfortable victory and I think we saw that here. But we also saw a race with Teresa Mosqueda and Sofia Aragon that was a little closer than some people anticipated. Why do you think that was, Robert? [00:19:03] Robert Cruickshank: So I think that that district includes a fair amount of Burien. And I think Burien's politics this year were very polarized around - you might say The Seattle Times, Brandi Kruse narrative of, we gotta crackdown on visible homelessness in ways that are really just appalling and honestly dishonest. Sofia Aragon had been mayor of Burien and sort of leader in that effort. And so people who were invested in that narrative, whether they're in West Seattle or in Burien portions of the district, had a champion. That said, Teresa Mosqueda is an incredibly effective politician and legislator. I wanna give a shout out to Kamau, @Kamaumaumau on Twitter, who's got a Mosqueda theory of politics - talk about popular stuff, pick a few strategic fights and highlight them, get elected, pass a bunch of taxes to solve people's problems, and then talk about it. The fact that Mosqueda was a very effective and visibly effective leader on the Seattle City Council, I think, helped insulate her a little bit from some of the criticisms that that council got. Those criticisms never really seemed to stick to Teresa Mosqueda - while Lorena González was going down to defeat, and Ann Davison was being elected our city attorney, and Sara Nelson getting elected citywide seat in 2021 - Mosqueda won with 20-point victory citywide that same year. And so I think Mosqueda, you have to give your hat off, take your hat off to Mosqueda for running a smart campaign, being a smart politician, showing that she's engaged on the issues, but also championing some really popular things and making sure voters know about it. So I think there's a lot to learn from Teresa Mosqueda and how she was able to pull out this victory, which was a close one, obviously. They threw everything they had at her and she prevailed. And I think that's a big kudos to the type of campaign she ran. [00:21:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you think the electoral theory of Mosqueda holds up, Andrew? [00:21:07] Andrew Villeneuve: I think so. I mean, Teresa Mosqueda is one of the people who's impressed me the most in local politics the last few years. I've had her at one of the NPI events, speaking about issues that are important. She is someone who understands data and she's very quick to realize - okay, this is the policy that will help us in 20 years. And so I really appreciate that about her. She's very passionate about even-year elections, which I hope we'll say a couple more words about, 'cause I think that is a remedy for some of the things that we've been talking about this past hour. But when you look at her performance on the electoral map, Teresa Mosqueda doing well in places like Georgetown, performing well on Vashon. People sometimes forget that Vashon is a part of King County - it's a critical part of that district, the 8th District. So I see Sofia doing well in some parts of West Seattle. Robert mentioned Burien, another critical place. But that Vashon performance - that is an orange island on the general elections dashboard for Teresa Mosqueda. And looking at some of the precincts - I see 64% here, 73% over there. I mean, those kinds of margins matter. And I think that's how Teresa Mosqueda was able to build that majority. And of course, when you start - maybe it's a close race on Election Night. But when you start in a better position than your opponent, that late progressive ballots are just gonna lift you much higher. So the race - when that certification arrives, it's not gonna appear as close as it was on Election Night. So I do applaud Teresa Mosqueda for running a good campaign for the County Council. And I think, with both Jorge and Teresa coming in, the County Council is getting more diverse. I think it's gonna get more progressive. I think we're gonna see some exciting new policies coming out of the Council. This is what we need. We're at a critical time. King County is on some very steep fiscal shoals, and we need the Legislature to step in, and we need progressive tax revenue options for King County like yesterday. And I'm hopeful that Teresa and Jorge will go down and advocate for that in the Legislature. And knowing them, I believe they're well-positioned to do that and bring that fresh energy that King County needs to the legislative delegation and say - Look, folks, this can't be something we punt and just don't do this year and just leave it to next year, and then it's the same story next year. We've gotta change and break out of that cycle. [00:23:33] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. And I know Mosqueda put in a ton of time on Vashon, which makes a difference. You have to show up. She's incredibly effective in what she does. She's a budget expert. And I'm excited to see what she does on the King County Council. There's an interesting dynamic that we don't see a lot of times. We saw Seattle move in a more moderate direction, but we saw the King County Council move in what looks to be a more progressive direction. What do you think accounts for that? I'll open it up to anyone. [00:24:05] Katie Wilson: Well, I'll just say one thing about the Mosqueda race. I mean, I don't know - I think, Crystal, you said it was pretty close. But in the end, I don't think it is that close - it's like a 10-point margin, so it's actually kind of a pretty big, major, major victory for Mosqueda. And I just looked up the PDC numbers - I don't think that Sofia Aragon ran that much of a campaign, so I think that's something to consider. Mosqueda, I think around $150,000 for Mosqueda's campaign, around $100,000 for Aragon. So it doesn't surprise me too much that she won by that much, even though so much of the district is outside of Seattle. But yeah, I mean, I think it's super interesting that the King County Council looks like arguably a place where a lot more interesting progressive stuff could happen in the next four years than the Seattle City Council. [00:24:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I'll interject really quick. The same thing that we talked about with engaging, building relationships, holding these electeds accountable to what they said they would do in the election and to what your neighborhoods need are just as important in cities like Burien with the results that we saw as they are in Seattle. What do you think we are going to see from the King County Council moving forward with the addition of Jorge Barón and Teresa Mosqueda? [00:25:20] Robert Cruickshank: I mean, I think that there's certainly an opportunity for some more progressive policy, certainly around housing. They're gonna have to solve, as Andrew mentioned, the revenue issue. And that becomes particularly important with King County Metro, which is making a comeback from certainly the pandemic lows, but with a still slightly smaller route network than it had going in. And so a little bit less ridership than it had going in. There's been recovery, I think, on a lot of routes that don't necessarily serve downtown Seattle - there's been recovery on those too. But the way people get around has shifted a little bit, and the system does need to catch up to that and then go ahead. Like Metro and transit are so essential to our ability to tackle the climate crisis. And King County is squarely in the middle of that. So one thing that I think Barón and Mosqueda are going to be confronted with immediately is a need to tackle that question. There's been talk that the county may put as much as a billion dollar ballot measure on the ballot in 2024 to tackle climate issues, potentially including transit. And I think that that's ambitious. That's, I think, correctly ambitious - we need to see what the actual details of the proposal look like. But that's something where Barón and Mosqueda are going to have to take a close look. And certainly they're going to have to advocate the Legislature because, as Andrew mentioned, the Legislature since the mid-2000s has really undermined the ability of local governments, including counties, to raise their own revenue and stay fiscally afloat. And that's catching up to King County real fast. And so they're going to need to lead on that. [00:26:56] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts, Andrew? [00:26:58] Andrew Villeneuve: I agree. I think we have to deal with the Metro issues, but we also have rural roads problems in King County that haven't been addressed. And the previous council of the last 20 years had kind of let these issues fester. My councilmember used to be Kathy Lambert and Kathy cared a lot about rural roads, or so she said, but then the rural roads just weren't getting funded. And I think, you know, here's part of the problem with being a Republican in today's environment - and this is setting aside a lot of the Trump cult stuff - but what we see from a lot of Republican elected officials is they're willing to spend money that's already there, but they want to spend it in ways that actually don't help anybody. So like, for example, just canceling certain taxes and sending the money back to taxpayers. Well, you can't fix the potholes over there on the road with your tax refund. So when rural residents, you know - and Skykomish comes to mind, that's a place that many people might think is not in King County, but it actually is. It's part of Kathy Lambert's old district, now represented by Sarah Perry, my councilmember. And, you know, you think about - okay, what's it going to take to repair some of these rural roads? And it's going to take money. And some of the roads are in terrible shape 'cause they haven't been maintained. And when you don't maintain your roads, you know, they fall apart. It's the same thing with bus service. Like if you're not investing in your bus service and, you know, you're not providing like really reliable, consistently good experience for people, people are going to stop riding. They're going to go back to their car if they have one, because they're, you know, those choice riders can choose not to take the bus. And we don't want choice riders to go back to driving their car because that makes traffic congestion a lot worse. So we need to both address the rural roads, we need to address Metro. There's other public services as well that people don't even know the county does that we need to have elevated. What I'm really excited about though is in the next few years, King County Elections, thanks to the work of the Northwest Progressive Institute and all of our partners and allies - we're moving county elections to even years. So that means that starting in 2026, we're going to elect Teresa Mosqueda and Councilmember Balducci and Councilmember Zahilay and of course, new Councilmember Barón - they're all going to be coming up in 2026. That's their next election - that's three years from now, not four years. And of course, that's also when Julie Wise and John Arthur Wilson's seats come up as well. And then in 2025, we elect the executive and five other council positions for three-year terms - that's the last odd-year election for those. And then those come up in a presidential year. And I just can't wait to see how much higher the turnout is and how many more people discover that county government is a thing - and it does things that are really important and meaningful to their lives. And I hope that they start to realize - okay, now I get to help pick these people - because they are even-year voters, and now they're going to have a say in how King County is run and who represents it. So I just think that that is a tremendously positive change that we're doing for King County. We also now need to do that for our cities. [00:29:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. And I hope that we see legislation at the state level. I know Representative Mia Gregerson had a bill there to bring even-year elections, which just increased turnout and participation, which is good for everyone. And would love to see it in all of our elections here. Other cities are doing it and we should also do it here in Washington State. I want to, with a little bit of time that we have left, move out a little bit - and I'll go to Katie to start out with. Looking wider in the region, wider across the state - thinking Tacoma, Spokane, Bellingham - there was actually a lot to be excited about and a lot of progressive victories. What did you see around the state that you found encouraging or exciting? [00:30:44] Katie Wilson: Well, the Spokane mayor race, obviously the outcome was encouraging. But the thing that I've paid the closest attention to and that I think is just very, very heartening is the result of a few initiatives on issues. So down in Tacoma, there was a very ambitious renter protections initiative, which will bring Tacoma's renter protections up to, and in some cases beyond, what we have here in Seattle. And that initiative was outspent massively. I think it was like three to one and the opposition - very, very well funded by real estate and landlord interests - with TV ads, mailers, just like everything. They just went balls to the walls on that. And the initiative is winning. And I think that's just like - really, really speaks to the way that the rent increases of the last few years have shifted public opinion and to just the popularity of renter protections. This is something that the Transit Riders Union and lots of other organizations in King County have been working a lot on over the last few years here. And the other couple initiatives were up in Bellingham. There's a renter protections initiative up there that would also do basically landlord-paid relocation assistance for rent increases greater than 8% and more, requirements for more notice of rent increases. And then also a minimum wage initiative that will raise Bellingham's minimum wage to $2 above the state minimum wage. And those both passed by large margins - I believe somewhere around 60% or even more. And I don't think those face any opposition. So that again, just gives you the sense of this kind of like native support for kind of cost of living kind of issues. So that's super heartening. And then one thing I wanted to point out, which is - and I think that also, we're gonna see next February - it looks like we're gonna have in Renton, the Raise the Wage Renton will be on the ballot for people to vote on. So hopefully that also passes with flying colors, although obviously February election is a little bit more challenging. And the one thing I wanted to say in connection to what Andrew brought up about even-year elections, just 'cause it's been on my mind - at least for Seattle and King County, this isn't, it's not the same for code cities, but for Seattle and King County, one unintended consequence of moving to even-year elections will be that it will become harder to run citizens' initiatives because the number of signatures that you need to gather depends on the number of votes cast in the last election for mayor or county executive. And so if we're switching to even years, many more people are voting, which is great. Suddenly you're gonna need to gather a lot more signatures in Seattle or countywide in order to run an initiative. So I hope that alongside those changes, we can try to push for lowering the signature threshold for ballot initiatives in those jurisdictions. Yeah, I'll stop there. [00:33:46] Crystal Fincher: I think that's an excellent point. I will also throw in as we're talking about elections and when they are being so important, we have a King Conservation District election coming up in January, I believe. It would be great to get that onto a regular ballot - that's going to take some legislative action. That would be great to push for, but in the meantime, make sure that you engage in that election, which will be coming up also. Robert, what did you see that excited you throughout this? [00:34:16] Robert Cruickshank: You know, I think that we saw on the Eastside of Lake Washington, a lot of victories for more progressive candidates. In Bellevue, we certainly saw that. Big shout out to Bothell - Bothell elected a bunch of urbanists. They, Mason Thompson, who's the mayor of Bothell, won his election four years ago by five votes. He got 60% this year. So did the other folks running with him - Amanda Dodd and Carston Curd got around 60%. This is Bothell, which is a great city, and I think it's going to become even better, you know, now that they've got some really urbanist folks there. They also have one of the only Palestinian Americans on their city council. So Bothell, you look at - there's some good folks in Redmond. There's definitely some good folks in, I mentioned, bellevue. Tacoma - not only did Tacoma for all pass, but Jamika Scott won, Olgy Diaz is leading. So those are really great, great signs out there. And I think what that shows is that there are lessons that Seattle can learn from other parts of the region. There are also differences. Those races don't have sort of the obsessive Seattle Times, Brandi Kruse eye on them, which changes things. And those races in those more suburban communities also didn't have the avalanche of corporate money, although certainly the Tacoma for All initiative did. But I still think there may be things we can learn about how to turn out voters and how to win some persuadable voters from those. But overall, that's really positive signs to take from around the state, even as we who are in Seattle - we'll gnash our teeth a little bit about how some of these races turned out. [00:35:53] Crystal Fincher: And I'll give you the closing word, Andrew. [00:35:55] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, thank you. It has been a pleasure to share this evening with all of you. I think this has been a great discussion. I want to encourage you to look at all the different election results from the different cities and other jurisdictions, because it is - in a local election cycle, you have this amazing patchwork quilt of elections. And some jurisdictions are dealing with issues that are specific to those jurisdictions, and that really causes their elections to go in a certain direction. But others, you know, don't have those. And what we saw this year in places like Spokane was a really progressive result. Not only did Lisa Brown win a convincing victory, and I hope folks will look at the amount of money that was spent against Lisa Brown - it was enormous. You know, we're talking about the Tacoma tenant rights initiative, which is a huge victory - kudos to those folks. But Lisa Brown also overcame an avalanche of money and of opposition money. And that was a really big deal that she was able to do that. And then of course, for Spokane City Council President, we have a woman of color winning that race. The council in Spokane is gonna stay progressive. You know, that is a really encouraging sign. There's been 12 years of Republican rule in Spokane, and that's coming to an end. And Lisa Brown is gonna be in a position to do some great things for Spokane, and people in Seattle should track what's happening over there. Spokane has fortunately a fairly vibrant media ecosystem - I've been reading all of the reports that their TV stations have been doing for this election. And it's just interesting to see how they covered the mayor's race over there. There were a lot of forums and debates and articles and the controversy over, you know, the Matt Shea appearance that Nadine Woodward, Lisa Brown's opponent had - that was very well covered. People definitely heard about that. So that gives me some confidence. You know, when we're looking at news deserts - and my hometown of Redmond is one - you know, there's not enough information for voters. And Spokane is big enough that it has that media ecosystem that really helps. For me, the most important race this year is the defeat of Adam Fortney. He is the former, soon-to-be former, Snohomish County Sheriff. And he was one of the most right-wing sheriffs this state has ever seen. He had Mark Lamb up here for a fundraiser recently - Mark Lamb is that really scary guy in Arizona who's also a sheriff, and he has some really horrible views that are extremely extreme. I mean, we're talking like more extreme, I think, than people in Washington have ever seen in a candidate around here, perhaps, with the exception maybe of folks like Matt Shea. But this was a guy who really speaks for a fringe, and he came here and he made, you know, merry with Adam Fortney. And that sort of speaks to who Adam Fortney is. He was becoming a favorite of the Washington State Republican Party - he was appearing at like every event they had, talking about rolling back police reform laws. He had done some really terrible things as sheriff, like taking the measuring devices out of police cars that were tracking police officers' driving. He rehired deputies who've been fired by his predecessor for misconduct. He lost the accreditation that had been so hard won under his predecessor. So he was really awful. And Susanna Johnson, who is his opponent, launched a campaign a year ago and just spent a whole year working, working, working, canvassing, canvassing, canvassing, doorbelling, doorbelling, doorbelling. And we did research in this race. And what we found is that, you know, if people knew about Fortney's bad record, they'd vote for Susanna Johnson. And that's what we saw in the election. So my hat is off to all the Stohomish County progressives who worked so hard to get that big victory. Congratulations to you - I think you set the tone for this election. [00:39:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And congratulations to all of the campaign staff that worked. It is a hard and often thankless job. And we appreciate that you were willing to put yourselves out there and support your candidates. And with that, the roundtable comes to a close. I wanna thank our panelists, Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve, and Robert Cruickshank for their insight and making this an engaging and informative event. To those watching online, thanks so much for tuning in. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page, YouTube channel, or on Twitter where we're @HacksWonks. Special thanks to essential member of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinator for this evening, Dr. Shannon Cheng. And if you have not listened to the show that she guest hosted about the Seattle budget, you need to. If you missed voting in the election or know someone who did, make sure to register to vote, update your registration, or find information on the next election at MyVote.wa.gov. And as a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release, even if you are still under community supervision. Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our midweek shows and our Friday week-in-review shows, or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher. See you next time.

On this Election 2023 re-air, Crystal chats with Jorge Barón about his campaign for King County Council District 4 - why he decided to run, how 17 years at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared him for the role, and his thoughts on generating progressive revenue for county services, drug possession and substance use disorder, addressing overcrowding in the King County Jail, improving frontline worker wages and workforce issues, air quality and climate change, and the importance of oversight and genuine community engagement in policy implementation. 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 Jorge Barón at @jorgebaron.   Jorge Barón Jorge L. Barón has spent his legal career advancing and defending the rights of marginalized communities, and has served as executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project for more than 15 years. Jorge has fought egregious policies like the Muslim Ban and family separation as well as built coalitions that drove significant policy change and generated hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for immigrant communities. Jorge has had the honor of being awarded the King County Council's MLK Medal of Distinguished Service and served on the Joint Legislative Task Force on Deadly Force in Community Policing. Jorge is originally from Bogotá, Colombia, immigrating with his mom and brothers at the age of 13. Jorge is a graduate of Yale Law School and Duke University, a proud former union member, and public school parent.    Resources Campaign Website - Jorge Barón   Transcript   [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am excited to be welcoming a candidate for King County Council District 4 - Jorge Barón. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, Jorge. [00:01:03] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much for having me, Crystal. I'm pleased to be here. [00:01:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - we're pleased to have you here. I guess just starting out - what made you decide to run for King County Council? [00:01:12] Jorge Barón: Yeah, it's a great question because I think for me, this is a new adventure that I'm embarking on. I think if you'd asked me 10 years ago if I was going to run for elected office, I would have said no. But I think what's happened over the last - since that time - is that I've seen, of course, working in the immigration field for the last 17 years, I've seen a lot of bad policy, but during the Trump administration, I saw a particular period of really egregious attacks on communities that I'm a part of, that I care about, and that I was working on behalf of. And I also saw how state and local government played an important role in protecting people. And I also saw people, frankly, that I've considered mentors and people who I admire - like Representative Pramila Jayapal and Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda - who also went from being advocates on the outside of government to go inside and to actually work on policy issues at the government level, and saw how effective they've been in creating some policy change in a progressive direction. So that gave me an inspiration, and of course, I've continued working here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, but last year I made the decision to step away from this work that I've been doing for now 17 years. And when I started thinking about what would come next, I thought that working at the local government level would be an avenue to further some of the same social justice issues that I've been pursuing for nearly two decades, and that gave me the inspiration. And of course, when Councilmember Kohl-Welles announced that she would be stepping down, saw an opportunity to put myself forth and to share with folks in District 4 - where I live - that I would be a good advocate for the social justice values that I've been pursuing for a long time now. [00:02:46] Crystal Fincher: How do you think your work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared you to run and serve? [00:02:52] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no - it's a good question. And I've been very fortunate, of course, to have had the privilege of serving in this role. And for a long time, I thought that something else would pull me away from leaving here, and it - nothing better came along, but I felt like it was a good time for me to allow other people to step into leadership roles here and for me to take a break and do something new. But the experience that I've had here, I think, has prepared me for this role in a couple of different ways. First of all, obviously, I've had the opportunity to be the chief executive here at this organization - that we've been able to grow into now the second-largest nonprofit law firm in the Pacific Northwest, and I think that experience of being a leader in that role has given me an opportunity to learn a lot about how to manage organizations and how to run an effective organization. And I think the other part that's been really important in the work that we've done here that I think will be helpful - very important at the county level - is that I have been able to work in partnership with many stakeholders in building coalitions that have enabled important policy change at the state level. And one of the things that has inspired me to run at the County Council level is seeing that right now the county is facing a very difficult period because of the limitations that the state government has placed on - particularly on the revenue side - and I think we need people who are going to be able to build the kind of coalition to push the State Legislature, to work in partnership with our state legislators to make sure that we get some changes - that I think a lot of people recognize are needed - to the way that the county is funded, to make sure the county can actually operate effectively and carry out its responsibilities. So that kind of coalition building - working with state legislators in making actually progressive and important changes happen at the state level - which is what I've been able to do here, is something that I feel is going to serve me well if I get the privilege of serving on the council. [00:04:41] Crystal Fincher: When you talk about the issue of revenue, which is very important - and as we talk about this and the things we'll talk about as we continue, lots of them will require additional revenue. More money is needed. But as you talk about, the progressive revenue options that exist at the county level are limited. What progressive revenue options will you pursue, if any, and how will you go about doing that? [00:05:04] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no, I think it's important to talk about it because that's absolutely one of the key things that I think we need to discuss and make sure that voters understand. And I've seen it, and it's been frustrating to me actually, from - in my role at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, we've been advocating before the councils - at least myself, I've been advocating before the council since around 2008, 2009. And even since that time, the conversation had been that the county was in an unsustainable fiscal path, right? That we had this structural deficit, and particularly because of the 1% tax lid that restricts how much property tax revenue the county can collect, that we were in this unsustainable path. And in some ways, I feel like we haven't - as a community, we haven't felt the actual impact of that because inflation has been relatively low during that period, because there have been different periods of COVID relief money, for example, that came in the last couple of years that in some ways mitigated the full impact of that situation. But we're starting to now, and the upcoming budget cycle - we're facing, as a county, $100 million shortfall. And so I think now we're gonna start feeling the direct impact of those changes. And so I think we radically need to restructure how the county is funded and move away - I don't think we're gonna be able to move away completely, obviously - but at least shift some of the burden that currently is impacting particularly low income and even moderate income households here in King County and make sure that we create the opportunity. And again, this is one of the challenges - is that it's not something the county directly can do, but we will need to work with the state legislators to provide those opportunities for some changes so that we become less reliant on things like the sales tax and the property tax. And we have opportunities to have the revenue come from sources that have greater ability to pay. Obviously this is not only an issue for the county. Obviously at the state level, we also need to be working on that because we have the most regressive tax structure in the country. And so at all levels of government, we need to do this. And my hope is to be able to bring new energy to this conversation, to help talking about it all the time that - my campaign have been trying to talk about it - that's the first thing I always talk about because I think a lot of people don't understand the situation that we're in and that we're gonna be facing in terms of county services having to be drastically cut at a time when we see so much need in the community and people are saying - Why aren't we tackling these issues? Why aren't we tackling housing affordability, the homelessness crisis? - all kinds of issues that we can talk about. And those things - we need more investments to be able to make progress in those areas. And so the regressive revenue options need to be something that we absolutely put top of mind in talking to voters and talking to state legislators. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Right, and you talked about how to handle issues in terms of public safety, behavioral health, and how important that funding is. In the wake of the State Legislature increasing criminalization of possession of drugs and public use of drugs - making it a gross misdemeanor. And in the wake of the Seattle City Council weighing this issue themselves and currently still searching for a path forward on how to approach drug use and abuse in the City of Seattle - how do you view this in King County? Where do you stand on the criminalization of public drug use, and what do you think needs to be done to address this crisis? [00:08:23] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - I'll be very clear that I do not support criminalizing substance use disorders. I believe that we have - what I try to tell people about this issue is that we need to look at this the same way that we talk about - for example, when we talk about climate justice, a lot of people in this community - I guess I would say most people in this community, I know there's some people who are still climate skeptics out there - but most of us believe the science and we talk about the importance of believing the research and following the science. Same thing with public health, right? Most people in this community say we need to believe the science around public health and COVID and vaccines, right? And why don't we do the same thing with regard to public safety and the criminal legal system, right? There is abundant research when it comes to how to address the serious issues - and I wanna say it's important to note that the issue is not about doing nothing about the fact that people are experiencing substance use disorders. And obviously, it's a crisis in the fact that we have so many people in our community who are dying because of that. So the question is not, should we do something? We absolutely should do something. The question is, what should we do? And for me, the response of trying to punish people and putting people in jail because they're experiencing substance use disorders is not the solution. And I think the evidence and the research conclusively proves that that is not the path that is going to result in people actually being safe. And I'm concerned - some ways - that particularly right now, some of the debate is framed as in, we're trying to protect people by putting them in jail. And if you look at the evidence, that's not the case - at least if you look at overall numbers. And I know people will say - Well, there's this one example, this anecdote where this person got better because they went to jail. And I appreciate that there may be cases like that, but we can't do public policy based completely on anecdotes. We need to look at the research. And the research to me is very compelling in that, for example, with people who are experiencing substance use disorders with things like fentanyl, that you will end up increasing the risk that they will die if they go into jail. It's pretty dramatic - the statistics and the data on increasing the risk of overdose in those situations. And so I am concerned, I think we need to be thinking about what is best approach long-term - and particularly because the criminal legal system is also a very expensive system, right? And so when we're talking about investing limited public resources in a time of austerity in terms of the fiscal situation that we were just talking about - to me, it doesn't make sense to continue to invest in a system that has not proven to have, for lack of a better term, return on investment - when we see that there are programs that are currently underfunded, that we're not putting enough resources in, that do have an impact in terms of reducing peoples experiencing substance use disorder, and that will actually put them in a pathway to recovery. So I think we need to really rethink how we're approaching things. I think we've learned lessons for decades of using the criminal legal system to try to address substance use disorders. And I think we have been doing important things here in this community, and I think it's important to recognize that there's been programs like the LEAD program here locally, that have been seen as models for other places, but we've never sufficiently resourced those. And right now, of course, the need has only escalated because of the impacts of the pandemic and so many things that disrupted the lives of so many people. So I think we need to be investing in the things that actually have a return on investment. [00:11:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, you make a great point about our jails - one, not being a source of treatment, but they're not equipped to do that right now. And in fact, they're not equipped to do a lot of things that people think they do and things that they have done before. We've seen outcry from everyone from the ACLU to the guards and workers at our jails saying - Things are overcrowded, we're understaffed, we don't have adequate services, facilities, we don't have the tools to do the job that you're asking us to do and the way that you're asking us to do it, and the overcrowding is really making issues harder. In order to address that, the King County Council voted to initiate a contract with another jail provider - the SCORE Center in Des Moines - to transfer some inmates over there. Would you have voted to do that? And do you think we should do what Dow Constantine suggested and closing the jail? What is your plan for this? Would you have done what the County Council did? And where should we move forward after that? [00:12:56] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - that's a good question. So the answer to your question about the SCORE jail is that I would not have voted to enter into that contract and to transfer people, primarily because I think at the time - and I think still to this point, from what I understand - the concerns that a number of people raised, and particularly the public defenders who represent people in the facility, in the jail, that the issue of access to counsel and access to family was not adequately addressed at the time. And to me, this is a particular issue that I care a lot about, just because I've had a lot of experience being an attorney and starting my career at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project as a staff attorney working with people in the Immigration Detention Center in Tacoma. I did work during law school in the criminal legal issues and prisons in the South. And this issue of being able to access attorneys is a really important one that we as a community should be absolutely standing up for - because when people are put into jail pending a charge, we have a strong presumption in this country of being presumed innocent until we're proven guilty. And one of the key ways that people can have that right be enforced is through access to counsel. And so if we're gonna undermine that, I think that's a serious issue. I absolutely, to be clear, do not think that the conditions at the King County Jail are adequate, and we absolutely need to take steps to address the overcrowding. I think people in the community may not always be paying attention to this, but it's remarkable that we have groups that don't normally align on this - like the public defenders on the one side and the correctional workers in the jail - calling for the same steps because of how bad the situation was. And so we should be listening to people who are working most directly with people in there. And obviously we should be deeply concerned about the fact that multiple people have been dying in our care. I've been telling people that we need to think about, as a community - when we take one of our neighbors into custody because we determine that they need to be held in jail, we become responsible. They become our responsibility, and we need to make sure that we have the staffing and the resources to adequately care for them. And if we see that people are dying at the rate that we've seen, we're not living up to that commitment. And so we need to take steps, and I would support, at least as an interim measure, the call from the public defenders and from the correction officers of having booking restrictions that will limit the number of people who are gonna be in the jail until we know that we can actually take care of people. I know it's a complex issue because I think part of the challenge has also been that the state has failed in its obligation to make sure that we provide treatment and assessments for and evaluations for people who have behavioral health issues, and that's also exacerbated the problem in terms of people being able to be released. But we need to address this with more urgency because literally people are dying in our custody, and it shouldn't be - even if you're accused of a crime, this should not be a death penalty situation where we're putting people in fatal consequences because they're accused of a criminal offense. And so I think we need to be taking very significant steps to move that. And again, the SCORE Jail - I understand the intention, but we also need to be respecting the right for people to be able to defend themselves in court. [00:16:19] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I do wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And it's been an issue that has been on the top of mind of everyone, basically. One thing that it's a big challenge for our community to deal with, and another because so many people are struggling themselves. One issue called out by experts as a barrier to our response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, and that services provided by frontline workers, especially those with lived experiences, are necessary to effectively reduce the amount of people who are homeless. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:17:04] Jorge Barón: So Crystal, I absolutely agree that nonprofits have a responsibility to make sure that their workers are adequately compensated. It's something that I've been working on here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and I think one of the things that I see frequently at the county level - and I think a lot of people don't realize that a lot of the human services that the county provides is actually done through nonprofit entities that the county contracts out with. And so the county does have a responsibility to make sure that we're structuring the contracts in ways that are going to incentivize our nonprofit partners to do the right thing. I've seen practices where, for example, we have contracts where there's lesser amount of funding year-over-year for a nonprofit partner. And of course, that doesn't help when we have a situation where the cost of living is increasing. I've also seen situations where there's this pressure of - well, you're not delivering enough services per FTE, and so it incentivizes employers to try to do it as cheaply as possible in kind of a race to the bottom that actually hinders the ability of organizations to be able to adequately compensate their employees. And so I definitely think that the county has a responsibility to make sure that it's structuring its practices to incentivize for people to be paid well. And I think part of the problem is that sometimes we think of short-term - how many services we can provide in the very immediate term - but we lose sight of the fact that when we don't compensate people well, we end up losing those workers. And so you get into the cycle where people, the attrition rate is very high, the experience that we get from workers - it's lost. You spend a lot of energy and time with recruiting and hiring and training new employees. And so I think people need to understand that there is actually - it's a better investment to compensate people well. Even in the situations where that might mean - in the very short term, you might not be able to do as many services. But in the long term, you're actually gonna be able to serve people better and more fully if you invest in the workforce so that they will stick around. Because particularly in a place - obviously the cost of living is increasing, it's all connected - housing affordability is limited. So we need to make sure that the people who are providing services to county residents can also themselves be able to be county residents - because I hear that from a lot of people that they're having to, they can't even live in the county that they work in because of the high cost of living. So I absolutely think that needs to be a responsibility that the county plays a role in doing better from its part. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And as you talk about, there are shortages everywhere, there are staff shortages even in the county. And this impacts how the county is able to deliver services. There's been lots of coverage about staffing crises in a variety of government agencies, school districts, just seemingly at every level. And these people are crucial to programs and services that people count on, that have been around for decades, and that are now in jeopardy. King County has done hiring and retention bonuses for deputies in the Sheriff's department. Should we be doing that for other workers in other departments? How do we address this? [00:20:11] Jorge Barón: I do think that we should look at those options. I do wanna work and wanna be very proactive in engaging labor partners that represent workers and finding what they think would be best for their workforce. 'Cause I wanna be very respectful of the role that they play in channeling the voice of the people who are working for the county. Because I know sometimes that can create some tensions for people who have been working there for a long time and then money is being invested to attract new workers. And so I wanna make sure that it's done in a way that we're engaging people who are already part of the workforce and who have devoted a lot of time to serve the community. So I think that is important. But Crystal, one other thing that I was gonna mention when you talk about workforce issues is important role - and again, how lots of these things are connected - is childcare issues. That's one topic that I've heard a lot from community members that is making these workforce development issues more difficult, and in terms of attracting and incentivizing people to join the workforce is the high cost of childcare. And particularly the way that our current subsidies are structured at the county level, we have the situation where if you make above a certain amount, you then don't qualify for any subsidy at all. And that makes it difficult because then if you're considering - Well, okay if I take this job and maybe it's a good union paying job, but it actually will put me above the income level that qualifies for the subsidy. And then when I start doing the math, it turns out that doesn't make sense for me to take the job because I'll end up paying more on childcare than would make the job worth it. And as a parent who had three children go through the childcare system, who's gone through the public school system, I felt that very directly. And I've been fortunate to be able to have the resources to make that happen, but it was a big stretch. And so for a lot of people in the community, that's gonna be something that I think has made it more difficult for people to be able to join the workforce. And that impacts us all, right? We can talk about, for example, the challenges that the Metro Transit is having and the fact they're having to reduce routes - and it's not because of lack of money, it's because of the fact that they can't find enough drivers and they've had challenges there. So I think we need to be able to connect those dots and realize that investments in those areas are important to make sure that we have an adequate workforce. And it's also a good social equity and racial equity issue to make sure that we're investing so that folks can get the support they need to make sure they can not fully be participants in the community. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and thank you so much for bringing that up because that is a major factor in just the affordability of our community, the ability for people to participate in our workforce and our economy, to be upwardly mobile, and to get out of poverty. So thank you so much for talking about how important it is to help make affordable childcare accessible. I also want to talk about health, and especially with the county doing the heavy lifting when it comes to public health, really, and being the source of delivery for so much of it. I wanted to talk about something that we've been dealing with increasingly, whether it's because of COVID, which is still around and still here, and trying to reduce transmission and mitigate the impacts of it, or wildfire smoke, which we have to contend with, and that is extremely unhealthy to breathe and be in the midst of. Or other illnesses, viruses that are all around - trying to just reduce the prevalence of illness in our community. And it's become more apparent that how we treat air, how important air is to health, and how air filtration and ventilation is important to public safety. Do you have a plan for, would you advocate retrofitting, ensuring that all of our public buildings have the recommended air filtration, air turnover, healthy air systems for our community? And how can we help private businesses and spaces do that? [00:24:08] Jorge Barón: Yeah, I absolutely support that. And I think it's an important - and I think there will be some important opportunities with some of the investments that are coming through the Inflation Reduction Act that - mostly focused on energy efficiency, but there could be opportunities where some of those resources could be used at the same time to make sure that we're improving air quality inside buildings, homes, and businesses as well. And it's interesting 'cause I think one of the things that I think about when I think of this - when you're talking about the community health - one of the things that's most disturbing to me and one that I absolutely wanna continue to focus on if I'm given the opportunity to serve in this role, is the disparities that we see in life expectancy in our communities. I'd encourage people to look up some of the research that's publicly available where you can see the life expectancy disparities in census tracts around the county, around the region. And I think to me, it should be disturbing to all of us that there are census tracts in South King County where the life expectancy is 17 years less than census tracts in other parts of the county - just a short drive away. And of course, when you dig into the reasons for that - and of course, there are many - but issues of pollution and of all the social determinants of health are driving a lot of those disparities. And that is something that we should not find in any way acceptable at this point of time in a county, particularly a county that we renamed in honor of Dr. King. I always think of what he would think about those kinds of disparities and obviously, he would find them unacceptable and I find them unacceptable. And so addressing those issues and looking at the reasons that the impact - that all kinds of issues are impacting people's health, including air quality, both inside and frankly outside would have. And so when we talk about that and of course, with the ongoing impacts of climate change and the climate crisis, we're gonna be needing to tackle that even more - because unfortunately, we're gonna continue as we work in the long-term strategy, obviously, of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have to mitigate the impacts that we're seeing day in and day out with now the wildfire season that we see where the smoke is impacting people. And of course, many of us may have the fortune of being able to work inside and protect ourselves to some degree, but a lot of other people can't. And so we need to be addressing on multiple levels - ensuring that all community members and of course, particularly the most directly impacted communities, which of course overwhelmingly are people of color, immigrant refugee communities - that they're being given the tools and the protection to make sure that we don't see the level of disparities that we're currently seeing across the county. [00:26:47] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And following on that - talking about how exposed people are - climate change is a major factor in this. And on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing some of the devastating impacts that you just talked about - from wildfires and floods and cold and heat. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet the 2030 goals? [00:27:10] Jorge Barón: I think there's a number of things. So one of our major drivers in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, of course, is our transportation system. And so a lot of that has to be focused on stopping our reliance and reducing our reliance on cars. And trying to build a transit infrastructure that is gonna be reliable, it's gonna be safe, and that it's going to be such that people can rely on it to get to work and to get to other places in the community. So for me, that's important. I think it's important - obviously, I appreciate and support the efforts to electrify our bus fleet and would do anything I could to expedite that and move forward on that. But the challenge is that if we can have the buses be electric, but if people are not using them and they're still relying on their cars, that's not gonna help us achieve the targets. So that's gonna be really important. I think the other sort of big sources is obviously our infrastructure and our buildings and homes. And as I mentioned earlier, there is gonna be some opportunities for credits and investments through federal resources in the coming years that we need to make sure that we as a county are promoting and incentivizing and fully tapping into so that we can further reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we can get closer to reaching the goals that we've set for ourselves. So I think that's gonna be an important work that we need to do in the community. And this is, again, where a lot of things are connected to - also how we build and how we structure our communities is gonna be important, because as we talk about transit - I fully support what the legislature did to create greater density 'cause that has a significant impact on climate justice goals. And so that's something that I think we are going to need to also monitor - as these new changes that the legislature made - how those are implemented will have an impact in our long-term strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So I think this is gonna be an important period of time for us to really step up in our commitment to addressing what is a very urgent issue. [00:29:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. One issue impacting, I guess a major issue that impacts residents is how we implement policy - state level, county level, federal level really. There's been some great, helpful policy passed, but when it comes to the implementation of it, there's been a lot that has been desired in some circumstances - including those where some partners may not understand what needs to be stood up at the county level to deliver services. The county is pretty visible in this 'cause a lot of times the county is the entity responsible for the ultimate disbursement of funds or provision of services that come through the state or county level. And there seems to be sometimes a disconnect between what the county has capacity for, what it's capable to do and what legislation or funding or program calls to be done - leaving a shortfall in service delivery, things getting delayed, things not turning out as intended. What can be done to better improve the implementation of policy so that more people can receive the benefits that were intended? [00:30:17] Jorge Barón: I completely agree, Crystal, 'cause I've seen that myself in terms of being able to get policies done both at the local level and at the state level in terms of changes to policy. For example, we did some work many years ago on the connection between immigration enforcement and local law enforcement - and we achieved a victory of getting an ordinance passed at the county level. And then time went by and the actual implementation of that was not happening. And we later found out that some of the things that we had thought that the policy had changed had not changed. And so I've definitely seen that situation play out. And I think what it takes is constant oversight and very intense focus from entities like the council. I think the council has a particular responsibility and a duty to be the one who is providing oversight as the elected officials who are responsible for making sure that the policies that are in place are actually being implemented. 'Cause oftentimes what I see in those situations is that things get passed and then you move on to the next thing, but if the implementation and the oversight is not there, then changes aren't actually playing out on the ground level. So that's an important thing. I think the other thing that I think is important is a genuine engagement with communities that are going to be served. And I think that's another element that I would like to bring to the council is the fact that I have been working for nearly two decades now with marginalized communities throughout the state, particularly here in King County, and have built those relationships with people. And I would wanna be very proactive. I often tell people - Sometimes people say, I'll have an open door. And that to me is not really a good way to approach it because that still means that people have to come to me and my office. I wanna be very proactive in being out there - as I have been in my work here - of being out in community, talking to people, seeing how things are actually playing out on the ground level, and being engaged, and having genuine relationships with people so that you can actually assess how those policies are being implemented because that's what it takes. It's not just about receiving a report in council chambers, but it's about discussing with people how is this actually playing out. And that's how we've found things out here in my work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - has been working with community members - hearing how is this actually playing out on the ground level? How is this policy that looks nice on paper, on the King County Code, actually being impacted or being reflected on what people are experiencing in the community? And that's what it's gonna take to make sure that implementation is actually - that things are being done the way that we've intended them to be done when there's been changes in policy. [00:32:54] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. As we move to close today, I just want to give you the opportunity to share with voters who are going to be making a decision between you and a couple other candidates in the primary election. What differentiates you from your opponents most of all, and why should voters choose you? [00:33:14] Jorge Barón: For me, I think I hope voters will look at the track record that I've built over the last two decades working as a civil rights and human rights leader, working directly on behalf of marginalized communities with a deep commitment to equity and justice. I think that to me is really important because it's the work that I don't just talk about, I have done that work. And also the fact that I had the experience of working at the state level - building coalitions with community members, with allies - in a range of issues to make actually proactive and significant progressive change to policies that have impact marginalized communities across the state. And I hope to bring that same level of expertise and skill of building coalitions to impact policy that will make the situation for the county and county residents better. And then finally, again, the fact that I've had this experience and I've been fortunate to have this experience of leading a nonprofit organization, building an effective organization that has delivered, that's widely recognized as delivering strong services. And that puts me in a good place to be able to provide that oversight, to be able to ask the tough questions, to make the tough decisions because I've been in that kind of executive role before. And be able to make sure - because I think this is an important component of county government, and I think something that will help us build the case for more investments is - I think one of the things that people in the community rightly are concerned about is - are our tax dollars being invested well in various programs that the county funds? And because I've been a nonprofit leader, seeing how to properly allocate and distribute and make resources be spent effectively, I'm in a good position to be able to evaluate those things when those issues come up at the County Council. And so all of those experiences that I've had - I've been very privileged to be able to play that role - have prepared me well for this role. And I hope the voters in the District 4 will give me the opportunity to represent them in the council. [00:35:12] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today and for helping us learn more about you, and certainly wish you the best. [00:35:17] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much, Crystal - it was great talking to you. [00:35:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

It's time to vote for Seattle City Council, a housing levy, and elected positions all over King County. The Urbanist has published its general election endorsements. Get out your ballots, use the endorsements to pick the best candidates, and make sure they're returned by November 7.In this episode, co-hosts Natalie Argerious and Ray Dubicki break down the issues facing Seattle in this election and then review the endorsements. Gotta say that the Election Committee did a good job on some, but left us wanting on a couple of others. Also, lutefisk. In other news, this will be Natalie and Ray's last episode as co-hosts of The Urbanist Podcast. We are moving on to a couple of new ventures, including some new podcasts that you may enjoy. You can find us at infiniteshoplimited.com or @popcitypod.  We appreciate your listening to us through three seasons of The Urbanist Podcast.Editor's note: Apologies for the mispronunciation of Jorge Barón's name in this episode. Please note that the correction pronunciation is HOR-heh bah-RONE.

For this Friday show, we present Part 2 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable which was live-streamed on August 8, 2023 with special guests - journalists Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos. In Part 2, the panel breaks down primary election results for Seattle City Council races in Districts 6 and 7 - which both feature incumbents employing different strategies to hold their seats - and explore whether any overarching narratives are on display in the Seattle results. The discussion then moves on to contrasting races in King County Council Districts 4 and 8, before wrapping up with what each panelist will be paying most attention to as we head towards the November general election. Find Part 1 on our website and in your podcast feed. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's special guests, Daniel Beekman at @DBeekman, Guy Oron at @GuyOron, and Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.    Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable Livestream | August 8th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 2 of our 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable, with guests Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron and Melissa Santos, that was originally aired live on Tuesday, August 8th. Part 1 was our last episode – you can find it in your podcast feed or on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. You can also go to the site for full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show. Thanks for tuning in! [00:00:42] Crystal Fincher: So also want to talk about the next district here - a race with an incumbent here - Dan Strauss and Pete Hanning. One where there was quite a bit of money in this race, quite a bit of spending. Dan Strauss - this was really interesting because as we touched on before, we saw with Tammy Morales really leaning into her record and a seeming justification and approval of that and almost a mandate from voters to continue on in the same direction based on how she represented herself - different strategy here and someone looking like they're running away from their record a bit or saying - Hey, I'm course correcting here. So do people know what they're getting? Do people know what they're expecting? But still a strong result for an incumbent here, with Dan Strauss currently at 51.77% of the vote in District 6. And then Pete Hanning, who was the Seattle Times-endorsed candidate with 29.32% of the vote, despite almost over $96,000 raised. How did you see this race, Melissa? [00:01:58] Melissa Santos: I think Dan has probably looked at this a little more closely, but I did find it interesting that Dan Strauss - getting back to Dan Beekman's point earlier - was Dan Strauss was just saying "Defund the Police" was a mistake - he just said it straight up. That's just - he was emphasizing that. And I - that has to be a reflection of his district. And I - gosh, I should be more familiar with the new district lines, but we are talking about a different district than District 3, which is central Seattle, here. We're talking about - I actually mix up the two guys on the council not infrequently, it's super embarrassing - but anyway, so Dan Strauss's district though is very different than central Seattle. It's not Andrew Lewis's district, which is different, but we're talking an area that does have more conservative pockets - conservative as it gets in Seattle in a way. So "Defund the Police" he's saying was a mistake, but then other people - that message hasn't resonated in some of the other races. So we are talking about a district that is very unique, I think, from some of the central Seattle districts in that apparently Dan's doing really well, just completely acting like "Defund the Police" was a discussion that never should have happened. So will be interesting seeing what happens there. [00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Dan? [00:03:19] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I don't know. I think Dan Strauss is definitely benefiting from being an incumbent to the extent that people - they may not feel like they love the guy, although some voters, I'm sure, do - but they know who he is, they know his name, he's been in office. He gives off - or tries to give off - a sort of I'm-just-Dan-from-Ballard vibe, your local guy who you know, a nice guy. Maybe that probably puts off some people, but I think he benefits from that in people just looking at the ballot and they may know The Red Door, but they may not know Pete Hanning's name. The one thing that I thought - I was looking at - that was most interested in was this is the district that changed most dramatically in redistricting. So it used to be the west part of north of the cut - Ballard, going up all the way up to Blue Ridge, etc, Broadview, and then over towards Green Lake. But now it hops the cut and basically is like Ballard, Fremont, and Magnolia - and looking at sort of the maps, all that's been released mapwise in terms of precinct level results is Election Night, so it's not the full picture, but you get a sense for the pattern. And overall the map, I don't think looks any different from any other Seattle election map, but this is a new configuration for that district and so interesting to see. Dan Strauss did very well in central Ballard, the more apartment-heavy part of Ballard and Fremont. And that Pete Hanning's stronghold, to the extent he had one in the primary, was in Magnolia, which isn't necessarily surprising. But it's just - it's a new map, so it's fun to see a new map. [00:05:32] Crystal Fincher: It is fun to see a new map. How did you see this, Guy? [00:05:37] Guy Oron: Yeah, Dan Strauss had a very impressive personal mandate - I think he got the most votes by far out of any of the Seattle City Council races - and this was the only district that reached like 40% turnout. So I wonder if that's in part because of just the demographics - being wealthier, whiter, more middle class. But I do wonder how much of that mandate is just because he's the default, milquetoast, moderate white guy. Or if it's just like people are passionate about him. Or I think a lot of people read The Stranger and voted for him - that would be my guess. And also he's incumbent and he's somehow managed to spin himself as not being that inoffensive. And also, I'm curious about Pete Hanning - if his candidate quality was as high as some of the other candidates in terms of getting his name recognition out there and actually making a mark - and so that would be his challenge going into the general election. But I would be very, very shocked if Strauss doesn't win at this point. [00:06:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it would be unprecedented for someone in Strauss's position, or really someone in Morales's position, not to be successful in the general. The power of incumbency is real. It is really, really hard to take out an incumbent, which is why sometimes you hear with a number of challengers, excitement - that it takes the electorate being in a place where they're ready to make a change and signaling they're going to make a change - and then takes a candidate who can take advantage of that. It looks like some were banking on the electorate being in more of a mood for a change than they actually are, which I think changes perhaps some of the strategy that some of the challengers had going in. But I think this is a case where there's an incumbent and people may have their feelings - I think he does try to be generally inoffensive and it's hard for a lot of the district to really, to very strongly passionately dislike him. But even those who were open to a change, it's one thing to say - Okay, I'm willing to hear other points of view - but it does take a candidate who can really articulate a clear vision and connect with voters to give them something that they can say - Okay, I can say yes to this, there is another vision here that I'm aligned with. And I don't know that voters heard another vision that they're necessarily aligned with unless they were really unhappy in the first place. It just looks like the amount of people who were really unhappy with their own councilmember just is not that big of a number, not one that's automatically creating a shift on the council. And so I think the job of a number of these challengers is a little bit harder than they bargained for. And I think here in another race - a closer race with an incumbent - in District 7, Andrew Lewis finished with, or currently has as of today the 8th, 43.47% of the vote to Bob Kettle's 31.5%. How do you see this race shaping up, Guy? [00:09:12] Guy Oron: Yeah. I thought - this was really a little surprising to me that Lewis did so poorly here. He still got the plurality, but he didn't have any challenges from the left, so it was a lot of pretty right-wing candidates or center who were really attacking him for his drug ordinance vote, policing. And I think this is probably the place we can expect a Chamber of Commerce or their successor organizations to pour in a ton of money to unseat him, to unseat Lewis. We also saw very low turnout in part because I think places like South Lake Union have a lot of expats and a lot of folks who are from around the country who don't pay attention to local politics. And so it might be important to have a ground game and activate those voters, and for Lewis just to find new voters instead of trying to look weak and flip-flop on issues. But that's just my two cents. [00:10:23] Daniel Beekman: Go ahead, Daniel. Yeah. I was just thinking that Guy was making some good points there and in theory, turnout should grow from the primary to the general election just as a rule. So yeah, Andrew Lewis is going to need to go after more voters. And in his 2019 race, he had the advantage of not just, I think, ad spending outside, but he had - I remember because I went out with them - hotel workers, union hotel workers knocking doors, turning out the vote for him on their own through independent work from his campaign, independent from his campaign in that election. And certainly he would hope to get that kind of support to turn out those additional voters in the general or else maybe he's in trouble. But yeah, I always like to look at the map. It was interesting looking at this one too, where you just had some real clear like top of Queen Anne and Downtown to some extent anti-Andrew Lewis voting or pro his challengers. And then the rest of the district, I think he did fairly well. But if turnout is a lot higher on upper Queen Anne than lower Queen Anne - doesn't matter what the map looks like in terms of space on it. [00:12:06] Crystal Fincher: Is that how you size it up, Melissa? [00:12:08] Melissa Santos: Yeah, I just think Andrew Lewis has a lot of work to do going forward to the general because theoretically you expect - I think it's reasonable to expect voters who voted for, for instance, Olga Sagan, the restaurant owner who is very anti-the work of the city council and anti-Andrew Lewis's record - they're more likely those voters are likely to vote for Bob Kettle, I would think in this particular case, than suddenly say maybe he's okay now. So and that would get - that alone - she only got 12% or something like that. But that's a sizable chunk to add to Bob Kettle's total there. And I do notice that Andrew Lewis seems a little worried. I do think he's trying to make sure his name's out there for stuff he's doing on the council right now - which all of them are doing who are incumbents - but I feel like Lewis especially is aware that he has some ground to make up. [00:13:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that Lewis has some reassuring to do of a lot of his base. I think that - right or wrong - but I think that there's cause for it, that there are people wondering if he really is a champion on their issues or can be pressured to not vote a certain way. I think more than other - certainly for the incumbents that are there - I think he's viewed as more of a swing vote than some others, which really says you may not know exactly what you're getting from him if you're in his base. And I think that's a challenge. I think that candidates - certainly incumbents are in a stronger position if they do have a well-defined persona, defined stances - that at least your base knows what they're going to get. And then you try and expand that a little bit. I think he has more of a challenge than the other incumbents there. With that said, I think that he is probably in a stronger position to win the general election. Not that this won't be competitive certainly, but I think if you're looking between the two of them and you're a betting person, he's more likely to be able to consolidate the vote and pick up people who vote in the general who don't necessarily vote in the primary than a more moderate candidate. But I think this is a race that has a lot of attention and a lot of interest, and one where we're likely to see outside spending playing a significant role in this race. [00:14:44] Melissa Santos: Yeah, and you are right that he didn't just annoy centrist people who wanted to see more prosecution of drug arrests. He actually has annoyed the progressives at various times by flip-flopping - I'm thinking about the capping rent fees as one vote he had where at first he was supporting a higher cap fee on, a higher maximum fee on late rent, than maybe the progressives wanted. And then went back to supporting a lower one - it was like $10 versus $50 or something like that. I think that some of the progressives were - Hey, where is this guy at on this - with that when they wanted to see that cap on late rent fees. I feel like it's hard to me for me to say all those words together correctly, but we wanted to see a very tight cap on how much landlords could charge for late rent. And Lewis was a little more willing, at one point, to consider letting landlords charge a little more for that. And that was something that disappointed progressives too. [00:15:43] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and it's - are you threading - he may be trying to thread the needle on some of these issues, but if he can't thread it correctly, does it look like you're flip-flopping or being - are you wavering rather than threading? [00:15:59] Guy Oron: It does seem like Lewis has been a little less successful with that strategy than Strauss. And maybe that's also because of their districts, but I think he should be worried a little bit about alienating those people who would maybe support him otherwise, for Stranger readers or that labor, for example, are labor unions actually going to come out and bat for him at this point like they did in 2019. So that will be something he has to work on in the next couple months. [00:16:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is. And so we've covered all of these Seattle City Council district races. Looking at them - is there a narrative to all of these races? Before this, Mayor Bruce Harrell had talked about recruiting against some of the incumbents here, having some candidates here. Do you see this as an acceptance, or repudiation, jury still out on what this says about where people stand in alignment with the mayor based on these results? Guy? [00:17:18] Guy Oron: I think, firstly, all the races are very competitive. So that was a little different than expectations. I think progressives do have a shot of actually winning back control a little bit, or retaining control, depending on how you define that. But I think the biggest narrative for me is just how low turnout we had. We had only 15% of 18 to 24 year olds vote across King County, so that shows that the political process isn't engaging a big amount of people - which is probably the most concerning fact out of this primary. [00:18:01] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Daniel? [00:18:08] Daniel Beekman: I don't know in terms of big takeaways overall, I guess we wait and see for the general. Some of the - some sort of fundamentals in Seattle politics aren't going to change that much generally from year to year and a lot of that is present in this election. Especially when, as Guy was saying, turnout wasn't high. There didn't seem to be tons of energy, even relative to other City elections, for this primary. And like I was mentioning before, that might not change unless there's one of these sort of big narratives that sort of - and they can be unpredictable like that Amazon money bomb, or who knows, maybe there's going to be another one of these tree protests - that really galvanize the voter imagination at the right moment and, or something around drugs and make it - pull an election out of the normal sort of rut of where you have these two general political factions and electorates in the city that are fairly evenly balanced. So it'll be interesting to see if there's something like that that grabs people and makes this time different in some way. [00:19:31] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts, Melissa? [00:19:34] Melissa Santos: While I think there's a lot of potential for change on the council, that's mostly - to me - the function of there being four open seats. And then, actually, we'll probably get to this in our last moments, but probably there'll be five seats that change over on the council, it looks like - which is five out of nine, that's a majority. So there's a lot of potential for change. However, it doesn't strike me that the incumbents are in danger of losing necessarily. So the change is just from new people coming in, but not throwing the old people out - is what it looks like. Lewis might be the one exception. He's the closest to potentially losing his seat, but I'm not certain that will happen either. So we could just end up with a lot of new voices and a lot of the incumbents all staying, which - the new voices may be aligned with the mayor, it's hard to say - I was just doing napkin math and looking at vote counts and how it will work out. But to that point, though, we don't know how some of these folks yet would vote on certain issues. So it's even hard to do that. Do I know where Joy Hollingsworth stands on certain, every single vote that the council's had on housing policy and taxing in the past five years? You know - I actually don't. So I don't know how those votes would shake out even if, whichever faction is elected. But I do think the progressive candidates are doing well in a lot of these races, so that will be interesting to see. [00:20:56] Daniel Beekman: It might just be that the biggest change in dynamic is something that has nothing to do with November, and it's that - no more Sawant on the council. Not that she always gets what she wants - that's hardly the case, but that's just been such a constant dynamic at City Hall for the last 10 years. And that could just change the way things are done and the sort of the whole political landscape up there on the dais at City Council as much as some of these other seats swapping out or who gets in those seats. [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. And I think - once again I hope people, whether you're an organization who's going to be doing forums or examining that or voters as you have opportunities to have conversations with these candidates - that you ask them where they stand and you hold them accountable for stating their position, for stating how they would have voted, for talking about how they did vote when they voted on different things so that you know what you're getting in terms of a councilmember and their vote. I think that there's growing frustration around looking at some of these challenges that we're facing in the City of Seattle and around the region, whether it's homelessness or public safety or climate change or taxation or progressive revenue, that there's been a lot of rhetoric over the past several years but maybe not the kind of change that people would expect based on some of the broad rhetoric that people have heard. And so I think the lesson to take from that is to really drill down and not just have people give you their very rosy, I-believe-the-children-are-the-future type sayings, but when they can't get everybody to agree, when everyone gathered around the table doesn't come up with one solution, what are they willing to step up and advocate for? What are they willing to stand up and say - Okay, I know this may not make everyone happy, but this is what I believe we need to do and how we need to move forward. I think those will be the most enlightening conversations that come out of this general election and will be the most helpful for voters making decisions. I do want to talk about these King County Council races. And one of these races features a current Seattle City Councilmember, Teresa Mosqueda, in the District 8 race against current Burien mayor, Sofia Aragon. This had a very strong showing - again for a Seattle City Council incumbent - Teresa Mosqueda with 57.56% of the vote right now, Sofia Aragon 37.57%. I don't think it's controversial to say that this is extremely likely to result in Teresa Mosqueda winning this race in the general election. We still have to go through it - nothing is absolutely set in stone, but this is about as safe as you can look as an incumbent. And interestingly enough, another Seattle City councilmember who has been on the forefront of big progressive policy wins - probably at the top of the list, the JumpStart Tax, which has been very consequential for the City of Seattle. What was your take of this race, and what do you think the big issues were or what this says about voters here in this race? - starting with Guy. [00:24:47] Guy Oron: I think the first outcome, I think, is just it shows how important high quality candidates are. I think Teresa is exemplary qualified. I think she has a lot of connections with local labor organizations, local community groups. And so she was really able to outmatch Sofia Aragon in that. And it also showed that I think that district was looking for more than just platitudes about policing and homelessness. And the third thing is maybe it's also a backlash against Aragon's handling of the recent saga over homelessness in Burien, and just how much the city has intensified vitriol against its unhoused population under her majority control. So those were my three takeaways. [00:25:45] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And for those unfamiliar, a dramatic saga currently playing out still in the City of Burien, where there have been a number of sweeps that have taken place with some homeless encampments there in the city. Those sweeps have to operate in a constitutionally legal framework. It looks like the City of Burien got outside of that framework - they were warned by the King County Executive that they were outside of that - you can't sweep people without an offer of shelter. But sometimes in cities, a major issue is that they don't have the resources to do that. Uniquely in Burien, King County offered to provide shelter and a number of Pallets [shelters] , a million dollars worth of that basically - Hey, work alongside us and we'll help you work through this with your population. And from the mayor, the deputy mayor on down basically rejected that offer and would rather not take that up, not house the population, and double down on more punitive criminalized efforts, which it seems may not be very popular in the city. And whether people favor more punitive or more evidence-based solutions there - seems like the one thing people do want is action taken. And when it looks like that isn't being taken, that's a challenge - that may have been a factor here in this race. I'm wondering what kind of addition to the council, or what does it look like voters voted for in terms of policy here and in terms of potential budget impacts or taxation? How did you see this, Melissa? [00:27:32] Melissa Santos: As you mentioned earlier, Mosqueda was really active in getting a tax on big business. This was the Amazon tax that actually ended up passing, after the head tax - kind of was an effort that failed in 2018. Mosqueda picked up the pieces and there were others, too, but she led this effort to actually get a tax on business passed in Seattle, which I think is a pretty big achievement, given how spectacularly that effort fell apart previously. And so she's sometimes been vilified by this - Sawant, for instance, as being too willing to work with people or something. But if you do get an Amazon tax out of it, then that seems to please progressives for the most part. So I think you will get some progressive views on tax policy on the County Council if Mosqueda is elected, which she is likely to be, it looks like. And Mosqueda is interesting because she is not - she has not, I don't think, walked away from the idea of saying - I don't, the number of police is not necessarily equivalent to having great public safety. I don't think we need all these police. She hasn't really walked back from her statements on that so much as maybe Dan Strauss and others here. And this was a real interesting contrast, because that's exactly where Aragon was going after her, saying - Defund the police has failed. Has the City Council of Seattle actually - did they actually follow through with actually defunding stuff? Not quite exactly, but the discussion certainly happened and that was a side that Mosqueda was interested in - looking at other solutions as opposed to hiring more cops, for sure, that's certainly fair to say. The voters in that area seem to think that's fine - 20 point spread here, it's not close. So I think that the thing that interests me most - I think the County Council is interesting, and then Mosqueda will join that and it will create another progressive voice in the County Council. But then we're going to have a fifth City Council seat that needs to be filled, and that will happen by appointment. And that's wild - voters aren't really going to be involved in that. And again, getting ahead of myself - the election has not happened, but 20 point spread, like we can probably assume there's going to be a fifth opening on the City Council. So that's the fifth seat that we aren't even really talking about on the ballot, which then there'll be people who parade through the City Council presenting themselves for the job. And they will have that happen probably toward the end of this year after the elections are over, or maybe early January, depending on the timing. But that will mean a majority of the City Council is changing over, and it could be not a progressive person replacing Mosqueda on the City Council. They won't be super far right or anything, but you could get a more centrist person than she is in that role because voters don't really have a say in it. [00:30:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and certainly whoever winds up on the council is going to be very consequential in that decision. What are your thoughts, Dan? [00:30:31] Daniel Beekman: Oh, I was just looking at the Election Night results map - and I should plug Washington Community Alliance because they did this and then put it out there, so that's what I'm looking at. But the interesting thing - I think it might be a little bit tempting because Sofia Aragon is an elected official - is she the mayor right now of Burien? Yeah, she's a mayor of Burien. So it might be a little tempting to read views into the whole Burien brouhah in this result. And maybe there's some of that. But looking at the map, Burien was actually - relatively speaking, she did decently. And the district also includes the dense part of Capitol Hill and the dense part of West Seattle - and that's where Mosqueda cleaned up. So I think you could a little bit more look at this and say it's the opposite of a repudiation in terms of Mosqueda's work on the City Council. But I would be a little bit more hesitant to read into it all that much about Burien, even though maybe some of that could be going on. [00:31:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. And again, I think that the mapping - more mapping options is wonderful. Kind of similar with first night results, I caution people against looking at first night precinct results - those tell a different story in the same way that the numbers tell a different story. So I'm super eager to dive into these when we have full results on those. And looking at that seems to be more enlightening and more accurate as to where things wind up there, but a really interesting view. And then in the other competitive King County Council race, District 4, where there were three pretty progressive candidates actually in this race in the primary where there was Jorge Barón, Sarah Reyneveld, and then Becka Johnson Poppe. Looking at this in comparison to the City Council races, the other County Council race, this is a race where all three of these candidates were, I think it's probably fair to say most people would consider them all to be progressives. And I've moderated one or two forums for this in the primary election. And these answers were routinely to the left of several of the city councilmembers here. But it looks like - in this race, an interesting dynamic - Jorge Barón got in the race a little bit later. He was previously involved in the legislative session, and so had to finish that up before joining the race, but ended up securing the endorsements of both The Times and The Stranger, which most people don't generally do. Usually there are only select few candidates each cycle who wind up getting both of those endorsements. He did. And it definitely shows in the results with Jorge - usually you don't see someone in an open seat primary getting over 50% - jorge Barón is currently at 50.65%. Sarah Reyneveld also advancing through to the general election at 28.7% here. How do you think this race shaped up and what did you see from this race, Melissa? [00:34:18] Melissa Santos: Jorge is just such a - has a big, big lead, as you said - and getting, again, this is not an incumbent getting almost 51% of the vote. This is a new candidate. But I do think this speaks to Jorge having done a lot of work. When we go back to 2017 and people rushing to SeaTac airport to respond to President, then-President Trump's ban on travel from certain Muslim countries, Jorge Barón was at the forefront of a lot of work. He was at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, I believe - off the top of my head, I think of it as the acronym, so I hope I have the full name correct here - but he's done so much work there where he's gotten a lot of earned media coverage because of doing a lot of work on behalf of people in the community. I think that, even if he hadn't campaigned at all - which I know he didn't just sit on the sidelines - but that did a lot of work before he even started campaigning. And I think that's reflected in the numbers here. [00:35:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. And to people looking to learn lessons when you're running - this is an excellent example of someone building their profile through serving in the community and people being aware of the work that they're doing, seeing tangible ways that that is playing out in the community. I think Jorge certainly benefited from that and benefited from just people saying - I certainly was a supporter of the work at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and so impactful and important in the community. How did you see this, Guy? [00:35:55] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think it really shows Jorge Barón's ground game kind of making, or rather the opposite of ground game, the networking. And just having served in the community for so long, I think, was probably what got him that endorsement - and familiarity with policy issues for years. Yeah, and I think it's a bit of a unicorn endorsement. I'm very curious what the deliberation was between The Seattle Times and The Stranger editorial boards. And it does show just how much power they have as gatekeepers, particularly in more low-turnout elections like these August primaries. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: How did you see this, Daniel? [00:36:40] Daniel Beekman: I don't have that much to add - I think Melissa and Guy nailed it. Only one anecdote is that The Stranger/Seattle Times double endorsement is like a unicorn, should be a slam dunk - but actually, Jon Grant in 2017 had both - got defeated, I think, pretty handily by Teresa Mosqueda, who we were just talking about. So it's not an absolute slam dunk always, but in this case, it looks like it probably will be. [00:37:14] Crystal Fincher: Definite themes of Teresa Mosqueda as a powerhouse in a number of different ways, it seems like. Now, as we've talked about a number of these races and we're almost done with time, so I guess just going around the horn here - What are you paying attention to most? What do you think is going to be the most interesting or impactful thing in the general election, either as a theme for these races or in any particular race that you're following? starting with Melissa. [00:37:46] Melissa Santos: Oh, geez. Okay. Yeah, I am really interested to know what people think about tax policy and whether they're supportive of new taxes that go beyond the JumpStart Tax because the City does have a budget deficit - not right at this precise moment over the next six months, but pretty big projected budget deficit going toward 2025 - and I'm curious how candidates will respond with specifics about what they'd support to deal with that. And then I'm also interested in where the candidates are on these police issues, because it's again - when you talk about slogans like "defund the police," that isn't even exactly what happened in Seattle. So it's - what are we talking about? And so that's what I'm watching - is what candidates actually have to say about that and what they mean when they say - I don't like defund the police - or, what does this mean? So I think I'm just really, now that there's not 10 candidates in a race, looking forward to actually figuring out where people stand on issues - hopefully. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: And Guy? [00:38:52] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think I'm looking forward to see if the economy rebounds a bit and if people start feeling a little less burned out from politics - and whether candidates and their ground game can really go upstream and try to convince some of the disillusioned young folks, and especially more of the progressive folks who are not as happy with Biden and are not looking forward to voting, and just convince them that voting matters and that they're not throwing away their time by filling out the ballot. [00:39:29] Crystal Fincher: And what about you, Daniel? [00:39:30] Daniel Beekman: I guess in Seattle City Council races, I'm just curious to see, I think the more conservative, moderate candidates - maybe unfair to paint with a broad brush, but that sort of side of things - will probably, whether there are policy solutions that are realistic to go along with these, but they'll bang on - Oh, we need to crack down or get tough with crime and drugs - and that kind of thing. I'm interested to see, though, what the left-wing candidates try to use or wave as the banner, policy-wise. Is it raising taxes on businesses more? Is it the rent control? Is it another minimum wage hike? What is it? Can they find something to latch on to that's going to capture the voter's imagination? And then I'm also just curious about some of these suburban races, like I was talking about before we went live - about Bothell and Burien and some interesting stuff up there. Bothell has this sort of growing urbanist political streak, and will that continue with one of the races up there? Looks like it could. And Kenmore finding itself dealing with affordable housing issues more and maybe getting a little bit of a lefty push - and will that continue? So I'm going to keep my eye on those. [00:41:06] Crystal Fincher: What I'm most looking forward to is to see where donors settle in these races. Certainly donors were spread out amongst a variety of candidates in the primary, but in some of these races, it's not super clear at the moment where the candidate stances are on all the issues. Some races it's pretty clear to say that there's a progressive and a moderate, others it's to be determined and the details of that are yet to be determined. So it's going to be interesting to see where donors consolidate - who more corporate-type donors feel are the candidates that are going to be on their side, where they invest - usually they do not donate to places where they don't feel pretty sure they're going to get a return on that investment of the candidates. So that's going to be interesting to see, and I will be paying attention to that throughout the primary, certainly. And with that, thank you for listening to this roundtable as it now comes to a close. I want to thank our panelists - Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos - for their insight and making this an engaging and informative event. To those watching online, thanks so much for tuning in. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page, YouTube channel, or on Twitter, where we're @HacksWonks. Special thanks to essential member of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinator for this evening, Dr. Shannon Cheng. If you missed voting in the election or know anyone who did, make sure to register to vote, update your registration, or find information for the next election at myvote.wa.gov. And as a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release in Washington state, even if you are still under community supervision. Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our Tuesday topical interviews and our Friday week-in-review shows or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher, and we'll see you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They run through results from Tuesday's primary election for Seattle City Council, Seattle School Board & King County Council, and then take a look at Tacoma City Council, Spokane City elections, and the recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from the Richland School Board. The show concludes with reflection on the influence of editorial boards and their endorsements, particularly those of The Stranger. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank” from Hacks & Wonks   “Backlash to City Council incumbents doesn't materialize in primary” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle Public Schools primary election results 2023” by Dahlia Bazzaz and Monica Velez from The Seattle Times   “3 things we learned from the Pierce County primary, from council races to tax measures” by Adam Lynn from The News Tribune   “Voters favor recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from school board” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, we re-aired an episode highlighting how the leaders we choose make consequential decisions that affect us all. Check out my conversation with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank about how the SR 99 tunnel and today's Seattle waterfront came about. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Hey! [00:01:26] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me on again, Crystal - excited to talk about election results this week. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and we have a number to talk about. These have been very eagerly awaited results - lots of candidates and contenders, especially with the Seattle City Council elections - 45 candidates all whittled down now to two in each race going into the general election. We should probably go through the results here - District 1 and going through - what did we see and what did you think? [00:01:58] Robert Cruickshank: There are some trends you'll see as we look through these races and it's good to start district by district. And in West Seattle, in District 1, one of the trends you see is that some of the establishment candidates, the candidates Bruce Harrell's side, is really putting kind of anemic performances. You look at Rob Saka in West Seattle, who's barely ahead of Phil Tavel who's run for office several times before. And Maren Costa, the much more progressive candidate, labor candidate - is the one of the two women who was fired by Amazon for doing climate organizing before the pandemic - so she's a strong climate champion, Stranger-endorsed candidate. Maren Costa is in the low 30s and will probably go higher as more ballots come in this week. But Rob Saka is one of the two candidates who benefited from a independent expenditure by right-wing billionaires and corporate donors. The reason they targeted him in this race and Maritza Rivera in District 4, which we'll talk about in a moment, is they knew that those two candidates were struggling and needed that huge influx of cash to help convince voters to support them and not - maybe in this case - Phil Tavel over Maren Costa. So Rob Saka at 25% or so right now - it's not really a strong showing. Maren Costa in the low 30s - your progressive candidate, you'd like to be a little bit higher - she's in a great position right now. And one of the things you're seeing in this race - and you will see in the others - is in addition to the fact that the establishment candidates did worse than expected, in addition to incumbents doing well, you're also starting to see that a number of progressive candidates are surviving this supposed backlash that never actually happened. If you talk to or listen to Brandi Kruse, or watch KOMO, or read some of the more unhinged Seattle Times editorials, you would have assumed that coming into this election, there's going to be a massive backlash favoring genuinely right-wing candidates who really want to just crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness - that just didn't happen. What I see in District 1, and you'll see in all these other races, is a reversion to pre-pandemic politics between corporate centrists and progressive candidates. That's where you're starting to see the things shake out - you're not having right-wing candidates like Ann Davison getting traction. And candidates on the left, there weren't very many of them this year - had a little bit of traction, we'll see, in District 5, but otherwise it wasn't really a factor. So I think you're coming back to pre-pandemic politics where a progressive candidate like Maren Costa can do well in West Seattle. If you remember in 2015, when we first went to districts, the race in West Seattle was very close - Lisa Herbold only won by about 30 votes. Looking at the numbers in District 1 so far, I would not be surprised to see a very close race between Maren Costa and Rob Saka, but Rob Saka is not the strong candidate that his backers expected. And Maren Costa has a lot of momentum and energy behind her - in West Seattle, you're seeing voters responding to the message that she's giving. [00:05:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. I also found it surprising to see how anemic the performance by some of those establishment moderate candidates - not only did they need that conservative PAC money to get through, but they were leading in fundraising by quite a significant bit - Rob Saka was far ahead of others in terms of fundraising, we saw the same in some other districts. So it was really interesting - it's hard to finish poorly in a primary or to not run away with the lead, really, in a primary when you have a significant fundraising lead - especially when you have additional money coming in. Seattle voters are starting to get a little wiser - still the challenge is there - but starting to get a little wiser at looking at whose donors are there and do those donors indicate how they're going to vote? Looks like in the history of Seattle politics - maybe drawing some conclusions on that. I think there are interesting conversations about the, whether this is a change election or stay the course election, whether people want something different or the same. And I think that's a more complicated answer than just change or different. One, we don't have a uniform city council. There's a range of positions and perspectives on the council, so to try and characterize it as "this progressive council" isn't necessarily correct. And now we're going to have a lot of turnover, we're going to see what this new composition is going to be, but it's hard to characterize that. And then you have the mayor on the other side - who is definitely a moderate, not a progressive there - and so the mayor is still dictating a lot of the policy in the city. Even some things that have been funded by the council, direction that has been moved has not been taken action on by the mayor. Saying that you want to stay the course really feels like a more moderate course these days, especially when looking at the approaches to public safety with a lot of criminalization of poverty - when you talk about homelessness and the outsize focus on sweeps, instead of trying to house people and connect them to services consistently. So that whole conversation is always interesting to me and feels a little bit reductive, a little too simplistic for what is actually going on. But we should probably talk about some of the other races, too. What did you see in District 2 with Tammy Morales and Tanya Woo, along with kind of an also-ran - another candidate who I don't think topped 5% - but that is a closer race than some of the others appear to be on their face, although there were a lot fewer candidates in this race. [00:07:34] Robert Cruickshank: Again, we can think back to 2015 where Tammy Morales nearly beat the incumbent Bruce Harrell, losing by a little less than 500 votes. She won by a larger margin when the seat was open after Harrell stepped down in 2019. A lot of the sort of conventional wisdom from the establishment class is that Morales was in real trouble, but she's hovering around 50% right now. Tanya Woo's close - it'll be a close election in the fall, but you have to say that Morales has the advantage here. Incumbency does matter. We need to look at the maps, but I know that there's been a lot of frustration in the Chinatown International District with Morales and with City Hall more generally, but the rest of District 2 seems to still have confidence in Tammy Morales' leadership, and still willing to send her back to City Hall for a second term. The exception to that was in noticing that the closer I get to Lake Washington, the Tanya Woo signs pop up a lot more. The closer I get to Rainier and MLK, more Tammy Morales signs. That's a typical split in terms of the electorate in the South End, and I think it favors Morales. She's done a great job on a lot of issues facing the community, she's been there for the community. Tanya Woo is running a strong campaign - Woo is not a right-wing candidate, Woo is much more of a center-left candidate who is really close to the Harrell administration. And again, it'll be a close race. If you're looking for a backlash, if you're looking for a rejection of a progressive city council, you are not seeing it in District 2. Morales, I think, has the advantage here going into November. [00:09:01] Crystal Fincher: I would agree. Now, District 3, coming on the heels of our announced departure of Councilmember Kshama Sawant from the council, there's going to be a new councilmember here. This is an open-seat race. We see Joy Hollingsworth and Alex Hudson making it through to the general election. What's your take on this? [00:09:22] Robert Cruickshank: Joy Hollingsworth has probably hit her ceiling - she's pulling around 40% right now. If you look back - ever since we went to districts in 2015, obviously being on the ballot changes the dynamics - you can get some pretty liberal people who are - I don't know if I like the socialism, 'cause they could get close. And so there's at least, you would assume, 40 to 45% for a more centrist candidate even in District 3, but not much beyond that. And what you're seeing is that as more ballots come in, Alex Hudson's numbers are growing, and there are quite a few other really good candidates in that race who also split the progressive vote. Hudson will almost certainly unite that progressive vote. I think very few of those voters are going to go from someone like Andrew Ashiofu or Ry Armstrong or Alex Cooley over to Joy Hollingsworth - a few might. But I think Alex Hudson is going to have the advantage here going in to the November election as well. [00:10:15] Crystal Fincher: This is an interesting race. There are eight candidates in this race, one - so very, very crowded race - number of progressive candidates in here. So there definitely was some splitting going on. This is a bit different than some of the open seat races that we see where oftentimes there is a candidate who feels like they're carrying on the same direction or philosophy or policy stance as the incumbent, but the incumbent decided not to go anymore. And so there're oftentimes as well, the choice of maintaining the same kind of policy direction or going different. I don't think that's the case here. And also to your point that Kshama Sawant not being in this race - yes, some people see the socialism in question, but Kshama had the ability to motivate a whole entire squad of volunteers that blanketed that district. And so looking at the absolutely impressive ground game - we've talked about it before on the program - lots to learn from for Democrats looking at that and others at how to expand the electorate and really get people to turn out to vote is something that Kshama and her campaign did extremely well. There's a different dynamic here, and it's going to be interesting to see if one of these candidates can motivate and galvanize younger people to a degree that comes close to what Kshama did. It looks like that was not the case in the primary, probably - we're still fairly early in the returns, but turnout looks concerning, especially among younger people here. So the entire dynamic of that race in that district just feels a lot more different than some of the other ones. And so this is going to be an interesting one to follow. [00:11:50] Robert Cruickshank: I agree - you're right to point to Sawant's just political genius. Sawant is one of the most effective candidates, campaigners, and politicians we see in the City in a long, long time. She has a really strong ability to speak to a broad progressive base in Capitol Hill. And in District 3, she speaks well to renters and people who are lower wage workers - they know she has their back. Her campaign operation is one of the best the City has had. Talking to people who live in District 3 - they would report every time Sawant's on the ballot, they had Sawant organizers at their doors almost every day until they turned in their ballots. They got the work done. They were really good at that. And that is a infrastructure that is unique to Sawant. Sawant always wanted to turn that into a movement, into an organization - was never quite able to. And so none of the other candidates have built that yet. As you point out with turnout, they're going to need to. Alex Hudson, looking like the more progressive candidate in this race, is going to have to figure out how to build something close to what Sawant had without having the sort of once-in-a-generation political charisma and skills that Sawant had. Now, Hudson is a great candidate. Hudson has a lot of experience at City Hall, knows the policy well. But to actually win the election, they're gonna have to figure out how to build some of that momentum and movement going for her to make sure that she wins. My guess is Hudson probably gets around 53% in November, but she's gonna have to work hard for it. [00:13:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, she's gonna have to work hard for it. I will say a couple things. One, just on legacy, I guess, moving forward - absolutely galvanized the public. I have seen several people say - Out of everyone, I know that I can count on Sawant to represent my interests. That's important. If you have a voter saying that, they are a loyal voter - unless you do something completely out of character, they're gonna be there for you like you've been there for them. There are questions about how well Sawant worked with her colleagues. There's ongoing debate about leading on an issue and pushing for progress versus how much to try and work with, potentially compromise with colleagues. And Sawant was not one who led with compromise. And that is something that a lot of people admired. I've said over and over again that a lot of times, especially speaking with more moderate people, they seem to always view Sawant's election as a fluke almost - Oh, some other condition, some other thing helped Sawant get in and that's the only reason why - which I think is why you saw so much energy around the recall elections and her re-elections. But she represents that district - there is no getting around - the people voted for her on purpose. She's a good example of looking at some people in some positions and saying - Hey, just move forward. Obviously $15 an hour minimum wage started in SeaTac, but then Kshama certainly picked up that mantle for Seattle and said - We need to get this done. Probably without her very direct and overt support for that, $15 an hour does not happen in Seattle when it did, how it did. If you follow me online, I often ask for mail or feedback from people in different districts. And I will say I had a couple people in District 3 who consistently showed me the mail that they receive - a couple of them in some harder to find places, harder to canvass places who don't get many canvassers - even with Sawant, they definitely did, but not as much as some of the other ones. Alex Hudson's campaign team made it there to drop off lit, made it there to knock on some doors. So that was encouraging. I'm always a big fan of candidates getting on those doors, talking to their constituents, their neighbors directly. Alex Hudson did a better job of that in the primary. And so hopefully that is something that can be built on and expanded upon. Want to talk about District 4, which is another interesting result. We had, in this race, a different dynamic where there was one clear progressive candidate and then a number of different shades of moderate to conservative candidates. This race even featured a self-described climate skeptic - just a number of different perspectives on the center to the right. And here we had Ron Davis with a pretty strong finish, considering the split in this race - we're sitting right about 42% right now - and as we record this on Thursday morning. And then Ken Wilson not making it through the primary, Maritza Rivera making it through - both of those fundraised pretty significantly. Maritza, another recipient of some PAC support. So looking at this race, how do you see the primary? And then how do you see the general shaping up between Ron Davis and Maritza Rivera? [00:16:31] Robert Cruickshank: The corporate PAC for Rivera was key because I think there's recognition that without it, Ken Wilson probably would have come in second. Wilson had a strong base of support - he raised, I think, the most Democracy Vouchers in the city, Ron Davis quickly caught up. Wilson had a genuine popular base of support among the NIMBYs and right wingers in District 4, which there are many. That's why you needed the right wing billionaires and corporate CEOs to come in and help drag Rivera up into second place. Going into the fall, I wanna acknowledge that there are people out there who take a more skeptical view of what this means for progressives - like Erica Barnett, for example - arguing that this isn't actually that great for progressives, they're getting into the upper 30s, low 40s, but things could unite against them in the fall. And we can look back at 2021 and say - Yeah, that's what happened in the mayor's race. I was looking at the numbers earlier this morning. After all is said and done in the August 2021 primary, Bruce Harrell had 34%, Lorena González had 32%. It looked like it was a real horse race. It turned out that was almost González's ceiling - she got, obviously, a little bit more than that, closer to 40%, but not quite. And Harrell scooped up almost everything else. I don't think that's gonna happen in District 4 and I don't think it's gonna happen elsewhere. For a few reasons - one, I think the mayor's race is a unique animal - citywide. I also think 2021 was a difficult moment for progressives in Seattle - they hadn't quite figured out how to handle this backlash to defund, concerns about crime and homelessness. Candidates are starting to figure that out a lot better. So Ron Davis is a very smart campaigner. He has really sensible answers on the issues that resonate even with more older conservative voters. He's got a real upside. I also think there are a non-zero number of Ken Wilson voters who might go over to Ron. Ken sent out a really interesting mailer in the last week of the election with a bunch of check marks about different positions - designed to contrast Ken with Rivera, but a lot of the check marks are for Ron as well. And what Ken's campaign was saying is that Rivera is the insider - she's been inside City Hall for several years, corporate backing, establishment backing. Ron doesn't have that. And I think a lot of Wilson voters will see in Ron someone who's also not of the establishment. I wouldn't want to overstate that, but a wider electorate in the fall, Davis getting a few votes here and there from Wilson - he's got a shot at winning. [00:18:58] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. And the way these votes consolidate is probably going to matter in this race - looking at how they stack up, this is going to be a competitive race. This is not one where the primary winner is automatically going to be the general election winner. Overall, looking at just how this district has trended over the past decade - the district is unquestionably moving left, which is really interesting. This is one of the districts that had been reliably moderate to conservative for a long time. That's not the case - we would not have seen even over about 42% right now - this result would not have happened half a decade back. This is just a different place. I think that is what's informed some of the odd policy choices of people like Gerry Pollet, who has received a lot of backlash, but I think he was counting on the composition of the district as it used to be and not as it is today. There were rumors of him potentially getting in the city council race - there weren't rumors, they were confirmed, I think, by someone close to him. Looking at it, he no longer really fits the district or provided a contrast that people felt comfortable moving to to support a candidacy. So it's going to be also interesting to see how things progress with him after considering and not deciding to do local stuff and going there. But this will be an interesting race. This is going to be one where we might see more of a focus and highlighting on the role of these donors, the role of the corporate support, how close Maritza is to the current administration. If people want a change, that really doesn't seem to include Maritza at all. She would be the last person you'd vote for if you wanted a change. So this is going to be a really interesting race to follow. [00:20:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and it's an interesting race also because it is a chance for progressives to pick up a seat on the City Council. The assumption, as we talked about going into this election from the conventional wisdom centrist pundit classes, that progressives are going to get dealt a pretty harsh blow here - these results suggest that's not necessarily going to happen. And in fact - Ron running a really strong campaign - he could flip that seat for progressives. He's a really sensible candidate for that district as well. He's a dad in his early forties. He's run a small business. He's been active in his neighborhood association. He knows the district well. He's a really good fit there. A lot of those voters, as you've said, are not much more overtly conservative, Pollet, Alex Pedersen types. They're there, clearly. But a lot of younger families are going to be there - ready to vote in November. And of course, in November, which you don't have in August, is a UW student body that is on campus - that's something that is in Ron's back pocket that can really give him a significant boost in the November election. [00:21:48] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. We could change when we have this primary. We could change how we have this primary, frankly, and change our style of voting. We can move to even-year elections as the county has done and has voted to do. Why are we voting in August when people are away for the summer, when younger people are gone? [00:22:09] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, to move up to where I live in District 5 - talking about what happened here - those changes would have made a huge difference. Ranked choice voting here would have gone a long way because we had quite an interesting field that didn't necessarily match what you see elsewhere. There isn't an obvious centrist-Harrell candidate. Cathy Moore seems closest to that, but she's also not the City Hall insider. Cathy is a much more traditionally liberal candidate, someone who sits between progressive and center - got around 30-something percent of the vote, not a huge showing. There were a number of progressive to genuinely left-wing candidates up here in the far northern reaches of Seattle, which 10 years ago is considered one of the most conservative parts of the city. We're seeing that's not necessarily the case - you have Tye Reed, who jumped in almost at the end of filing, presenting a very left-wing perspective. Christiana ObeySumner jumping in - they present a also-left perspective and appear to be the second place candidate - backed by, of course, a Stranger endorsement - narrowly edging out Nilu Jenks, who is a much more traditional progressive candidate running strong on climate issues. Nilu's campaign fell just short. I know that a lot of Nilu supporters are really frustrated at the way the Stranger handled this race. It is an example of where a ranked choice system, or having this in an even-numbered year, or having the primary at another time rather than at the dead of summer, could have produced a really interesting and fruitful conversation between these different candidates and campaigns about what it means to be progressive, especially up here in a part of the city that is often overlooked or neglected. I know the South End really has a pretty significant, legitimate beef on that front - but so does Lake City, so does Broadview, so does the far northern reaches of Aurora Avenue once you get past Green Lake. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out here. I don't think that the race between Moore and ObeySumner is going to resemble races in other parts of the city. They're much more interesting and unpredictable candidates. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: It's too close to officially call right now, as of pre-drop on Thursday - we have Christiana ObeySumner at 22.1% and Nilu Jenks at 19%. It's hard to see this shift change. It's hard - as I'm looking at it, what I bet - that Christiana's the one that makes it through, I'd say that's likely. Would I say it's absolutely conclusive, we don't need to consider any more drops? No. But odds are, with the way that votes typically shake out, that this isn't going to change radically. There are a few different left candidates. It's not like there's consolidation to just one candidate. And because Christiana also got The Stranger endorsement, which a lot of late voters are relying more heavily on - they already don't have a formed opinion - so it's hard to see the vote shifting away from Christiana. As we look at this race in District 6, which does have an incumbent, Dan Strauss, who is over 50% - 50.7% right now, followed by Pete Hanning at 30%. This is another one where the moderates didn't seem to get a great bang for their buck. [00:25:17] Robert Cruickshank: And this is a race where it's clear that - one, the power of incumbency still matters. And two, the supposed backlash to the progressive city council is overstated. Dan Strauss getting above 50% is a big deal. He voted, I think, once for defunding the police in the summer of 2020, and then fairly quickly walked that back. But that didn't stop his opponents from sending a bunch of mailers to houses in District 6, explaining that Dan Strauss had voted to defund the police. That doesn't appear to have hurt him at all. The fact you have Pete Hanning, who is head of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, small business guy - you would think that he would be a ideal candidate for that part of the city. It turns out he's not. He's languishing there at 30%. Strauss is above 50% before even more progressive ballot drops happen on Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon in the dead of August summer. We're learning a couple things here - not just the power of incumbency, not just the fact the right wing backlash doesn't exist - we're also learning that Ballard and Fremont are more progressive than people assumed. It'll be interesting to see the map of where these votes come in. The Magnolia portions of the district, anything on the water, on the Sound, probably voted for Hanning or other candidates like that. Where the population base is - in Ballard, up to Greenwood, Fremont - I bet they're probably voting for Dan Strauss. And I think it is a endorsement of Strauss's attempt to straddle the fence. He gets a lot of criticism, I think justifiably so, for the way he flip-flops often. But appears to be working for Dan Strauss. Progressives have a bit of work cut out for us. I posted about this on Twitter - got a lot of people responding to me that Strauss is not a progressive. I would agree with that, but he's willing to listen to and vote for progressives if we organize him correctly. So I see it as an opportunity here. And also just the fact that the right-wing backlash didn't show up in this district at all is, I think, a big win. And I think it's a significant sign going forward that progressives have more of an opportunity than we thought. This race in particular reminds me of 2022. At the state level and especially the federal level - going into the November election, there was a lot of concern, worry, even predictions of doom that the Democrats were just gonna get wiped out. That didn't happen at the state level. In fact, Democrats picked up seats. At the federal level, barring a meltdown of the Democratic Party in New York State, Democrats could have held onto the House. They did hold onto the Senate. And I think you're seeing something similar here - that this assumption, I think, especially from the establishment media and that pundit class that - Oh, this is a center-right country, maybe a centrist city - it's not true. There is more support for a progressive agenda in the city, and in this country than is assumed. I think progressives need to internalize that and realize we have real opportunities here to move forward. And if we're making sure that we're listening to what voters are saying and bringing them along with us. [00:28:09] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. A lot of times people talk about - People are dissatisfied with the council, people think things are on the wrong track. Sometimes we use things like progressive and moderate - these broad labels - as a shorthand for policy. If you look at policy in practice in Seattle, it's hard to call a lot of it progressive on the issues that have been plaguing Seattle the most - on public safety, on homelessness, on issues of inequality. Policy has not been what progressives would call progressive. Moderates love to call things progressive. Moderates are extremely emotionally invested in being called progressive. And what we've seen is policy passed by those moderates with messaging calling it progressive - we've seen sweep after sweep after sweep, hot spot-focused policing, which doesn't seem to accomplish much in the longterm. And so when we just ask - Are you satisfied? And someone says - No. Somehow it's always characterized as - Well, people don't like progressive policy and they want something different. Or we're characterizing the council as progressive, which is not a clean label for that council - it's a lot more varied than that. And saying - Clearly, they want more moderate policy. And that's not true, especially in the City of Seattle - some people want to go to actual progressive policy and are thinking that - Okay, I hear this rhetoric, but I'm not seeing it in practice. I want what they talked about. I want what they're selling. That's also why you see so many candidates - who people who aren't moderate would call moderate, who progressives would call moderate - mirroring progressive messaging. Even though they're getting support from some really right-wing people, some people who traditionally support Republicans, are very opposed to taxation. Still, if you look at their mailers, if you look at different things - I'm a progressive champion. I believe in progressive policy. Sara Nelson ran on police reform. And you can see she was more aligned with her donors and different things - that's a lesson that Seattle is starting to learn. But just because there are some progressives on the council, a couple of progressives on the council, just because there's a label calling it that by people who most do not consider to be progressives - that's just a messaging trick. You have to follow up on that question - Why are you dissatisfied? Those answers are a lot more interesting and a lot more informative about why people are voting the way they are and why the reception to different councilmembers is the way that it is. [00:30:36] Robert Cruickshank: That's right. And I think it is going to be interesting to see who actually makes it onto the council because the fence sitters - we talked about one, Dan Strauss, we'll talk about the other, Andrew Lewis, in a moment. If there are other genuine progressives on the City Council - if we get people like Ron Davis and Maren Costa and Tammy Morales reelected, Alex Hudson elected - it becomes easier to pull those fence sitters in the direction of more progressive policy. We got to get them reelected. And this is where - you look at our last district here, District 7 - Andrew Lewis is ahead. He's in the low to mid 40% range. We'll see what happens over the next two ballot drops where he lands in the primary. It's good, it's not as strong as Dan Strauss. But Lewis, I think, understands what he needs to do to win and will do things that lead him down policy paths that progressives don't like. We saw this on Monday where - he signaled he would do this at the vote in June and he did - stood with Bruce Harrell to agree on a plan to pass the ordinance criminalizing drug possession in Seattle, incorporating the recently passed state law. And I'm not a fan of that ordinance, not a fan of that state law. I'm also not shocked at all that it played out here exactly the way it played out in the Legislature. Progressives and progressive-ish candidates and electeds said No, voted it down the first time. It came back. They won a few concessions, more money - but I think as Erica Barnett has pointed out, it's not new money. They won promises of diversion first, but they're promises - it's all going to be overseen by Ann Davison - we'll see what happens here. This is an example of Andrew Lewis trying to straddle the fence. And there's a political logic to that. Lewis won a very close race over former SPD chief Jim Pugel in 2019. It looks like he'll be up against Bob Kettle this year, who I think is running - clearly the strongest candidate of the people chasing Andrew Lewis, not surprised that Olga Sagan didn't really pan out - she got 14%, which is nothing to sneeze at. But again, the right-wing backlash is not real. We'll see what Andrew Lewis winds up doing. Lewis is someone who is clearly susceptible to being pressured by progressives - that's a good thing. I think those of us who are genuine progressives would love to see someone who's more progressive in that seat. We're not going to get that this year. It's not going to happen, nor in the District 6 seat. Most progressives I've talked to understand that and recognize that our interests are better served by the reelection of Dan Strauss and Andrew Lewis than by just abandoning them. Because sometimes you have to work with the electeds you've got - I think that's where it stands in those two districts. Lewis has a higher hill to climb than Strauss, but it's doable. We'll see how that plays out in the fall. [00:33:16] Crystal Fincher: Yep, I agree with that. I also want to talk about the school board races, which you have talked about, written about. How did you see this playing out? [00:33:24] Robert Cruickshank: It's interesting. The power of incumbency matters. There were two races on the ballot where there were genuine contests. District 1, which covers far northern Seattle - almost overlaps District 5 in the City Council - it'd be nice if these numbers matched. This is where Liza Rankin, the incumbent, is hovering around 60% of the vote - that's partly because she got the backing of The Stranger, it's also partly because she's the incumbent. It's also partly because - while there's a lot of discontent among parents in Seattle about the way the district is being run, that hasn't crystallized into any real organizing momentum yet. Rankin's main challenger, Debbie Carlsen, who is LGBTQ, has a LGBTQ family, has done a lot of work as an educator and nonprofit leader - Debbie's one of these candidates who files for school board during filing week - that is pretty common thing to happen and it takes you a little bit of time to get your feet underneath you as a candidate. Debbie's done that over the course of July, but a lot of the endorsement meetings were held in early June when she was still figuring it out - probably didn't give the greatest Stranger interview and is unusually closely allied with the current majority of the school board. Even if The Stranger had endorsed Debbie, Liza probably comes out well ahead. It's partly, again, the power of incumbency and the fact that a lot of voters just don't really know much about what's happening with the schools. That could change in a matter of weeks if the district does, as is expected, announce a list of schools they intend to close. That's the sort of thing that gets people's attention real quick. Similarly, you look over at District 3 where there's an opening - District 3 School Board overlaps District 4 City Council, so we're talking now about northeastern Seattle, Laurelhurst, Bryant, Ravenna, part of Wedgwood. That's a place where three really interesting candidates - Evan Briggs, who seems to have the most support so far at 38%, backing of The Stranger, backed by the incumbent majority in the school board. Ben Gitenstein, who's an interesting guy - running as a protest candidate, but has smart background in finance and understanding how districts work, backing of The Stranger - he's at 33%. Christie Robertson, I think, really ran a strong campaign - having the backing of Seattle Student Union, Seattle Education Association, MLK Labor, didn't get either of the newspaper endorsements, and I think that's why she's in a very close third place. That's a disappointment there, because I think she ran the best campaign she could, but coming in a close third. I thought she was the best candidate of the bunch. But August, where a lot of parents aren't paying attention - their kids are in camps or a lot of them are traveling. August also being a time of not great turnout. And people just don't know much about the schools - school board gets less coverage these days than it used to even seven, eight years ago. We'll see what happens in the fall if school closures are put on the table, with schools being named - that changes everything immediately. Now, it's also possible the school district recognizes this and wanting to protect their allies on the school board may punt that until after the election, which will merely infuriate everybody further. We'll see what happens in the fall. This is one of those where you see a 20% approval rating of the school district, but incumbency is a powerful thing. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Incumbency is an extremely powerful thing. And one thing that we did not see in the King County Council races on the ballot was any incumbent in the race. There were two open seat races on the primary ballot. What was your take on those? [00:36:46] Robert Cruickshank: Unsurprisingly, Teresa Mosqueda doing very well in the District 8 seat - that's West Seattle, Vashon Island area. She's a great campaigner and is well-liked and well-respected. She won the city council race by 20 points in 2021, while Lorena González went down to defeat and Davison and Sara Nelson won. It's a clear fact that Mosqueda knows what she's doing - she connects well with the voters and she has a really strong record. Mosqueda has got a real clear advantage going into the fall. The District 4 seat for King County Council - we're talking about northwestern Seattle from roughly Queen Anne, Magnolia, up towards Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood - that's an open seat with a set of three very progressive candidates. Jorge Barón who's hovering around 50%, will be the clear front runner going into the fall. Sarah Reyneveld, who's at 30%. And then Becka Johnson Poppe, who had 20%. And that's gonna be interesting. Jorge, again, the clear front runner, but it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. You had the other two candidates splitting the vote. I think Sarah has a really good shot of scooping up a lot of people who voted for Becka and that could be a very close race too. And I think this is one where - when you have two good progressives in a race, you want to see a good contest. You want to see them push each other to be better. You want to see them fight hard on key issues like who's gonna save Metro? The school district is talking about closing schools - Metro's talking about deleting routes. In a city this wealthy, that is this supportive of transit, that is this interested in doing climate action - for King County to be deleting routes is a huge problem. We need to be expanding the number of routes we have, the frequency on those routes. And so whoever of those candidates can really speak to the issues of transit in particular could have a real advantage going into November. [00:38:22] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. The existing routes that are left is falling through the floor. I know people are calling them "ghost buses" just because of not showing up. People have bought cars that they can barely afford. But what they can afford even less is to not get to work on time, to lose the only source of income. They have to do better with Metro. I'm looking forward to that being discussed often and robustly in the general election. [00:38:49] Robert Cruickshank: We need to name it. Dow Constantine, King County Executive, is falling down at his job on transit. For most of the 2010s, he was seen as a leader on transit - he did good work to get ST3 on the ballot and approved for Sound Transit, he did good work getting more funding for Metro. But here in the 2020s, it's a different story. He has not provided the leadership or presence that we need to save these bus routes, to address their reliability concerns. This is unacceptable, right? For people to be going out and buying cars - we can't trust the bus system. In a city where we had more of our commuters riding buses than any other big city in America before the pandemic. Obviously the pandemic shakes things up - there are challenges recruiting and retaining operators, but it has to be a top priority for the King County Executive and right now it doesn't look like it is. And this city, this region, can't survive without strong transit. Our climate goals are never going to be met - transportation is the number one source of carbon emissions in our city and in our state. And that's why these King County Council races matter because we are not seeing the leadership we need to be seeing from the top. It's going to have to come from the County Council instead. [00:39:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Both the executive and the council - because they had done the work to set it up, were just - Great, it's on autopilot and it runs. But there were signs of these shortages before the pandemic and the pandemic made it worse. And on the police side - Oh my goodness, there are shortages for police, we need to give bonuses, we need to give retention bonuses and recruitment bonuses and are doing everything we can - just a laser focus on these. I think a lot of people have noticed the lack of focus on so many shortages in so many other areas. From the school board perspective, the transportation situation, the bus drivers, a shortage there - just in so many areas, not having that kind of focus. This race in particular - speaking with a number of the candidates, they did say that they believe that we should be treating some of these other labor shortages with urgency and that we should consider the same kinds of bonuses - for example, transit drivers - that they have for sheriff's deputies, which I think would help. There needs to be active and involved management there - that's something that the council overall as a body needs to do a better job with. I hope this new injection of members with this election brings that about, helps to influence the other members. And I'm looking forward to a robust debate. The other thing about the Teresa Mosqueda and Sofia Aragon race that I thought was interesting was Teresa Mosqueda knew that helping renters, that helping small business owners, that helping people get affordable housing was an absolute critical need for Seattle. Even though at the time the conservative business interests were very opposed - they'll remain opposed, and that's an issue in this general election, that's motivating a lot of the conservative money in the race - she did it. It took a lot of know-how, it took a lot of budget smarts. And then ran on it. It's one of the most popular pieces of policy that has passed in Seattle in the past decade - it bailed the City out of this last budget cycle through the shortfall. Thank goodness that passed. Her ability to run on that and her expertise absolutely benefited her. On the flip side, Sofia Aragon, who's currently the mayor of Burien, who we've talked about before on this, is going through really a crisis in government. Recently there's another kind of letter of chastisement correcting errors in the record from the mayor and the deputy mayor in Burien, yet again, from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. This is another candidate where their voter guide statement and their communication - defund has clearly failed. That's where people are at - people are tired of hearing people complain and just that reactionary backlash, and are looking for people who are engaged, and what's really going to help. What is really going to solve this issue? And what they really have not seen recently, especially with the mayor of Burien, is engagement and policy and solutions that will help. That hurt Sofia - for someone who is a mayor in a city that has a significant population in the district to perform so poorly. And someone who arguably is - certainly in Burien - better known than Teresa Mosqueda. That gamble just failed. Hopefully that's a reminder to stop the infighting, stop the one-upmanship focus thing there, the clique-iness that has happened there with the majority on that council, and to get to work just to focus on solving the problems that the people have. In Burien, there's money on the table that they can take to help that they're refusing - and we're going to pass another camping ban. And people want actual solutions, not just rhetoric and - We're going to drive them out of town. That's not where people are at, even in the suburbs. [00:43:21] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. It reminds me a lot of the LA mayor's race last year between Karen Bass and Rick Caruso, where Caruso's wealthy developer was betting that there'd be a huge backlash to visible homelessness and that he could ride that to defeat Karen Bass. And Karen Bass, being much smarter and a much better politician, understood no. Voters want to see solutions. They want to see candidates step forward and offer reasonable answers that are going to treat people who are in crisis humanely - 'cause that's what we should be doing anyway - and that will actually going to solve the problem. And I think that's what you're seeing in King County Council District 8 - Teresa Mosqueda comes along. Everyone knows she's reasonable, sensible, committed to the solutions, and wanting to get this done. Sofia Aragon is just grandstanding. There's not a path to victory, even in King County Council District 8, for right-wing grandstanding. Those results show that really clearly. [00:44:12] Crystal Fincher: I agree. Other results from around the region that I thought were interesting were the Tacoma City Council races. Looking at the Olgy Diaz race - Olgy making it through, I think that was expected - she is going through the general election, didn't have a primary, but in a strong position. Particularly looking at the results of the race with Jamika Scott making it through to the general election against a more conservative challenger. And an incumbent in that race getting 70% of the vote. This is a situation where, again, lots of people were prepared in Tacoma - it's not Seattle, there's absolutely going to be a backlash. They have had lots of conversations and consternation, like so many other cities, about how to address homelessness, how to address poverty, how to address public safety - a lot of controversies within that police department and reform that has been needed. How did you see these races in Tacoma? [00:45:08] Robert Cruickshank: They are really interesting examples of the same phenomenon we're seeing in Seattle. I know that Tacoma is different from Seattle - don't want anyone listening in Tacoma to think that we're implying they're the same. There are some similar trends. We are seeing in Jamika Scott's strong showing here in the primaries that there is a appetite in Tacoma for genuine, real, deeply progressive change. You're also seeing that some of the backlash politics aren't necessarily succeeding in Tacoma either. Another place that we're seeing interesting things play out is Spokane - we're just having a mayoral race this year. The incumbent Nadine Woodward is very much one of these - crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness, really picking fights with the state over visible homelessness. But Lisa Brown, former state senator, former head of the State Senate in the 2000s, is pretty much neck and in a really good position to knock off the incumbent mayor. Lisa Brown running - again, is a much more reasonable, not necessarily progressive candidate. I wouldn't say Lisa Brown's progressive, but much more traditional liberal candidate who wants to come in with sensible solutions. You're seeing all over the place - the right wing backlash is not necessarily either showing up, or performing very well, to polls. [00:46:15] Crystal Fincher: This is a situation where sometimes, especially in Seattle, we get very focused on progressive and moderate, progressive and conservative. I think because of where journalism has ended up and because The Times and Stranger are such consequential endorsements - and they typically are in a moderate, in a progressive lane - that influences how we look at and categorize things in policy. We're looking across the board in the state at every level of government - especially public safety, issues of poverty, issues of homelessness, being something that every jurisdiction has to manage. There are evidence-based solutions, and there are ones that aren't. It happens to be that the evidence-based solutions are usually those ones espoused by progressives. And the ones that are not, like doubling down on the War on Drugs, doubling down on so many things that have already failed - sweep after sweep, that just moves the problem and makes it worse and doesn't do anything to solve homelessness - that those are just failed solutions, that the data just isn't there. And so I think what we're seeing work in a lot of different cities - and usually what I focus on - is talk about the issue, talk about the solution. The label doesn't really matter to the average person on the ground. We're in politics, we talk about it a lot. The average voter is just sick and tired of hearing a lot of rhetoric and not seeing things change. They just want someone who will do something that has a shot at fixing the problem after doing the same thing over and over again and not getting great results. Even if a progressive is talking about - Hey, we need a Housing First model. That doesn't mean housing only model, but housing is necessary for those other things that may also be necessary - whether it's behavioral health assistance, whether it's assistance with substance use disorder, whether there are a variety of things - that housing is necessary for those other things to reliably work and to get this person stably housed again. That is what is working. And so it's evidence-based versus things that aren't. And we're putting these labels on them, but really it's about what is going to solve this problem. So many people in the establishment are so invested in the status quo, even though it's not working - hopefully they'll become more open to evidence-based solutions. If not, they're going to have progressive challengers and progressive candidates like Jamika Scott, who is winning the race in the primary right now at 38% over Chris Van Vechten, who is a more conservative challenger in Tacoma. We see Kristina Walker, the incumbent, who is proposing evidence-based solutions for a lot of these things at 70% - not looking at a backlash there. But also in Spokane - dealing with a lot of other issues - and I will say in a lot of areas, especially, Spokane has been a leader in the state on housing, has been a leader on the state in many issues. If you're looking at the progressive versus moderate conservative in policy and action, Spokane is looking more progressive than Seattle in a number of ways. A lot of Seattle suburbs looking more progressive if you're looking at how policy is traditionally talked about. So I really think that it's about who has a shot at actually fixing this problem. Voters have heard the other stuff for a long time and have seen it fail. That doesn't mean that every progressive candidate is automatically gonna be successful, but it does provide an opening. And I think that explains a lot of the backlash that people are expecting that did not turn up and translate. [00:49:36] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think Erica Barnett doing a good job explaining that - yes, sweeps are popular in Seattle. That is true. And that's been true for a while. They're not true because people genuinely like sweeps. It's true because you ask voters to choose between doing nothing and a sweep - they'll pick the sweep because they want a solution. If you ask them to choose between a sweep and an actual solution - Housing First policies, permanent supportive housing, actually building housing that is affordable at all income levels - 9 times out of 10, they'll pick that. What the right-wing backlash folks were counting on is enthusiastic support for sweeps as the best solution. And that's not where the voters are at in this city at all, and I think you're seeing around the state, they're not there either. [00:50:19] Crystal Fincher: You mentioned before, which I think was very smart - two years back, four years back, candidates on the left and progressives were struggling to articulate that they were opposing sweeps or opposing criminalization of poverty and had a hard time breaking through because other people were maliciously mischaracterizing what they stood for. In order to get beyond that with people who have a lot of money to maliciously mischaracterize what you're doing was getting beyond the - No, we don't want to do nothing. We want to solve this thing. When we're advocating against sweeps, it's not like people are happy with encampments. It's not like people are happy with people living outside. We believe everybody should be housed. There are different solutions there. The answer is not nothing. We certainly heard a lot from Jenny Durkan, we heard from others - Oh, the alternative is nothing. They want to do nothing. When you have people attend your press conference every time you stand at a pulpit, that message is going to carry. What progressives are doing a better job of is articulating - No, we absolutely don't want to do nothing. We find crime unacceptable, and we actually want to do something to fix it. We find homelessness unacceptable, and we're tired of spinning our wheels and spending so much money and taking so much time to not improve the problem. We want to do different things that actually have a shot. That message is carrying through more, there are going to be a lot of competitive races - I don't know that that's going to carry the day, but certainly a more effective message this go around. [00:51:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. What these results overall show is that progressives have a real opportunity, but it's not a certainty. They got to use it effectively. [00:51:50] Crystal Fincher: Anything else that you think is interesting to look at on the electoral spectrum around the state? [00:51:55] Robert Cruickshank: One thing that is gleeful and a positive outcome is Semi Bird getting recalled along with two of his allies in Richland. Semi Bird is the right-wing, soon-to-be former school board director in the Richland Public Schools who tried to overturn the state's mask mandate - that led to a recall effort that has been successful. Bird is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2024 - it's pretty much him and Dave Reichert at this point. We'll see what happens. But seeing Bird get recalled in Richland, which is not a progressive hotbed by any stretch of the imagination, is another sign that this right-wing backlash is not as strong as folks thought it was. So we'll see what happens from there. [00:52:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see what happens from there. And I wanted to mention that there are a lot of school board races that did not have more than two candidates across the state. Some races in the primary had Moms for Liberty candidates, aka people who are bringing in the desire to ban books, who are trying to overrule teachers and dictate what they can teach, and really attacking LGBTQ+ students - especially trans students - and really trying to bring hateful rhetoric and Christian nationalism into our education system. There's a Highline School District candidate that made it through to the general. There are others, like in University Place, several places across the state, that are going to have these general election match-ups with some candidates who are solutions-focused and others who are strictly running to basically sow chaos, is what it turns out to be in effect - to defund the schools, to strip standards-based education, fact-based education, to stop teaching history. They love what's going on in Florida, and they want to replicate what's going on there that is really hurting that state and community. I just want people to be aware that is a thing that is happening, and we can't afford to not be engaged in these school board races unless we want to provide a foothold for that kind of thing. Candidates that start on school boards wind up in city councils, in the Legislature, running for Congress. It is making sure that we're engaged in these very local races to make sure that we don't let someone in the door who's going to turn out to advocate for really fascist policies. [00:54:10] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And we've seen Moms for Liberty candidates fail in Washington state before. We've seen some of them make it through. We saw a strong effort to try to repeal the state's new law that protects trans kids - they narrowly failed to make it to the ballot. So far so good - knock on all the wood that there is - that they're not getting more traction here in Washington state. They're working as hard as they can, and we have to work as hard as we can to push back against that. [00:54:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. Wanted to wrap up with talking about the influence of endorsements in these elections. We've talked a lot about how consequential The Times and The Stranger endorsements have been over the past several years. I think there are a number of reasons why - I think that the thinning out of reporters covering government, covering politics on that regular beat is considerably less than it used to be, and that is impacting just how informed the public is in general on a regular basis - making these endorsements much more consequential. We also have fewer newspapers. And so those are just a couple of things making those much more important. The Stranger - looking last year - it had been at least a decade since a Stranger-endorsed candidate had not made it through a primary. The Times-endorsed candidate almost always makes it through also. So these have been and continue to be very consequential endorsements. How do you see this? [00:55:28] Robert Cruickshank: It's still the case that Stranger endorsement is essential if you're a progressive trying to get through to the general election. It confers more votes than The Times endorsement does. For those of us who are progressive, that's a good thing. It's also a double-edged sword. And you can see in Districts 3 and Districts 5 this year, some of the downsides of The Stranger endorsement. What it did is it winds up cutting off conversation, debate, and contests between the progressive candidates in the field. I like Alex Hudson - she'll make a great member of the city council. I also like the idea of seeing Alex and the other candidates in District 3, or Christiana, Tye, Nilu - the candidates in District 5 - really pushing each other hard to have to do a good job persuading progressive voters that they're the right one to carry the agenda forward. Instead, what seems to happen is Stranger makes their picks and that's the end of the discussion. You get a lot of - you alluded to this earlier - a lot of low-information progressive voters who wait until the very end, open their ballots, realizing - Oh my gosh, they're due, I've got to vote. What does The Stranger recommend? I'll vote that way. I get that. They're not stupid voters. They pay very close attention to federal politics, but they just don't know a whole lot about what's happening locally. And The Stranger is a trusted source. The Stranger is independent. They're not making endorsements usually based on relationship building. You have a clear agenda that you can trust, and they built that trusted brand over 20 years. But we have to start asking ourselves - I'm hearing more and more people asking the same question - Is it too influential? Is it too strong? Is it distorting the way campaigns are operating? Some of this is on The Stranger to ask themselves - do they want to be kingmakers or do they want to be the ones holding everybody's feet equally to the fire? I don't think you can always do both. It's also up to candidates and campaigns to figure out how do you overcome this? You can look around the country - there are lots of places in the country with strong endorsements, whether it's from an organization or an editorial board or whatever, but campaigns figure out how to get around that. I don't think progressive campaigns in Seattle have figured out how to win if The Stranger isn't backing them. I think it's time to try to get that answered - not as a slap at The Stranger, but it's unhealthy for one outlet to have that much influence. [00:57:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think that it is important just to have that conversation and cutting that off is problematic. The Stranger does a better job of actually trying to pin down candidates on answers and making it visible when someone is hedging. I think that's a very useful thing, especially in Seattle politics where lots of times people love giving a progressive impression - paint a rosy picture - Of course, I love trees and I love kids and all of that. And some people are satisfied with that, but we have to get to real specific policy answers - Would you vote yes or no on this? - to get an idea of who we're really voting for. I think The Times has really fallen down on that front. One important thing in races overall is just understanding where candidates do stand and where they're not taking a stand. And that is very predictive about how someone is going to vote and whether they're going to lean on issues, whether they can be pressured to taking a No vote on something that they may have indicated or given a nod to that they're broadly supportive of. So I hope we have robust conversations just about where candidates stan

On this Primary Week re-air, Crystal chats with Jorge Barón about his campaign for King County Council District 4 - why he decided to run, how 17 years at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared him for the role, and his thoughts on generating progressive revenue for county services, drug possession and substance use disorder, addressing overcrowding in the King County Jail, improving frontline worker wages and workforce issues, air quality and climate change, and the importance of oversight and genuine community engagement in policy implementation. 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 Jorge Barón at @jorgebaron.   Jorge Barón Jorge L. Barón has spent his legal career advancing and defending the rights of marginalized communities, and has served as executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project for more than 15 years. Jorge has fought egregious policies like the Muslim Ban and family separation as well as built coalitions that drove significant policy change and generated hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for immigrant communities. Jorge has had the honor of being awarded the King County Council's MLK Medal of Distinguished Service and served on the Joint Legislative Task Force on Deadly Force in Community Policing. Jorge is originally from Bogotá, Colombia, immigrating with his mom and brothers at the age of 13. Jorge is a graduate of Yale Law School and Duke University, a proud former union member, and public school parent.    Resources Campaign Website - Jorge Barón   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am excited to be welcoming a candidate for King County Council District 4 - Jorge Barón. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, Jorge. [00:01:03] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much for having me, Crystal. I'm pleased to be here. [00:01:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - we're pleased to have you here. I guess just starting out - what made you decide to run for King County Council? [00:01:12] Jorge Barón: Yeah, it's a great question because I think for me, this is a new adventure that I'm embarking on. I think if you'd asked me 10 years ago if I was going to run for elected office, I would have said no. But I think what's happened over the last - since that time - is that I've seen, of course, working in the immigration field for the last 17 years, I've seen a lot of bad policy, but during the Trump administration, I saw a particular period of really egregious attacks on communities that I'm a part of, that I care about, and that I was working on behalf of. And I also saw how state and local government played an important role in protecting people. And I also saw people, frankly, that I've considered mentors and people who I admire - like Representative Pramila Jayapal and Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda - who also went from being advocates on the outside of government to go inside and to actually work on policy issues at the government level, and saw how effective they've been in creating some policy change in a progressive direction. So that gave me an inspiration, and of course, I've continued working here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, but last year I made the decision to step away from this work that I've been doing for now 17 years. And when I started thinking about what would come next, I thought that working at the local government level would be an avenue to further some of the same social justice issues that I've been pursuing for nearly two decades, and that gave me the inspiration. And of course, when Councilmember Kohl-Welles announced that she would be stepping down, saw an opportunity to put myself forth and to share with folks in District 4 - where I live - that I would be a good advocate for the social justice values that I've been pursuing for a long time now. [00:02:46] Crystal Fincher: How do you think your work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared you to run and serve? [00:02:52] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no - it's a good question. And I've been very fortunate, of course, to have had the privilege of serving in this role. And for a long time, I thought that something else would pull me away from leaving here, and it - nothing better came along, but I felt like it was a good time for me to allow other people to step into leadership roles here and for me to take a break and do something new. But the experience that I've had here, I think, has prepared me for this role in a couple of different ways. First of all, obviously, I've had the opportunity to be the chief executive here at this organization - that we've been able to grow into now the second-largest nonprofit law firm in the Pacific Northwest, and I think that experience of being a leader in that role has given me an opportunity to learn a lot about how to manage organizations and how to run an effective organization. And I think the other part that's been really important in the work that we've done here that I think will be helpful - very important at the county level - is that I have been able to work in partnership with many stakeholders in building coalitions that have enabled important policy change at the state level. And one of the things that has inspired me to run at the County Council level is seeing that right now the county is facing a very difficult period because of the limitations that the state government has placed on - particularly on the revenue side - and I think we need people who are going to be able to build the kind of coalition to push the State Legislature, to work in partnership with our state legislators to make sure that we get some changes - that I think a lot of people recognize are needed - to the way that the county is funded, to make sure the county can actually operate effectively and carry out its responsibilities. So that kind of coalition building - working with state legislators in making actually progressive and important changes happen at the state level - which is what I've been able to do here, is something that I feel is going to serve me well if I get the privilege of serving on the council. [00:04:41] Crystal Fincher: When you talk about the issue of revenue, which is very important - and as we talk about this and the things we'll talk about as we continue, lots of them will require additional revenue. More money is needed. But as you talk about, the progressive revenue options that exist at the county level are limited. What progressive revenue options will you pursue, if any, and how will you go about doing that? [00:05:04] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no, I think it's important to talk about it because that's absolutely one of the key things that I think we need to discuss and make sure that voters understand. And I've seen it, and it's been frustrating to me actually, from - in my role at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, we've been advocating before the councils - at least myself, I've been advocating before the council since around 2008, 2009. And even since that time, the conversation had been that the county was in an unsustainable fiscal path, right? That we had this structural deficit, and particularly because of the 1% tax lid that restricts how much property tax revenue the county can collect, that we were in this unsustainable path. And in some ways, I feel like we haven't - as a community, we haven't felt the actual impact of that because inflation has been relatively low during that period, because there have been different periods of COVID relief money, for example, that came in the last couple of years that in some ways mitigated the full impact of that situation. But we're starting to now, and the upcoming budget cycle - we're facing, as a county, $100 million shortfall. And so I think now we're gonna start feeling the direct impact of those changes. And so I think we radically need to restructure how the county is funded and move away - I don't think we're gonna be able to move away completely, obviously - but at least shift some of the burden that currently is impacting particularly low income and even moderate income households here in King County and make sure that we create the opportunity. And again, this is one of the challenges - is that it's not something the county directly can do, but we will need to work with the state legislators to provide those opportunities for some changes so that we become less reliant on things like the sales tax and the property tax. And we have opportunities to have the revenue come from sources that have greater ability to pay. Obviously this is not only an issue for the county. Obviously at the state level, we also need to be working on that because we have the most regressive tax structure in the country. And so at all levels of government, we need to do this. And my hope is to be able to bring new energy to this conversation, to help talking about it all the time that - my campaign have been trying to talk about it - that's the first thing I always talk about because I think a lot of people don't understand the situation that we're in and that we're gonna be facing in terms of county services having to be drastically cut at a time when we see so much need in the community and people are saying - Why aren't we tackling these issues? Why aren't we tackling housing affordability, the homelessness crisis? - all kinds of issues that we can talk about. And those things - we need more investments to be able to make progress in those areas. And so the regressive revenue options need to be something that we absolutely put top of mind in talking to voters and talking to state legislators. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Right, and you talked about how to handle issues in terms of public safety, behavioral health, and how important that funding is. In the wake of the State Legislature increasing criminalization of possession of drugs and public use of drugs - making it a gross misdemeanor. And in the wake of the Seattle City Council weighing this issue themselves and currently still searching for a path forward on how to approach drug use and abuse in the City of Seattle - how do you view this in King County? Where do you stand on the criminalization of public drug use, and what do you think needs to be done to address this crisis? [00:08:23] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - I'll be very clear that I do not support criminalizing substance use disorders. I believe that we have - what I try to tell people about this issue is that we need to look at this the same way that we talk about - for example, when we talk about climate justice, a lot of people in this community - I guess I would say most people in this community, I know there's some people who are still climate skeptics out there - but most of us believe the science and we talk about the importance of believing the research and following the science. Same thing with public health, right? Most people in this community say we need to believe the science around public health and COVID and vaccines, right? And why don't we do the same thing with regard to public safety and the criminal legal system, right? There is abundant research when it comes to how to address the serious issues - and I wanna say it's important to note that the issue is not about doing nothing about the fact that people are experiencing substance use disorders. And obviously, it's a crisis in the fact that we have so many people in our community who are dying because of that. So the question is not, should we do something? We absolutely should do something. The question is, what should we do? And for me, the response of trying to punish people and putting people in jail because they're experiencing substance use disorders is not the solution. And I think the evidence and the research conclusively proves that that is not the path that is going to result in people actually being safe. And I'm concerned - some ways - that particularly right now, some of the debate is framed as in, we're trying to protect people by putting them in jail. And if you look at the evidence, that's not the case - at least if you look at overall numbers. And I know people will say - Well, there's this one example, this anecdote where this person got better because they went to jail. And I appreciate that there may be cases like that, but we can't do public policy based completely on anecdotes. We need to look at the research. And the research to me is very compelling in that, for example, with people who are experiencing substance use disorders with things like fentanyl, that you will end up increasing the risk that they will die if they go into jail. It's pretty dramatic - the statistics and the data on increasing the risk of overdose in those situations. And so I am concerned, I think we need to be thinking about what is best approach long-term - and particularly because the criminal legal system is also a very expensive system, right? And so when we're talking about investing limited public resources in a time of austerity in terms of the fiscal situation that we were just talking about - to me, it doesn't make sense to continue to invest in a system that has not proven to have, for lack of a better term, return on investment - when we see that there are programs that are currently underfunded, that we're not putting enough resources in, that do have an impact in terms of reducing peoples experiencing substance use disorder, and that will actually put them in a pathway to recovery. So I think we need to really rethink how we're approaching things. I think we've learned lessons for decades of using the criminal legal system to try to address substance use disorders. And I think we have been doing important things here in this community, and I think it's important to recognize that there's been programs like the LEAD program here locally, that have been seen as models for other places, but we've never sufficiently resourced those. And right now, of course, the need has only escalated because of the impacts of the pandemic and so many things that disrupted the lives of so many people. So I think we need to be investing in the things that actually have a return on investment. [00:11:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, you make a great point about our jails - one, not being a source of treatment, but they're not equipped to do that right now. And in fact, they're not equipped to do a lot of things that people think they do and things that they have done before. We've seen outcry from everyone from the ACLU to the guards and workers at our jails saying - Things are overcrowded, we're understaffed, we don't have adequate services, facilities, we don't have the tools to do the job that you're asking us to do and the way that you're asking us to do it, and the overcrowding is really making issues harder. In order to address that, the King County Council voted to initiate a contract with another jail provider - the SCORE Center in Des Moines - to transfer some inmates over there. Would you have voted to do that? And do you think we should do what Dow Constantine suggested and closing the jail? What is your plan for this? Would you have done what the County Council did? And where should we move forward after that? [00:12:56] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - that's a good question. So the answer to your question about the SCORE jail is that I would not have voted to enter into that contract and to transfer people, primarily because I think at the time - and I think still to this point, from what I understand - the concerns that a number of people raised, and particularly the public defenders who represent people in the facility, in the jail, that the issue of access to counsel and access to family was not adequately addressed at the time. And to me, this is a particular issue that I care a lot about, just because I've had a lot of experience being an attorney and starting my career at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project as a staff attorney working with people in the Immigration Detention Center in Tacoma. I did work during law school in the criminal legal issues and prisons in the South. And this issue of being able to access attorneys is a really important one that we as a community should be absolutely standing up for - because when people are put into jail pending a charge, we have a strong presumption in this country of being presumed innocent until we're proven guilty. And one of the key ways that people can have that right be enforced is through access to counsel. And so if we're gonna undermine that, I think that's a serious issue. I absolutely, to be clear, do not think that the conditions at the King County Jail are adequate, and we absolutely need to take steps to address the overcrowding. I think people in the community may not always be paying attention to this, but it's remarkable that we have groups that don't normally align on this - like the public defenders on the one side and the correctional workers in the jail - calling for the same steps because of how bad the situation was. And so we should be listening to people who are working most directly with people in there. And obviously we should be deeply concerned about the fact that multiple people have been dying in our care. I've been telling people that we need to think about, as a community - when we take one of our neighbors into custody because we determine that they need to be held in jail, we become responsible. They become our responsibility, and we need to make sure that we have the staffing and the resources to adequately care for them. And if we see that people are dying at the rate that we've seen, we're not living up to that commitment. And so we need to take steps, and I would support, at least as an interim measure, the call from the public defenders and from the correction officers of having booking restrictions that will limit the number of people who are gonna be in the jail until we know that we can actually take care of people. I know it's a complex issue because I think part of the challenge has also been that the state has failed in its obligation to make sure that we provide treatment and assessments for and evaluations for people who have behavioral health issues, and that's also exacerbated the problem in terms of people being able to be released. But we need to address this with more urgency because literally people are dying in our custody, and it shouldn't be - even if you're accused of a crime, this should not be a death penalty situation where we're putting people in fatal consequences because they're accused of a criminal offense. And so I think we need to be taking very significant steps to move that. And again, the SCORE Jail - I understand the intention, but we also need to be respecting the right for people to be able to defend themselves in court. [00:16:19] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I do wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And it's been an issue that has been on the top of mind of everyone, basically. One thing that it's a big challenge for our community to deal with, and another because so many people are struggling themselves. One issue called out by experts as a barrier to our response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, and that services provided by frontline workers, especially those with lived experiences, are necessary to effectively reduce the amount of people who are homeless. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:17:04] Jorge Barón: So Crystal, I absolutely agree that nonprofits have a responsibility to make sure that their workers are adequately compensated. It's something that I've been working on here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and I think one of the things that I see frequently at the county level - and I think a lot of people don't realize that a lot of the human services that the county provides is actually done through nonprofit entities that the county contracts out with. And so the county does have a responsibility to make sure that we're structuring the contracts in ways that are going to incentivize our nonprofit partners to do the right thing. I've seen practices where, for example, we have contracts where there's lesser amount of funding year-over-year for a nonprofit partner. And of course, that doesn't help when we have a situation where the cost of living is increasing. I've also seen situations where there's this pressure of - well, you're not delivering enough services per FTE, and so it incentivizes employers to try to do it as cheaply as possible in kind of a race to the bottom that actually hinders the ability of organizations to be able to adequately compensate their employees. And so I definitely think that the county has a responsibility to make sure that it's structuring its practices to incentivize for people to be paid well. And I think part of the problem is that sometimes we think of short-term - how many services we can provide in the very immediate term - but we lose sight of the fact that when we don't compensate people well, we end up losing those workers. And so you get into the cycle where people, the attrition rate is very high, the experience that we get from workers - it's lost. You spend a lot of energy and time with recruiting and hiring and training new employees. And so I think people need to understand that there is actually - it's a better investment to compensate people well. Even in the situations where that might mean - in the very short term, you might not be able to do as many services. But in the long term, you're actually gonna be able to serve people better and more fully if you invest in the workforce so that they will stick around. Because particularly in a place - obviously the cost of living is increasing, it's all connected - housing affordability is limited. So we need to make sure that the people who are providing services to county residents can also themselves be able to be county residents - because I hear that from a lot of people that they're having to, they can't even live in the county that they work in because of the high cost of living. So I absolutely think that needs to be a responsibility that the county plays a role in doing better from its part. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And as you talk about, there are shortages everywhere, there are staff shortages even in the county. And this impacts how the county is able to deliver services. There's been lots of coverage about staffing crises in a variety of government agencies, school districts, just seemingly at every level. And these people are crucial to programs and services that people count on, that have been around for decades, and that are now in jeopardy. King County has done hiring and retention bonuses for deputies in the Sheriff's department. Should we be doing that for other workers in other departments? How do we address this? [00:20:11] Jorge Barón: I do think that we should look at those options. I do wanna work and wanna be very proactive in engaging labor partners that represent workers and finding what they think would be best for their workforce. 'Cause I wanna be very respectful of the role that they play in channeling the voice of the people who are working for the county. Because I know sometimes that can create some tensions for people who have been working there for a long time and then money is being invested to attract new workers. And so I wanna make sure that it's done in a way that we're engaging people who are already part of the workforce and who have devoted a lot of time to serve the community. So I think that is important. But Crystal, one other thing that I was gonna mention when you talk about workforce issues is important role - and again, how lots of these things are connected - is childcare issues. That's one topic that I've heard a lot from community members that is making these workforce development issues more difficult, and in terms of attracting and incentivizing people to join the workforce is the high cost of childcare. And particularly the way that our current subsidies are structured at the county level, we have the situation where if you make above a certain amount, you then don't qualify for any subsidy at all. And that makes it difficult because then if you're considering - Well, okay if I take this job and maybe it's a good union paying job, but it actually will put me above the income level that qualifies for the subsidy. And then when I start doing the math, it turns out that doesn't make sense for me to take the job because I'll end up paying more on childcare than would make the job worth it. And as a parent who had three children go through the childcare system, who's gone through the public school system, I felt that very directly. And I've been fortunate to be able to have the resources to make that happen, but it was a big stretch. And so for a lot of people in the community, that's gonna be something that I think has made it more difficult for people to be able to join the workforce. And that impacts us all, right? We can talk about, for example, the challenges that the Metro Transit is having and the fact they're having to reduce routes - and it's not because of lack of money, it's because of the fact that they can't find enough drivers and they've had challenges there. So I think we need to be able to connect those dots and realize that investments in those areas are important to make sure that we have an adequate workforce. And it's also a good social equity and racial equity issue to make sure that we're investing so that folks can get the support they need to make sure they can not fully be participants in the community. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and thank you so much for bringing that up because that is a major factor in just the affordability of our community, the ability for people to participate in our workforce and our economy, to be upwardly mobile, and to get out of poverty. So thank you so much for talking about how important it is to help make affordable childcare accessible. I also want to talk about health, and especially with the county doing the heavy lifting when it comes to public health, really, and being the source of delivery for so much of it. I wanted to talk about something that we've been dealing with increasingly, whether it's because of COVID, which is still around and still here, and trying to reduce transmission and mitigate the impacts of it, or wildfire smoke, which we have to contend with, and that is extremely unhealthy to breathe and be in the midst of. Or other illnesses, viruses that are all around - trying to just reduce the prevalence of illness in our community. And it's become more apparent that how we treat air, how important air is to health, and how air filtration and ventilation is important to public safety. Do you have a plan for, would you advocate retrofitting, ensuring that all of our public buildings have the recommended air filtration, air turnover, healthy air systems for our community? And how can we help private businesses and spaces do that? [00:24:08] Jorge Barón: Yeah, I absolutely support that. And I think it's an important - and I think there will be some important opportunities with some of the investments that are coming through the Inflation Reduction Act that - mostly focused on energy efficiency, but there could be opportunities where some of those resources could be used at the same time to make sure that we're improving air quality inside buildings, homes, and businesses as well. And it's interesting 'cause I think one of the things that I think about when I think of this - when you're talking about the community health - one of the things that's most disturbing to me and one that I absolutely wanna continue to focus on if I'm given the opportunity to serve in this role, is the disparities that we see in life expectancy in our communities. I'd encourage people to look up some of the research that's publicly available where you can see the life expectancy disparities in census tracts around the county, around the region. And I think to me, it should be disturbing to all of us that there are census tracts in South King County where the life expectancy is 17 years less than census tracts in other parts of the county - just a short drive away. And of course, when you dig into the reasons for that - and of course, there are many - but issues of pollution and of all the social determinants of health are driving a lot of those disparities. And that is something that we should not find in any way acceptable at this point of time in a county, particularly a county that we renamed in honor of Dr. King. I always think of what he would think about those kinds of disparities and obviously, he would find them unacceptable and I find them unacceptable. And so addressing those issues and looking at the reasons that the impact - that all kinds of issues are impacting people's health, including air quality, both inside and frankly outside would have. And so when we talk about that and of course, with the ongoing impacts of climate change and the climate crisis, we're gonna be needing to tackle that even more - because unfortunately, we're gonna continue as we work in the long-term strategy, obviously, of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have to mitigate the impacts that we're seeing day in and day out with now the wildfire season that we see where the smoke is impacting people. And of course, many of us may have the fortune of being able to work inside and protect ourselves to some degree, but a lot of other people can't. And so we need to be addressing on multiple levels - ensuring that all community members and of course, particularly the most directly impacted communities, which of course overwhelmingly are people of color, immigrant refugee communities - that they're being given the tools and the protection to make sure that we don't see the level of disparities that we're currently seeing across the county. [00:26:47] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And following on that - talking about how exposed people are - climate change is a major factor in this. And on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing some of the devastating impacts that you just talked about - from wildfires and floods and cold and heat. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet the 2030 goals? [00:27:10] Jorge Barón: I think there's a number of things. So one of our major drivers in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, of course, is our transportation system. And so a lot of that has to be focused on stopping our reliance and reducing our reliance on cars. And trying to build a transit infrastructure that is gonna be reliable, it's gonna be safe, and that it's going to be such that people can rely on it to get to work and to get to other places in the community. So for me, that's important. I think it's important - obviously, I appreciate and support the efforts to electrify our bus fleet and would do anything I could to expedite that and move forward on that. But the challenge is that if we can have the buses be electric, but if people are not using them and they're still relying on their cars, that's not gonna help us achieve the targets. So that's gonna be really important. I think the other sort of big sources is obviously our infrastructure and our buildings and homes. And as I mentioned earlier, there is gonna be some opportunities for credits and investments through federal resources in the coming years that we need to make sure that we as a county are promoting and incentivizing and fully tapping into so that we can further reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we can get closer to reaching the goals that we've set for ourselves. So I think that's gonna be an important work that we need to do in the community. And this is, again, where a lot of things are connected to - also how we build and how we structure our communities is gonna be important, because as we talk about transit - I fully support what the legislature did to create greater density 'cause that has a significant impact on climate justice goals. And so that's something that I think we are going to need to also monitor - as these new changes that the legislature made - how those are implemented will have an impact in our long-term strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So I think this is gonna be an important period of time for us to really step up in our commitment to addressing what is a very urgent issue. [00:29:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. One issue impacting, I guess a major issue that impacts residents is how we implement policy - state level, county level, federal level really. There's been some great, helpful policy passed, but when it comes to the implementation of it, there's been a lot that has been desired in some circumstances - including those where some partners may not understand what needs to be stood up at the county level to deliver services. The county is pretty visible in this 'cause a lot of times the county is the entity responsible for the ultimate disbursement of funds or provision of services that come through the state or county level. And there seems to be sometimes a disconnect between what the county has capacity for, what it's capable to do and what legislation or funding or program calls to be done - leaving a shortfall in service delivery, things getting delayed, things not turning out as intended. What can be done to better improve the implementation of policy so that more people can receive the benefits that were intended? [00:30:17] Jorge Barón: I completely agree, Crystal, 'cause I've seen that myself in terms of being able to get policies done both at the local level and at the state level in terms of changes to policy. For example, we did some work many years ago on the connection between immigration enforcement and local law enforcement - and we achieved a victory of getting an ordinance passed at the county level. And then time went by and the actual implementation of that was not happening. And we later found out that some of the things that we had thought that the policy had changed had not changed. And so I've definitely seen that situation play out. And I think what it takes is constant oversight and very intense focus from entities like the council. I think the council has a particular responsibility and a duty to be the one who is providing oversight as the elected officials who are responsible for making sure that the policies that are in place are actually being implemented. 'Cause oftentimes what I see in those situations is that things get passed and then you move on to the next thing, but if the implementation and the oversight is not there, then changes aren't actually playing out on the ground level. So that's an important thing. I think the other thing that I think is important is a genuine engagement with communities that are going to be served. And I think that's another element that I would like to bring to the council is the fact that I have been working for nearly two decades now with marginalized communities throughout the state, particularly here in King County, and have built those relationships with people. And I would wanna be very proactive. I often tell people - Sometimes people say, I'll have an open door. And that to me is not really a good way to approach it because that still means that people have to come to me and my office. I wanna be very proactive in being out there - as I have been in my work here - of being out in community, talking to people, seeing how things are actually playing out on the ground level, and being engaged, and having genuine relationships with people so that you can actually assess how those policies are being implemented because that's what it takes. It's not just about receiving a report in council chambers, but it's about discussing with people how is this actually playing out. And that's how we've found things out here in my work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - has been working with community members - hearing how is this actually playing out on the ground level? How is this policy that looks nice on paper, on the King County Code, actually being impacted or being reflected on what people are experiencing in the community? And that's what it's gonna take to make sure that implementation is actually - that things are being done the way that we've intended them to be done when there's been changes in policy. [00:32:54] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. As we move to close today, I just want to give you the opportunity to share with voters who are going to be making a decision between you and a couple other candidates in the primary election. What differentiates you from your opponents most of all, and why should voters choose you? [00:33:14] Jorge Barón: For me, I think I hope voters will look at the track record that I've built over the last two decades working as a civil rights and human rights leader, working directly on behalf of marginalized communities with a deep commitment to equity and justice. I think that to me is really important because it's the work that I don't just talk about, I have done that work. And also the fact that I had the experience of working at the state level - building coalitions with community members, with allies - in a range of issues to make actually proactive and significant progressive change to policies that have impact marginalized communities across the state. And I hope to bring that same level of expertise and skill of building coalitions to impact policy that will make the situation for the county and county residents better. And then finally, again, the fact that I've had this experience and I've been fortunate to have this experience of leading a nonprofit organization, building an effective organization that has delivered, that's widely recognized as delivering strong services. And that puts me in a good place to be able to provide that oversight, to be able to ask the tough questions, to make the tough decisions because I've been in that kind of executive role before. And be able to make sure - because I think this is an important component of county government, and I think something that will help us build the case for more investments is - I think one of the things that people in the community rightly are concerned about is - are our tax dollars being invested well in various programs that the county funds? And because I've been a nonprofit leader, seeing how to properly allocate and distribute and make resources be spent effectively, I'm in a good position to be able to evaluate those things when those issues come up at the County Council. And so all of those experiences that I've had - I've been very privileged to be able to play that role - have prepared me well for this role. And I hope the voters in the District 4 will give me the opportunity to represent them in the council. [00:35:12] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today and for helping us learn more about you, and certainly wish you the best. [00:35:17] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much, Crystal - it was great talking to you. [00:35:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm! The show kicks off with a rundown of The Urbanist's primary election endorsements, followed by discussion of a Federal Way shooting that raises lots of questions, the Burien council majority's continued failure on homelessness response, Ed Murray being spotted at political events, a court ruling that Seattle's primary encampment sweeps tool is unconstitutional, and a Mayor Harrell change of heart on South Lake Union light rail stations. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Doug Trumm Doug Trumm is Publisher of The Urbanist, where he has contributed as a writer and editor since 2015. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at UW in 2019 with a concentration in urban policy. As a car-free renter living in Seattle, his policy focuses include improving transit and street safety and tackling the housing affordability crisis. His cat Ole is a national treasure.   Resources “Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats” from Hacks & Wonks   “2023 Primary Election Endorsements” from The Urbanist   “The Stranger's Endorsements for the August 1, 2023, Primary Election” from The Stranger   “Seattle Times editorial board endorsements: Aug. 1, 2023, primary” from The Seattle Times   Endorsements from PubliCola   Progressive Voters Guide from Fuse WA   2023 Policing and Public Safety Voter Guide - Seattle City Council from People Power Washington   “Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police say” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Burien still can't decide whether it'll take homelessness offer” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “After Refusing Shelter Offer from King County, Burien Proposes Camping Ban” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces his resignation on September 12, 2017.” by Nick Rousso from HistoryLink.org   “City's Primary Tool for Sweeping Encampments Without Notice Ruled Unconstitutional” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell Advances New Denny Station Options That Could Delay Ballard Link” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Transit Advocates Push to Save South Lake Union Light Rail Station” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Ballard Link Extension: South Lake Union Stations Webinar #2 | Sound Transit   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats, about how the county party engages in local elections and politics to improve lives in our area. 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: Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Hey. [00:01:20] Doug Trumm: Hey, good to see you - thanks so much for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Very, very happy and excited to have you. And as we sit here, people have ballots at their homes - you should have received your ballot - if you haven't, you should pursue getting another one or tracking down where that is. But primary election is in full swing. The primary election end date is Tuesday, August 1st. And wow, there have been a lot of endorsements, including endorsements from The Urbanist. Who did The Urbanist decide to support in several different races? And what was the approach The Urbanist took to making these endorsements? [00:01:58] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we are excited to announce our slate. I'll, I guess, start with how we got there, which was a painstaking process - we've done it the same way, going back six, seven years. And that involves - first, the questionnaire to get people on the record about some issues important to urbanists and Safe Street advocates and housing advocates. And then after they've submitted their questionnaire, we invite them in for actual interviews that are now happening over Zoom - which has been convenient, I think, for everyone, since we're covering a wide area. We probably should have been doing this the whole time - save the candidates time and you get through more candidates. And it's about a 25-minute interview and you learn a little bit more - when you get a vague response in a questionnaire or some issue becomes relevant that maybe wasn't when you sent out the questionnaire. And then we debate what we felt about it. And luckily we didn't have any big fights this year, but obviously some disagreement. And I guess I can start with the Seattle City Council. We also endorsed in Bellevue this year, but where we endorsed, there's not a primary - so not the big fireworks that rolled that one out, but there will be more in the general. But we'll start in order. District 1 in Seattle - Maren Costa, we liked. She's a climate activist and clearly had the best housing platform. A slam dunk as far as what urbanists are looking for, I think, as some of the other candidates were much more wishy-washy about how much housing are they going to allow and how many ways are they going to allow to block it. Costa was pretty clear - I want housing. And then in [District] 2, we liked the incumbent, Tammy Morales. She's been the most strident Safe Streets advocate in the council, so we need someone like that 'cause it's very hard to get Safe Streets projects done. And her district is also in most in need of it, and she's been very clear about that. So it just seems like we need a strong voice, especially in that district. D3, we went with Alex Hudson. We thought she had the most policy chops experience - a lot of progressives in that race, but we thought Alex had the most ability to get it done. In D4, we liked Ron Davis. Didn't really seem to be anyone else who wanted the progressive mantle in that race, and maybe that's a credit partially to Ron Davis being a strong candidate. And we think he is really clear about where he stands and not very politician-y in that way, which is refreshing - was very clear about he wanted a lot of housing in the Comp Plan update that's due next year. Just to underscore that it's a really consequential election because that Comp Plan update is happening next year and a lot of big stuff happening next year, so definitely don't sit out this election. And Ron seems like the person clearly who actually believes in urbanism, believes in 15-minute cities, and things that can make it easier to get around the city as well. Competition just isn't very good. Then in D5, we went with Nilu Jenks. And that is interesting, right - so maybe I get your take on that rather than keep grandstanding here with our endorsements - but we liked Nilu a lot, but then it turned out The Stranger went with ChrisTiana ObeySumner, who we didn't get a chance to interview, otherwise we might have been so inclined potentially - just couldn't get that scheduled. So we ended up going with Nilu, who is pretty strong on most of our issues - was clear she was for housing abundance. And we didn't love some of her police takes, but we thought she was the best candidate we interviewed. And then The Seattle Times went with Cathy Moore. D5 is a weird race because Cathy Moore is now the de facto business chamber candidate, but there aren't as clear of lines. Did you have anything on that or should I keep going? [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: I think you should keep going and I will chime in at the end. But I do agree that is a race with a number of very interesting candidates that I think are all worthy of looking into. And I think looking deeper into, particularly ChrisTiana ObeySumner and what they're doing is warranted. [00:05:36] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we're gonna continue to try to get that interview scheduled, so there's always potential in the general - it can be different. Also, who knows who's gonna make it through that primary, so it could be a very interesting field - there's a lot of candidates who have a decent shot. Tye Reed also has the Transit Riders Union endorsement and some other progressive endorsements, and is running probably farthest to the left. We wrote in our write-up that we liked Tye as well, but we just thought Nilu had the stronger chance in the general and also a little bit more of a bridge builder. Then moving on to D6, we went with Dan Strauss. We weren't terribly excited about it. He's been someone who's definitely tacked to the center and to the right. And his district has too, so maybe that's just survivalism, but we don't think those votes are good - I'm thinking of his recent vote that gave Ann Davison the power to lock poor people and drug users on the street. It just seemed like a forced vote - there wasn't actually a treatment plan and a diversion plan offered, but on pinky swearing - I don't know how you would take that pinky swear from Ann Davison. So that was a culmination of a continuing slide to the right, especially on safety. And he's been all right as Land Use Chair, but also has moved fairly slowly. But compared to Pete Hanning, his main competition, Dan's still clearly better so we went with Dan. And then D7, we went with Andrew Lewis. We thought Andrew Lewis and Dan Strauss were very similar - they both reflected as progressives and there was always questions about how progressive they really are, but I think Andrew's done a better job than Dan at defining himself and taking some brave votes here and there - he's been more accessible in explaining his waffles, rather than waffle-and-hide - I think that waffling is indicative of his kind of process to get somewhere. I'm not sure, always, what Dan's thinking. So we went with Lewis. The people running against Lewis also are all running pretty far right. It wasn't like there was someone who was gunning for The Urbanist endorsement in that race. But I think Lewis, as Chair of the Homelessness Committee, has done some good stuff and been very clear about trying to set up a alternate response and really hammering on that, so he's definitely worthy of a second term. We also endorsed in King County Council. One really hard race for us to endorse - because we had so many candidates we liked and we really went back and forth about how to do it - we ultimately decided not to do a dual. But in District 4 of the King County Council, which is Northwest Seattle, we went with Becka Johnson Poppe. And she works at King County now as a Budget and Policy Director, and that experience pushed her over the top for us. She's someone who already can hit the ground running. She knows this stuff inside-out and she has credibility - she is a progressive and has pushed on stuff. And one thing we're really watching on the King County Council is Metro Transit service - it's not where it was pre-pandemic, there's less frequency. And she's someone who's been clear about county-wide Transportation Benefit District, which could fund bus service and get us back to that pre-pandemic level eventually. Oddly, the King County Council's been dragging their feet on that and letting obstacles stand in the way rather than solve those obstacles, which is always frustrating to see. I think getting some new people in there, maybe they can take more of a problem-solving approach rather than - We can't get enough bus drivers, so I guess we're gonna accept mediocrity from our transit delivery. [00:08:32] Crystal Fincher: If that would have been a dual endorsement, who would have been the other? [00:08:36] Doug Trumm: Probably Jorge Barón. The vote didn't go that way, so I couldn't say for certain how it would have went. We liked all three candidates in that race, so I think it would probably have been Jorge - who got in late, but has an incredible record as far as leading [Northwest] Immigrant Rights Project. He's led that organization, has done incredible work. We certainly heard from him how he was going to apply that background to advocating for people of color communities in the county and understanding their issues better. And even though you're not gonna be determining that policy at the county level, you are doing a lot of policy that still affects people's livelihood. So liked Jorge Barón - he ended up getting The Seattle Times endorsement, he's pretty progressive for a Seattle Times endorsement. It might just be a reflection of three pretty progressive people in the race. Did The Stranger also go with Jorge? [00:09:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, he nailed what many candidates don't usually nail, which is getting both The Times and The Stranger endorsement. That doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it is usually a very encouraging sign for that candidate. But you're right, this is a race where there are only good choices. And so it just depends on your personal preferences and who you think can best carry out the vision - three solid candidates, each with impressive resumes and impressive experience. [00:09:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the third being Sarah Reyneveld, who got the Transit Riders Union endorsement, and I think a handful of labor endorsements. And has also been someone who's been active on transit issues - that countywide Transportation Benefit District, or other funding measures, to get the county back on track. Another open seat in the County Council in District 8, a more West Seattle-type area all the way to Burien and Tukwila. We went with Teresa Mosqueda, which was an easy choice for us, especially after her main competition - Burien Mayor Sofia Aragon - has been on this get-the-homeless-people-out-of-our-city-and-not-provide-services tangent now. So Teresa Mosqueda has been a great City Councilmember in Seattle, and obviously it'd be tough to see her go. She has a clear plan of how she's going to continue working on these issues at the county - transit, housing, healthcare, and childcare kind of being the pillars of her platform. And yeah, she's just someone who got a lot done, including JumpStart, which was the biggest step forward for progressive tax reform in Seattle in maybe ever. So I think that kind of resume is tough to beat. [00:10:49] Crystal Fincher: And that makes sense. There are a number of races for people to choose from this year - definitely going to be reshaping what the Seattle City Council looks like, with so many vacancies and so many open seats and new candidates that are going to be coming aboard. I think it's a solid group of endorsements. There are arguments that can be made for some other candidates in some of those races. I think District 5 is one of those where there are a number of good choices. You talked about Tye Reed, who was instrumental in the passage of social housing in Seattle - making that happen, getting that passed, and has been an organizer for a while around a number of different issues in the city. No one can question Tye's dedication to these issues and real personal investment - and making sure it can get better. We talked about ChrisTiana ObeySumner and Nilu Jenks, so we'll see how that race turns out - that's going to be another interesting one to check out. So we'll leave that there. We'll probably include links to other endorsing entities - just as you try to make up your mind as a listener and a voter - just to give you resources there to assist with those. Also want to talk about a number of other things, but we will go to this brief story about a drive-by shooting - evidently, sheriff deputies were on-site. There's not much that's been reported, and it really seems like the reporter dictated an initial statement from the police and didn't ask any questions. I'll read it to you, and then we can talk about it. Title - Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police Say. A person was killed during a drive-by shooting while King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check early Saturday morning in Federal Way. Officers were attempting to check on the person seen behind a property in the 3900 block of South 320th Street shortly before 3 a.m. when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. Sheriff's spokesperson, Sergeant Eric White said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene. Deputies followed the two vehicles but they got away. No arrests had been made as of Saturday afternoon. Several businesses are located in the area of the shooting. That's the whole story. That's quite an interesting tale. What is your initial reaction to this, Doug? [00:13:16] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's a head scratcher - have a story, we don't have a lot to go on. It tears down the mythology of what policing can do, especially with us rolling back our police chase limitations and letting police go hog wild in these chases again - at this past session at the State Legislature - because of pushback from the police lobbying forces. Theoretically, they were gonna do these chases and catch people exactly like this. They saw someone doing a drive-by shooting and they were in their cars, conceivably - this is the perfect time to do that chase. And yeah, it didn't work out, so it just underscores that using police chases is such a uncertain and certainly dangerous type of way to try to apprehend criminals when you can easily just ID the car and catch up with them later. And there's so many pedestrians and other bystanders that die in these chases - there really has to be a good chance of a good outcome, like some sort of win, to deal with that collateral damage. That's the first thing that popped into my mind. And the drive-by was apparently someone else. All these police press releases, reported with very little critical eye - when police are involved, they put it in passive voice and passive action. But because of that way they write the press releases, you wonder - Did the police open fire? Did they do anything? - we don't have that information yet. It was reported as a drive-by, so one would assume it wasn't just police opening fire during a wellness check. Were these people involved in the wellness check at all? - you end up with more questions than you have answers. In real-life situations, you realize there's so much that could go wrong. [00:14:42] Crystal Fincher: So many questions I have - a person was killed during a drive-by. Okay, so King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check. First thing, Federal Way has its own police department - doesn't contract with King County for its deputies. So these deputies, for some reason, responded instead of the Federal Way Police Department. Was it in response to a call? Who called it in? But they decide to go by themselves. Why were they on scene? So they were attempting to check out a person behind a property, they say, when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. I notice it doesn't say those shots came from the vehicle - it's vaguely worded and isn't useful, especially when there's so much that can be consequential, based on their characterization of what happens. Then the Sheriff's spokesperson said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene - I'm wondering if this reporter did anything but dictate this statement - did they ask anything about this? This is just a very vaguely worded statement. Deputies followed the two vehicles, but they got away. Again, this is a situation where even with the police pursuit law, they would have been able to follow them, but they said they needed a rollback to be able to catch criminals like this, and evidently that's not the case. What happened here? So no arrests have been made, no information has been shared that we've seen. What was the make and model of the car? Any description of the people inside the car? What came of that whole thing? There's no information. So if we take what they say at face value, what a spectacular failure in public safety. You have two officers on-site, and a person still gets murdered according to this account? All the excuses of they need more officers, they need more funding, we need to be able to have the officers nearby, on-site to protect people - there were two here, and they couldn't protect one person. How does that happen? Why does that happen? What was the situation? Was something missed? Did they not see people prowling in the area? What a failure. They assume that the shots came from this vehicle that killed this person. How do we not have a description of the car, a license plate, the people inside, any followup on that? Where does this case stand? None of that information provided. If police departments want to restore trust, if they want to have people work for them - those are the kind of answers that people want to see. Do people want to work for a department that can't stop a murder when two deputies are on scene, that can't apprehend a perpetrator when they have a zero-second response time and they can immediately respond? What is the purpose and utility here? And are they doing the work to figure out how to keep this from happening again, to figure out how to actually ensure safety? Unfortunately, too often that is not the case. And that's if you take everything just at face value here. It would be great to see some supporting information - some dash cam, body-worn camera video - just to see what happened, how this happened, and does the evidence match up with the narrative here? There is work that the Federal Way Police Department needs to do, that many departments need to do, and that the King County Sheriff's Office needs to do to rebuild trust within the community. [00:17:54] Doug Trumm: Why even run the story if you have so little information? It plays right into the police narrative. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep, definitely a decision that The Seattle Times should dive into and ask themselves a lot of questions - about how this came to be published and what information they were relying on. Also wanna talk about the City of Burien and their continuing shame, really. The council majority deciding that not only do they wanna refuse the offer of shelter - the million dollars, 30-some odd Pallet shelters on provision, 100-ish parking spaces to backfill some space that a dealership was using. They are turning all that down and moving towards just a blanket camping ban in the city, which we've seen fail in so many other cities, but they are determined to do it themselves. This again is happening on a 4-3 council vote. The council majority, unfortunately, is winning this. What do you see happening here? What's your reaction to this, Doug? [00:18:57] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's pretty sickening. I don't know that folks necessarily saw this coming. We saw some progressives elected onto the Burien City Council, so there was some hope that they were actually going to be looking towards making progress on this issue, doing things that actually work in the long term - rather than sweeping it under the rug and pushing it to other cities. But the four centrists on Burien City Council continue to hammer on this issue - they're not taking this offer of help that very few other cities in the region have, with so few strings attached, to a million dollars worth of housing for their homeless people. It's the type of thing that makes your head explode because - if you're mad about homeless people, having more roofs over the people's heads is the most direct way of dealing with that. And they had a million process complaints, like - Oh, what's gonna happen in five years or whatever? We're gonna be on the hook. It's just that type of thing that they wouldn't ask for any other offer of a million dollars from the county - suddenly they want a 20-year plan for this when they have no plan themselves. It's really, like you said, shameful. They've lost the majority of their Burien Planning Commission, as you've talked about in this podcast before, because of this move when the mayor decided to remove the head of the Planning Commission and then some other Planning Commissioners quit in protest. We all covered all that, but the one thing that's gonna happen if that commission continues to be unfilled is it's gonna slow down the production of housing in Burien - large projects have to go to that commission. If that happens, you're exasperating your housing shortage - they're creating the problem that they're complaining about. It's maddening, it's not treating these folks as human beings - I think it was Stephanie Mora referring that they should poop in doggy bags like they're dogs - it's clearly dehumanizing language. I think should be disqualifying for holding this office, but hopefully they lose their seats. For now, they're the people making policy for a city of about 50,000 people - it's crazy. [00:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it absolutely is. And as you talked about, Mayor Sofia Aragon, Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling, Councilmember Jimmy Matta have been part of making these decisions that are unconscionable. This is really a depiction of this soft, kind of progressive rhetoric with a wink and a nod. In previous statements, they had talked like - We definitely want to sweep, but we'll do it in a nice way, in a compassionate way, in the progressive way. But when it comes down to it, they really weren't interested in that at all. They just wanted to get people away and using very dehumanizing language. The real tell is - the place where they usually make an excuse and get away with it - We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If we could, we would, but we just can't - we don't have anything, I'm sorry. So the only choice we have is to sweep because we just don't have the choice to do anything else. King County basically called that bluff and said - Okay, we've got a million dollars for you. We've got Pallet shelters ready to go. We've got a location that we can partner with. And hey, this dealership is gonna be impacted? We'll provide 100 parking spaces, which is larger than their inventory. - every objection, every excuse, every hurdle that they had was basically responded to by the county. And by the way, kudos to Dow Constantine and his office for taking a stance and for trying to constructively work with the City of Burien. There sometimes have been criticisms for Dow doing that in South County. He is doing it here. And Burien and the Council majority - they turned all that down. They could have already housed the people there. This would make a meaningful, visible, substantial difference in their situation overnight - once this is implemented - and they just decided not to. They're just looking for a ban. Bans are wholly ineffective, as the prior sweeps were wholly ineffective. And they just moved people from one location to another and making, as you said, the problem they're allegedly trying to fix even worse. This is just a continuing shame and negligence from the council. These people are their constituents - whether someone has a home or not, these are Burien residents - and their job is to help them and to serve them. And they refuse to do so. And it's shameful. It's pathetic. [00:22:59] Doug Trumm: Hopefully they come to their senses - this 4-3 split has been pretty durable. [00:23:03] Crystal Fincher: We will see what the primary elections hold. Sofia Aragon is running currently for King County Council against Teresa Mosqueda. I don't think anyone really expects Sofia to win this race. But it is really important to make sure people don't just rest on their laurels and sit on the sidelines. And even in this primary, even when it seems like one person is clearly more qualified than the other, you actually need to vote and make your own choice. [00:23:28] Doug Trumm: These are like conservative trial balloons - they're testing the waters - can Democrats get away with very conservative Trump-esque rhetoric, dehumanizing homeless people, pandering to cops in completely unaccountable ways? They want to see if that works. I don't know if Sofia is connecting these two - it seems like she would be when she declares for office for the King County Council race. But maybe her calculation is this makes her more popular. And I think it's really incumbent upon people who don't agree with that to actually turn out to an odd-year election, because it's validating that approach. And you're going to see more and more of it if people get rewarded for that. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: That's blatantly the calculation that they're making. Kevin Schilling has an opponent - Patricia Hudson - running against him right now, who is the progressive choice who is endorsed by King County Democrats. I mean, they received a very unusual letter of rebuke from the King County Executive's office, also from the 33rd District Democrats, which encompasses part of Burien. And the other part of Burien is the 34th, who also submitted an open public letter of rebuke. Anyone who calls themself a Democrat on record, locally, is outwardly opposing it. And it hasn't stopped them. In fact, they seem to be using that as cred. So this is important. These are still the people in office. They do need to be held accountable, and people need to make their voices heard. Another disillusioning development we've seen over the past couple of weeks is Ed Murray evidently popping up at political events around the region and definitely catching a number of people off guard. There seem to be some people who are okay with it. But just as a reminder - Ed Murray, former legislator, former mayor of Seattle, had to resign in disgrace as mayor of Seattle after credible allegations of molestation of underage people who were under his care and also potentially a family member. Also troubling was his response using someone's background against them - they were going through hard times as unhoused youth working with LGBTQ youth, who oftentimes very unfortunately are disowned by family, kicked out of the house, and left in very vulnerable positions - to then cite that vulnerable position as a reason why someone may not be believed was really victim blaming. The entire community, who has so many people who have been victimized - was a re-victimization to hear that. But he's been out of the public eye for a while and seems to be doing a soft launch to get back in. What's your reaction to this? [00:26:04] Doug Trumm: With someone like that who's had such a long political career, they don't start going to political events just for fun. They're plotting getting back into politics. He's clearly testing the waters here, seeing if he can get back into politics. He's seeing if he can get acceptance enough to the point where he can run for something again or be a campaign manager. I don't think it should happen. And it's also not a pleasant experience for folks who did have a negative reaction to his handling of that situation - making it very hard for his accuser to come forward because he was using the whole weight of his office against that person. That's not how you handle it if you're a leader - you don't victim blame. Luckily, he finally resigned, but he was going to hold on to that office with everything he had. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: I also think that's a low bar. It's wholly inappropriate for him to be in these. There's been no atonement. There's been no acknowledgment of what he's done. And while I don't believe in throwing people away forever, there has been nothing to indicate that he acknowledges what he's done, that he's attempted to make amends to his victims. In fact, that seems quite the opposite. He's just hoping to pick up where he left off. I think it is going to be really interesting to survey who is okay with him being at political events, and at their political events, and who is not - and what that says about different people as candidates. Who is finding this troubling and who is finding it just fine? I'm curious about where he does feel welcome and why, and what that says about those spaces. We will see how this continues to unfold throughout the city. And if you spot Ed Murray, shoot me a message. Also, a pretty significant court ruling this week came in about encampment sweeps, particularly about the City of Seattle - Seattle has been sweeping too broadly and is unconstitutional in its application. When there's clearly a risk to public safety or they are blocking completely a sidewalk, there is cause for encampment sweeps. But they've been doing it too much and for reasons that are too broad - they need to effectively offer shelter and provide shelter if they're going to sweep people. Without that provision of shelter, there's nowhere else for someone to go. It is illegal to say you can't exist here - in essence, you're saying you can't exist anywhere. And this court ruling was powerful with some pretty clear statements calling the current policy dehumanizing, destabilizing, and counterproductive. How did you see this? [00:28:31] Doug Trumm: The two individuals who brought it - their story was so tragic - they mentioned losing wedding rings, family heirlooms, because they've just been repeatedly swept while they're getting services or going to work or whatever. One person mentioned losing their work boots and then that jeopardized their employment and that sunk them deeper into the spiral of homelessness. They kept getting these last-second-notice sweeps because they were supposedly an obstruction. If the definitions are broad, they don't have anywhere to go. The ruling says the two main ways they were bending this rule is they were defining the blockages - 50% blockage, it becomes 100% blockage in their eyes, or even a 30% blockage - because some of these sidewalks in downtown are fairly wide. And unfortunately, some sidewalks in our city are pretty narrow. Often folks aren't trying to block the whole sidewalks. They're trying to go somewhere they can and not fear that their stuff's gonna get snatched up and taken away. They lost all these valuable possessions, including their wedding ring. What are we doing here? This cruel unusual punishment that rises to a constitutional violation and this judge issues this ruling. Now the City's gonna have to rethink how they do this. The other main way they avoid the Boise ruling, Martin v. Boise, is they say that anything in the park is an obstruction - because someone wants to use that particular part of the park, even if it's some secluded, say in the forest, in a large park when 99% of the park is still accessible. Part of Mayor Harrell's campaign pledges to clear the parks. Some of the parks are clearer than they were when he took office, but others still have encampments and it goes to this whack-a-mole approach of you're constantly chasing people around the city at great expense and great suffering to some individuals, like the two that brought the suit, and we haven't made durable progress. [00:30:11] Crystal Fincher: Another event this week with Sound Transit - Mayor Harrell is up for a Denny Station on West Lake Avenue again. How'd this happen? [00:30:19] Doug Trumm: Hey, I gotta give credit to grassroots organizers there - there's a lot of people involved. Seattle Subway sent, I think, over 6,000 letters via online petition. Uptown Alliance got a lot of letters because they were also very dismayed to see that the station on the eastern edge of their neighborhood was suddenly gonna disappear - at a whim - six, seven years into this process. And what was happening here, if you didn't follow this story, is there's gonna be obviously this new Ballard Link Light Rail line that will go from Downtown to Ballard. And on the way, it's gonna pick up Denny Triangle, it's gonna pick up South Lake Union, it's gonna pick up Uptown. And these were gonna be really high-use stations, but there's one problem in that some of the corporations and real estate interests in Denny Triangle were not excited about the station location. Folks like Amazon, Vulcan, were lobbying against this location because they didn't like the closure of Westlake Avenue, they said, which South Transit at this point in this process was estimating a full closure of four years. They're putting the station right under Westlake so they do have to mine it, it's gonna be closed for that part. But they realized that they could put decking over the top - they didn't propose that initially 'cause it's more complicated and expensive. But they realized they could do that, obviously, if the alternative is putting some station two blocks to the west, which is what the proposal that came forward out of this last-minute wrangling - wasn't in the DEIS, the draft environmental impact statement. So that means it requires more planning and process. So there's two public meetings online that Sound Transit is hosting - I think one of them is today and the other one is a couple of days from now - we can link to that in the notes maybe. But because this shifted-west alternative came forward late in the process, was proposed as a way to alleviate these concerns from corporations and real estate - they had to do this process. The mayor backed it at a meeting last month, I think it was, but then last week he walked that back. He said - You know what? We really need to keep the South Lake Union Station because what happens with shifting the station west is it gets super close to the other station on Aurora, which is a major bus artery. - so that's where a lot of people were going to transfer from bus to rail. And it would put you closer to Uptown too if you're headed to the eastern part of Uptown. So the shifted-west alternative consolidates the two stations into one. And that's what sort of set off all these alarm bells with Seattle Subway and Uptown Alliance and the urbanists and others that - Hey, why are we dropping a station? And they presented to Uptown Alliance - Sound Transit did two days ago, I think it was - and apparently the consolidating those two stations, they shared their ridership analysis, which was new information. It's gonna cost about 10,000 riders - someone who was at that presentation told me. And that's a pretty big deal - 10,000 daily riders. So the mayor didn't have that information last week when he made his statement - he said he was still waiting for ridership to confirm his decision, but he said he's starting to lean Westlake and just wants a good mitigation plan, which I don't know why we couldn't start there from the first place - because we're seeing across, especially the Ballard Link Station, that there's lots of changes that are happening because people don't like the construction period and don't think the mitigation plan is very good. And there may be something to that. The mitigation plan should be really good, but rather than focus on the mitigation, we've been just tossing around all these different ideas and extending the - what that means is you have to do a whole new study and that delays the whole project. So maybe small progress there on the Denny Station decision - we can focus on how to do that right and get a good construction mitigation plan, rather than last-minute options that are un-vetted and are going to require another year or two of study. [00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 21st, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm, that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on all platforms - Bluesky, SPILL, Twitter, all of them, Mastodon - @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

This week in review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola Erica Barnett! They discuss Everett's OceanGate Inc.'s submersible tragedy, King County Regional Homelessness Authority turmoil, Burien's continuing crisis, a poll showing residents favor a capital gains tax for Seattle, Senior Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell leaving the mayor's office, what may happen to the officer who hit and killed Jaahnavi Kandula, and local publications not crediting Erica and Publicola for their work.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources “Jorge Barón, Candidate for King County Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Homelessness Authority Distances Itself from Lived Experience Coalition, Won't Re-Bid Entire System This Year as Planned” from PubliCola   “Homelessness Authority Attempts to Wrest Control Over Controversial, Consequential Oversight Board” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Burien planning commissioner removal is latest in string of encampment drama” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “Burien Decides to Take No Action on Encampment on Its Property, Opening Path for Private Sweep” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Poll shows Seattle residents support citywide capital gains tax” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times   “Mayor Harrell's niece out as senior deputy mayor” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “Seattle Police Officer Was Driving 74 MPH When He Hit and Killed 23-Year-Old Pedestrian” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Jorge Barón about his campaign for King County Council District 4, why he decided to run, how 17 years at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared him for the role, and his thoughts on generating progressive revenue for county services, drug possession and substance use disorder, addressing overcrowding in the King County Jail, improving frontline worker wages and workforce issues, air quality and climate change, and the importance of oversight in genuine community engagement and policy implementation. 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: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:46] Erica Barnett: Great to be here. [00:01:47] Crystal Fincher: This has been one wild week of news. I guess we will start out talking about the Everett submersible tragedy - what we now know is a tragedy - and just an odd situation. And to me, really, the height of hubris. What did you see as this unfolded and what are your thoughts? [00:02:08] Erica Barnett: Yeah, hubris is such a great word to describe what happened in this tragedy involving five people who went down in the submersible that - the stories are coming out now about the extent to which it was not safe and people were, within the company, were blowing the whistle. A guy was let go after saying - This, we need to do more safety analysis of this submarine, submersible rather - I don't really know the difference but it's a submersible. And it seemed like a pretty unsafe situation for everybody involved, yet the owner of the company essentially said safety checks are stupid, regulation is anti-innovation, and I'm going to go down in the sub that's run by a PlayStation controller, and everything's going to be good. And for the sake of what? It's deep sea tourism for rich people and they can call themselves explorers all they want, but the Titanic where they were going to - where they ultimately met their fate - is one of the most explored deep sea artifacts known to man. So this just, it just felt like such an avoidable tragedy if the people who ran this company, the people who surrounded the guy who ran this company, were willing to just put their foot down and say no. But of course, it's very hard to say no to billionaires with big egos - look at Elon Musk and his plan for going to Mars and space exploration and his exploding rockets. [00:03:44] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely is hubris. It absolutely was a tragedy several years in the making, and this guy believed his own hype despite the fact that his craft was the only one like it, it wasn't certified for the job that it was actually doing. He thought the certifications were frivolous and just got in the way of innovation. And even his industry association wrote him, basically begging him to stop taking passengers and to really reevaluate what he was doing with that craft. And even if you do want to move forward and support innovation, they're like - Yeah, okay, then go down by yourself - don't take paying passengers who aren't engineers or explorers themselves. This is really irresponsible, this is going to end in a tragedy. And it absolutely did. I just, I feel bad for the 19 year old who evidently had a bad feeling - wisely - looking at the facts of the situation, the disclaimer that they were asked to sign, and his relatives said that he basically went to please his dad. That's really unfortunate. But my goodness the hubris involved, and it's just a reminder that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do something. And take a look at - is this really something we should be doing? Why are we going down to look at the Titanic? It's basically a graveyard at this point in time. What are we getting from doing that? I just - there's so much that is beyond me with this. [00:05:16] Erica Barnett: Yeah, there was discussion about what the - in one of the articles I was reading - about what the purpose of this was. And I think their stated justification was - Well, we're studying the way that the Titanic wreckage is decaying over time. But they were going down every year - that's BS - it was, it's an ego trip. And I think this is a general lesson that people who think they're smarter than experts could take to heart, which is that expertise matters and experience doing something matters. And if you are saying the laws of physics don't apply to you, you should talk to some people who know about the laws of physics. And if you're saying engineers are boring, which is a paraphrase of something that Stockton Rush, the head of the company, said - he said, We don't want a bunch of 50-something year old guys, we want young innovators. Those 50-something year old guys were the ones telling him that this wasn't safe and that's not what he wanted to hear. But it turns out, they actually knew what they were talking about. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: They did. And it just reminds me so much of - we've heard so many - really tech entrepreneurs most of all - talking about disruption, talking about how regulations and traditional processes are just passe and they get in the way of innovation. And all of these regulations are unnecessary and bad and get in the way of - these entrepreneurs just trying to do their thing and innovate. And they're there for a reason. We have seen how so many of those tales wind up and it turns out they weren't doing anything mind blowing, technologically groundbreaking. They were just looking at different ways to exploit the system. And it feels like this was another thing where he was looking for some loopholes to get through, felt really smart for supposedly figuring it out. But there's a reason that happens - regulations, as they say, are written in blood. And here's yet another example. So I just hope people learn the lesson with this, and we don't see another replay - we'll see how that works out. I also want to talk about the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, which just has a lot going on. What is this week's news? [00:07:29] Erica Barnett: Boy, where to start - there's going to be a meeting today. So I guess I'll start in reverse chronological order - there's going to be a meeting today to essentially take over control of the Continuum of Care Board, which is an obscure but very important body that oversees federal funding that comes in from HUD, but that had a big controversy earlier this year - as I reported - when one of the members of the board shouted down another member over the proposed appointment of a sex offender who had targeted teenage girls to the board. That blew up in a big way, it got picked up all over right wing media - which really distorted the story quite a bit and demonized this volunteer board member. And now I think in the fallout from that and with the departure of former CEO Marc Dones, the KCRHA is trying to get control over that board in a literal way. They're adopting a new charter that essentially takes away some of the board's powers to appoint its own members and that sort of thing. So that is happening today. The KCRHA was also supposed to rebid the entire homelessness system. So basically start from zero, we're going to rebid all these contracts, it might be a whole new set of players - that was supposed to happen next year. And it's not going to happen now until at least the year after that. So there's just a lot of retrenchment going on with the departure of Marc Dones. Helen Howell is the interim CEO and I think that she is trying to do a lot of damage control. They're distancing themselves from this group called the Lived Experience Coalition that had a lot of power in the old structure. So there's a lot of just change and churn happening at the organization right now. [00:09:05] Crystal Fincher: There's a lot of change and churn. We've also seen an op-ed earlier this month, from King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn, calling for basically the end of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. Other people I've seen - who consider themselves progressive - also wondering what the purpose is, what the future holds. Is it really going to continue being such a lopsided or Seattle-heavy organization? Are other suburban cities also going to contribute? What do you think the future looks like for this organization? [00:09:42] Erica Barnett: I think the organization is in a position where it has to succeed - that's not to say that it will - but I think these calls for it to just be evaporated or for it to be defunded are pretty, frankly, stupid and beside the point. Because those conversations have already happened, we decided to create this authority - there were progressive objections at the time too, but here we are. And so I think now what the authority really needs is support from the county and the city. And one thing that has really hindered it is not just lack of buy-in from suburban cities, because suburban cities - it's true, they are not on board with what the authority wants to do by and large, they have various types of objections to various aspects including the whole philosophy of Housing First. But I think the bigger problem is the KCRHA does not have money to be anything other than an administrative pass-through organization at this point. And I think it over promised based on wishful thinking about funding and about what it could do with the money that it had. And they promised that they would be a transformational force to reduce and end homelessness within a very short period of time. And we've heard those promises before and they never come true because, in part, because there's just - we don't put the funding behind it. So the amount of funding they have is basically the same as existed before the RHA was even stood up. So it just stands to reason that they're not going to make a transformational system with the same amount of money. To me, these calls to just dissolve it are beside the point, and also Reagan Dunn and others who are saying this don't actually have an alternative proposal other than just don't do anything. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it also seems like we've seen friction between the Homelessness Authority and some of its subcontractors or organizations who are doing some of the groundwork. Has that been a hindrance, and does it look like it may continue to be? [00:11:39] Erica Barnett: It's an interesting question. For example, the authority is doing an investigation into the Low Income Housing Institute - I'm not sure when that the results of that are going to come out. And maybe that's justified, but launching into investigations and focusing on that kind of stuff - that creates obviously tremendous friction between the authority and its contractors - which, again, maybe that's fine if there's problems there. But it does feel like it has been such an adversarial force. And I think that Marc Dones came in with a lot of criticism for the existing system and existing providers and wanting to reinvent the wheel. And as it turns out, existing providers in many cases actually know what they're doing and are experts. And we were talking about expertise - it is important not to alienate everybody that you're going to have to work with that makes up the entire homelessness system. So I think there's a lot of broken trust there that's going to have to be rebuilt. And I'm not saying that means don't investigate agencies where there are problems, but there has just been an adversarial relationship between the authority and a lot of these groups that is going to have to be repaired for the system to work. [00:12:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We will continue to follow what happens with the Regional Homelessness Authority. Now let's talk about Burien - my goodness, Burien. [00:13:02] Erica Barnett: Oh, Burien. What are we going to do with you? [00:13:06] Crystal Fincher: So what has been happening this week in Burien? [00:13:10] Erica Barnett: Oh, goodness - just to briefly recap - the City of Burien, of course, has failed to do anything to meaningfully address and help a relatively small group of people who are living unsheltered in Burien, moved them around from place to place. And last week, they censured and removed from his position the head of the Planning Commission for Burien - because he essentially told the group of encampment residents who were living outside the library about another spot where they could legally be, that's also owned by the city. And I did not attend this meeting, but I heard it was incredibly ugly and that there were tirades from the dais about the role this planning commissioner played in helping these unsheltered people go somewhere safe. And the Planning Commission, or commission of any small city, is - you could say it's not really a big deal. Who even knows about this commission? What do they do? But it's a way of silencing people for what they do in their private lives and punishing them for what they do in their private lives. And these are volunteer commissioners - who show up and do the work. And they could now be censured for stuff they say on Twitter, conceivably, or any sort of actions that the city council and the mayor of Burien don't agree with. And that is just an absurd silencing of free speech, among other things. And I think it's really, really troubling on a much larger scale than just the City of Burien. And also, the city turned down a million dollars from King County that was no strings attached to actually help the people who are living homeless in Burien who are now scattered - to the four winds, essentially - across Burien and across downtown Burien. They had an opportunity to spend this money however they wanted. And they said, we don't want the money. [00:15:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and have they even officially said - We don't want the money, or have they just not even bothered to respond to the offer? [00:15:12] Erica Barnett: That's true. I'm just taking that as a "we don't want the money" because you have this offer out here - they're so, in my view from watching the story - they are, they're just so dead set against King County at this point that they won't even work with them is my impression. And I think they just want this problem to go away. I think they want to grandstand and tell homeless people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps or suggest that they're not really from Burien, which is not true from people who have worked with these particular individuals for years. And again, it's a small group of people that are being demonized and singled out for existing homeless in a small city that doesn't have a lot of resources. So a million dollars could have gone a long way. [00:15:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, a million dollars plus 35 Pallet shelters ready to go - on offer. And in addition to that, it is just confounding - basically to your point - whether or not they take it up, they've effectively declined it. And this - the saddest thing, two sad things. One, this is a result of a split council majority. And we're used to hearing this kind of rhetoric from MAGA people, from super right wing, far-right kind of extremists. But right now, we're seeing this from - a Democrat is part of this conservative majority on the council - and just really disappointing to hear how extreme the rhetoric has been. You talked about coming from the dais - there's a clip of Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling, there was a clip of another councilmember - just really disheartening and kind of stomach turning to watch. [00:16:50] Erica Barnett: Unprofessional - I would say - I just I don't know how you can have a reasonable conversation with a councilmember who said - not during this conversation, but previously - that people living on the piece of land that former planning commissioner Charles Schaefer suggested should just go to the bathroom in the dog bags that are provided for dogs. And this was in saying that she didn't want to provide a porta potty for people living unsheltered at the site. It's just heartless, dehumanizing stuff that I think is inappropriate to be coming from the dais of a city council. So it's hard to see where they go from here. And I will also add - I neglected to mention one thing that also happened - is that a lot of other city commissioners and board members resigned in protest of Charles Schaefer's removal from the Planning Commission. It's just really unprecedented stuff over in Burien right now. And yeah, I think they're - their elections are coming up and we'll see. But I think that they're at an impasse right now. [00:17:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it does appear that they're at an impasse. And again, sweeping people does not do anything to solve the issue of them not having homes, which is the main problem. And what we saw - yet again, for the third time - is after being swept from a location, they still have nowhere to go, so they move somewhere else. Burien is not big - the area that we're talking about is not big. And this is actually not a big population of people that we're dealing with. This is one of those rare situations that really seems solvable, particularly with the partnership from the county. It really does seem like it's possible to move the unhoused people in Burien into shelter, to work with the people who are there, and to get that done. And they just won't - they just refuse to. I will say that there are three councilmembers in the minority who have been doing the hard work - Cydney Moore, who we will have an upcoming interview with on a Tuesday topical show, but who was also up for censure in that special meeting where they kicked out the planning commissioner, Hugo Garcia and Sarah Moore have been working and trying to get the council to move to take action. But when the majority does not feel that way, you really can't do anything. So we saw this week that one of the few remaining plots of public land where people would be able to go just had some hostile architecture pop up - a bunch of rocks and some campaign signs of a candidate who is very hostile to the homeless - popped up in that strip of dirt. So we'll see what comes next, but it certainly is really sad to watch. Also making news this week is a poll about a local capital gains tax for Seattle. What do Seattle residents prefer? [00:19:36] Erica Barnett: They prefer a capital gains tax, apparently. There are caveats, right? So it's a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks and bonds over $250,000. And according to this poll, which was reported in The Seattle Times, the level of support is over half and less than a third oppose the idea, and then the rest are undecided. But that's pretty darn strong support for a new tax in the City of Seattle. We always hear about tax fatigue, but I think that when you propose a progressive tax - which a capital gains tax is rather than yet another sales tax that makes everything more expensive for everybody - people support it. [00:20:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, what are the prospects look like - this being introduced - is this something that may move soon in the City? [00:20:23] Erica Barnett: I'm not sure about the timeline, but I do think that if polling is happening on this, it is because it's something the City Council is talking about. We've discussed the capital gains tax in the past - the State Supreme Court upheld the state's capital gains tax this year, so I think that there is a lot of momentum for it. Alex Pedersen has proposed, recently, a 2% capital gains tax. Of course, he's going to be leaving the council, so I don't know if this is something that can happen this year. But I do think - the City has been desperately looking for progressive revenue sources to fund some of its priorities - facing big budget shortfalls in coming years. We need more funding. And that funding cannot just eternally come from property tax, which is also a regressive tax that renters end up paying as well. So I think that the prospects of this are pretty good. It's the first new progressive revenue proposal that's come about since the JumpStart Tax, which is a tax on big employers. So I think that taxing the rich, taxing big wealthy corporations that don't pay their fair share - I think these are very popular ideas in the City of Seattle. [00:21:35] Crystal Fincher: This is certainly going to be interesting - just because the City is facing a budget shortfall without this - there is talk of needing more revenue or needing to make some significant cuts. So this may be introduced right at the right time for City budget purposes. It'll be interesting to see, especially with someone like Councilmember Pedersen leading the charge for this, to see that this may be workable, to see what kind of coalition comes together around this. But we will keep our eyes on it. Also news this week - that's pretty significant, especially in wonky and hacky circles - is news that Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell is transitioning out of Mayor Harrell's administration. How did you see this? [00:22:20] Erica Barnett: Yeah, wow - it was big news, and it's been rumored for a couple weeks. And how did I see it? I see it as the power struggle within the mayor's office has landed in Tim Burgess's court. So Tim Burgess is the longtime advisor to Bruce Harrell - former city councilmember, works in the mayor's office, and is now going to be the deputy mayor. And he is much more of what I call a law-and-order person. He very much supports what I would call punitive approaches to low-level crimes - things like shoplifting, drug use, etc. And I think Monisha Harrell definitely had a different point of view and approach. She was and is much more oriented towards harm reduction, towards trying to figure out ways for example, drug users to get into recovery as opposed to going to jail. That's an oversimplification, but those are the fault lines within the mayor's office. And I think that the faction that's led by Tim Burgess has obviously won that battle. And I think perhaps because Bruce Harrell is probably more oriented to that point of view than he is to his niece's - Monisha Harrell's - point of view. What do you think? [00:23:26] Crystal Fincher: I think that's largely right. I think, especially at this point in time in the reporting that we've seen, reflects what I've known about Monisha for several years. When she came in - certainly for people who hadn't known about her - it may raise eyebrows to see a mayor appointing his niece. But when you look at Monisha's resume and list of accomplishments, she absolutely earned that position and deserved to be there. And has been behind a lot of statewide policy moving in a progressive direction - in terms of public safety, in terms of some police reforms, and trying to move into a better direction with these issues that we're dealing with right now in how we treat substance use and substance abuse. But she has been behind a lot of policy and isn't always trying to take credit out front, but has been there and has a reputation for being a person of her word. And I can just imagine that that is a complicated position to be in when you have some policy disagreements with your uncle, who is the mayor - you are the deputy mayor, you have some other really big personalities like Tim Burgess in that executive's office. And we see how things did shake out. And I don't think - and I haven't had discussions with Monisha about this, this is no inside information or anything, but just from an outsider perspective - it does seem like there was some significant misalignment. But it's a challenge and it's always a dilemma. And I know lots of people who go in, even if you disagree with the executive there, if you feel that you can make a positive contribution - and to be clear, Monisha wasn't going in saying, I disagree or anything, she's always signaled public alignment with Mayor Harrell - but it's a complicated position to be in. And I know she was probably just trying to do her best and get the job done. But when the ultimate decision is not yours, things can go a different way. And it looks like a lot of things have gone a different way in the City of Seattle. And a lot of things that we're still waiting on - she was on Hacks & Wonks talking about trying to stand up a Department of Public Safety, talking about standing up alternative responses so that you could have the most appropriate responder - that's not always going to be an armed cop responding, but someone, if it's a substance abuse crisis, if it's a mental health crisis - but things just seem to have gone sideways. So we'll see what she does next and where she lands. But I - with no friction or resistance in this mayor's office seemingly - kind of worrisome about the direction of public safety, especially as there is a SPOG contract being negotiated right now. Just wonder what's going to happen from here on out. [00:26:11] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I think - just real quickly - I think that an internal issue with Monisha leaving, within the City itself is, I hear from people in the departments on the second floor, all through City Hall that - the second floor, sorry, being City Council - but also just within the departments that Monisha was somebody that you could really work with, that she would sit down and listen. And listen - which is, and like you said, was a straight shooter, would not BS you, and would - was willing to change her perspective from learning new information. And I'm not sure that Burgess has necessarily shown himself to be that same type of person or personality. And yeah, I think this third department is probably going to still happen, but it may happen in a different way. And I'm not entirely confident that Burgess is going to be someone who changes his mind on beliefs that he has formed very, very firmly over many, many years about public safety. This is the guy that proposed criminalizing "aggressive panhandling" when he was on the City Council. So very, very different perspective from what Monisha brought to it. And just also, I wonder what's going to happen within the City itself when there isn't somebody like Monisha sitting down with folks and listening and saying - Okay, I hear you - and taking that back to the mayor's office. [00:27:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think sometimes people look at the mayor and the people who work for the mayor, and they think everybody is completely in alignment. And they're all just working towards the same goal. And that is frequently not the case. What you see is what the final adjudication is, what the final decision is - but a lot of times there's vehement debate, there's pushback, there's things that are mitigated before it gets out to the public. And you would be surprised sometimes how much difference someone pushing back internally can make in the way things turn out publicly. And I wish things would have gone differently, but here we are. And we will continue to pay attention to what is happening in the mayor's office. Also this week - got more information about what went into the officer fatally running over, basically, Jaahnavi Kandula a few months back. What happened here? [00:28:43] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I had been trying to get this information for several months about what actually happened, particularly how fast this officer was going - and finally had my third or fourth attempt at a record request fulfilled by the SPD, actually pretty quickly, because this case has been referred over to the King County Prosecutor. So what we learned, among other things, is that he was driving 74 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour zone immediately before he struck her. So he hit the brakes about two-thirds of a second before the impact. And so what we can tell from that is that he was going too fast for her to have possibly gotten out of the way - she did attempt to run, but it was too late. As I said, the investigation is now to some extent in the King County Prosecutor's office. SPD, of course, is doing - did its own internal investigation and has to decide whether to fire this guy and that could result in a whole series of appeals. So we'll see what happens with that. But one issue that's probably going to come up is this question of whether he had his siren on as he was approaching. I don't know that it would have made a difference, because he was already speeding when he was a block away. But in terms of policy, you're supposed to exercise due care. And part of that is having lights and sirens on. And the report says that he was chirping his siren sporadically as he went through intersections approaching the site of the collision. And that is, to my understanding, not the policy when you're doing emergency driving. And in any case, I don't know that SPD is going to find that it's - or the King County Prosecutor is going to find that it's appropriate to be going 75 in a 25 mile an hour zone, even when you are supposedly doing emergency driving to get to an emergency, which is also questionable for reasons that I've reported. [00:30:34] Crystal Fincher: Extremely questionable - just why that officer, and the policy of officers is to respond to overdose calls in the first place. I think it was just an unfortunate situation all the way around. It's not going to shock me, like so many times it doesn't shock me, if they come up with a finding that the officer didn't do anything punishable. But how we don't sit back and question every single element of this and understand that we can do better and we deserve better - if this doesn't spur that, I don't know what will. [00:31:07] Erica Barnett: I wouldn't be surprised to see them make an example of this guy and suggest that this is a one bad apple situation, but we'll see. [00:31:14] Crystal Fincher: We will see. And before we conclude today - I didn't put this in the list that we were going to talk about. But I want to talk about yet more examples this week - and I don't know why this happens so much with you - of your reporting being copied, plagiarized - [00:31:31] Erica Barnett: oh Lord. [00:31:32] Crystal Fincher: - without, and being uncredited. Why is it so hard for people to credit you? [00:31:38] Erica Barnett: I don't think it's a me problem - honestly. [00:31:41] Crystal Fincher: It is so not a you problem. [00:31:43] Erica Barnett: Well, no, no, no - what I mean is I think it's a small publication problem. But yeah, I do a lot of original reporting - last week I broke a bunch of stories and one of them was plagiarized by Ari Hoffman at The Post Millennial, which is a right wing site. And he just took my language, changed it slightly, took out - this was about the judge who ruled that police, essentially, can't enforce the graffiti law for the time being. And without going into the details of that story - he just lifted it and took out some of the language that was perhaps not flattering to SPD and used all my same links, including a link to a very obscure site that somebody sent me on Twitter to the ruling, like a public site where you can actually see the ruling without having to pay. So blatant plagiarism. And I am in touch with attorneys and will be taking action on that. But then King 5, quite infuriatingly, took this story that we were just talking about - which I have been reporting on for months and I've been the only reporter in town who has continued to pay attention to the story of this officer who ran down a pedestrian and written about it multiple times, filed request after request to get this information, finally got it, read this 99-page report thoroughly before reporting on it. And then, six hours later, King 5 miraculously has all the information that was in my story - on a story that they have never paid any attention to since it happened in January. So it was an extremely clear cut case of using my reporting. And that's fine if you say this was reported by PubliCola, which a lot of other outlets who reported on this did, including KIRO, Seattle Times. It's just a basic thing - you can report something, but say who did it first - because this was an exclusive. But they didn't do that. I don't know why. I think it's because it's easier to do it to a small outlet. I don't think they would do this to The Seattle Times because they have a battalion of attorneys and I don't, so it's easy to get away with. And I asked them repeatedly to just give me a credit and they have ignored all of my requests. [00:33:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that's not cool. And they should credit you. [00:33:59] Erica Barnett: It's not cool. [00:34:00] Crystal Fincher: And that should be a regular thing, whether it's an independent outlet or a behemoth like The Seattle Times. But I just wanted to talk about that, say we saw that - and people need to do better. [00:34:13] Erica Barnett: I appreciate that. [00:34:14] Crystal Fincher: But also hopefully there's a small little bit of satisfaction - silver lining there - that your reporting is solid, and it's good, and you're asking the right questions, and digging in the right places, and uncovering information that is useful to us all. And I appreciate that. [00:34:31] Erica Barnett: Well, thank you - the thing is, just quickly to plug - King 5 would not have had this story if I hadn't reported it, which means that if PubliCola wasn't around, the story would not have existed or it would have been reported much later and in a different way and with a different focus. And so I think that it might be easy to say King 5 - we got it from King 5, who cares? But King 5 and all these other outlets were not paying close attention to this the way that we were. [00:34:58] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 23rd, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And 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 week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and the links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.  

On this Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Jorge Barón about his campaign for King County Council District 4 - why he decided to run, how 17 years at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared him for the role, and his thoughts on generating progressive revenue for county services, drug possession and substance use disorder, addressing overcrowding in the King County Jail, improving frontline worker wages and workforce issues, air quality and climate change, and the importance of oversight and genuine community engagement in policy implementation. 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 Jorge Barón at @jorgebaron.   Jorge Barón Jorge L. Barón has spent his legal career advancing and defending the rights of marginalized communities, and has served as executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project for more than 15 years. Jorge has fought egregious policies like the Muslim Ban and family separation as well as built coalitions that drove significant policy change and generated hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for immigrant communities. Jorge has had the honor of being awarded the King County Council's MLK Medal of Distinguished Service and served on the Joint Legislative Task Force on Deadly Force in Community Policing. Jorge is originally from Bogotá, Colombia, immigrating with his mom and brothers at the age of 13. Jorge is a graduate of Yale Law School and Duke University, a proud former union member, and public school parent.    Resources Campaign Website - Jorge Barón   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am excited to be welcoming a candidate for King County Council District 4 - Jorge Barón. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, Jorge. [00:01:03] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much for having me, Crystal. I'm pleased to be here. [00:01:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - we're pleased to have you here. I guess just starting out - what made you decide to run for King County Council? [00:01:12] Jorge Barón: Yeah, it's a great question because I think for me, this is a new adventure that I'm embarking on. I think if you'd asked me 10 years ago if I was going to run for elected office, I would have said no. But I think what's happened over the last - since that time - is that I've seen, of course, working in the immigration field for the last 17 years, I've seen a lot of bad policy, but during the Trump administration, I saw a particular period of really egregious attacks on communities that I'm a part of, that I care about, and that I was working on behalf of. And I also saw how state and local government played an important role in protecting people. And I also saw people, frankly, that I've considered mentors and people who I admire - like Representative Pramila Jayapal and Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda - who also went from being advocates on the outside of government to go inside and to actually work on policy issues at the government level, and saw how effective they've been in creating some policy change in a progressive direction. So that gave me an inspiration, and of course, I've continued working here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, but last year I made the decision to step away from this work that I've been doing for now 17 years. And when I started thinking about what would come next, I thought that working at the local government level would be an avenue to further some of the same social justice issues that I've been pursuing for nearly two decades, and that gave me the inspiration. And of course, when Councilmember Kohl-Welles announced that she would be stepping down, saw an opportunity to put myself forth and to share with folks in District 4 - where I live - that I would be a good advocate for the social justice values that I've been pursuing for a long time now. [00:02:46] Crystal Fincher: How do you think your work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has prepared you to run and serve? [00:02:52] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no - it's a good question. And I've been very fortunate, of course, to have had the privilege of serving in this role. And for a long time, I thought that something else would pull me away from leaving here, and it - nothing better came along, but I felt like it was a good time for me to allow other people to step into leadership roles here and for me to take a break and do something new. But the experience that I've had here, I think, has prepared me for this role in a couple of different ways. First of all, obviously, I've had the opportunity to be the chief executive here at this organization - that we've been able to grow into now the second-largest nonprofit law firm in the Pacific Northwest, and I think that experience of being a leader in that role has given me an opportunity to learn a lot about how to manage organizations and how to run an effective organization. And I think the other part that's been really important in the work that we've done here that I think will be helpful - very important at the county level - is that I have been able to work in partnership with many stakeholders in building coalitions that have enabled important policy change at the state level. And one of the things that has inspired me to run at the County Council level is seeing that right now the county is facing a very difficult period because of the limitations that the state government has placed on - particularly on the revenue side - and I think we need people who are going to be able to build the kind of coalition to push the State Legislature, to work in partnership with our state legislators to make sure that we get some changes - that I think a lot of people recognize are needed - to the way that the county is funded, to make sure the county can actually operate effectively and carry out its responsibilities. So that kind of coalition building - working with state legislators in making actually progressive and important changes happen at the state level - which is what I've been able to do here, is something that I feel is going to serve me well if I get the privilege of serving on the council. [00:04:41] Crystal Fincher: When you talk about the issue of revenue, which is very important - and as we talk about this and the things we'll talk about as we continue, lots of them will require additional revenue. More money is needed. But as you talk about, the progressive revenue options that exist at the county level are limited. What progressive revenue options will you pursue, if any, and how will you go about doing that? [00:05:04] Jorge Barón: Yeah, no, I think it's important to talk about it because that's absolutely one of the key things that I think we need to discuss and make sure that voters understand. And I've seen it, and it's been frustrating to me actually, from - in my role at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, we've been advocating before the councils - at least myself, I've been advocating before the council since around 2008, 2009. And even since that time, the conversation had been that the county was in an unsustainable fiscal path, right? That we had this structural deficit, and particularly because of the 1% tax lid that restricts how much property tax revenue the county can collect, that we were in this unsustainable path. And in some ways, I feel like we haven't - as a community, we haven't felt the actual impact of that because inflation has been relatively low during that period, because there have been different periods of COVID relief money, for example, that came in the last couple of years that in some ways mitigated the full impact of that situation. But we're starting to now, and the upcoming budget cycle - we're facing, as a county, $100 million shortfall. And so I think now we're gonna start feeling the direct impact of those changes. And so I think we radically need to restructure how the county is funded and move away - I don't think we're gonna be able to move away completely, obviously - but at least shift some of the burden that currently is impacting particularly low income and even moderate income households here in King County and make sure that we create the opportunity. And again, this is one of the challenges - is that it's not something the county directly can do, but we will need to work with the state legislators to provide those opportunities for some changes so that we become less reliant on things like the sales tax and the property tax. And we have opportunities to have the revenue come from sources that have greater ability to pay. Obviously this is not only an issue for the county. Obviously at the state level, we also need to be working on that because we have the most regressive tax structure in the country. And so at all levels of government, we need to do this. And my hope is to be able to bring new energy to this conversation, to help talking about it all the time that - my campaign have been trying to talk about it - that's the first thing I always talk about because I think a lot of people don't understand the situation that we're in and that we're gonna be facing in terms of county services having to be drastically cut at a time when we see so much need in the community and people are saying - Why aren't we tackling these issues? Why aren't we tackling housing affordability, the homelessness crisis? - all kinds of issues that we can talk about. And those things - we need more investments to be able to make progress in those areas. And so the regressive revenue options need to be something that we absolutely put top of mind in talking to voters and talking to state legislators. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Right, and you talked about how to handle issues in terms of public safety, behavioral health, and how important that funding is. In the wake of the State Legislature increasing criminalization of possession of drugs and public use of drugs - making it a gross misdemeanor. And in the wake of the Seattle City Council weighing this issue themselves and currently still searching for a path forward on how to approach drug use and abuse in the City of Seattle - how do you view this in King County? Where do you stand on the criminalization of public drug use, and what do you think needs to be done to address this crisis? [00:08:23] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - I'll be very clear that I do not support criminalizing substance use disorders. I believe that we have - what I try to tell people about this issue is that we need to look at this the same way that we talk about - for example, when we talk about climate justice, a lot of people in this community - I guess I would say most people in this community, I know there's some people who are still climate skeptics out there - but most of us believe the science and we talk about the importance of believing the research and following the science. Same thing with public health, right? Most people in this community say we need to believe the science around public health and COVID and vaccines, right? And why don't we do the same thing with regard to public safety and the criminal legal system, right? There is abundant research when it comes to how to address the serious issues - and I wanna say it's important to note that the issue is not about doing nothing about the fact that people are experiencing substance use disorders. And obviously, it's a crisis in the fact that we have so many people in our community who are dying because of that. So the question is not, should we do something? We absolutely should do something. The question is, what should we do? And for me, the response of trying to punish people and putting people in jail because they're experiencing substance use disorders is not the solution. And I think the evidence and the research conclusively proves that that is not the path that is going to result in people actually being safe. And I'm concerned - some ways - that particularly right now, some of the debate is framed as in, we're trying to protect people by putting them in jail. And if you look at the evidence, that's not the case - at least if you look at overall numbers. And I know people will say - Well, there's this one example, this anecdote where this person got better because they went to jail. And I appreciate that there may be cases like that, but we can't do public policy based completely on anecdotes. We need to look at the research. And the research to me is very compelling in that, for example, with people who are experiencing substance use disorders with things like fentanyl, that you will end up increasing the risk that they will die if they go into jail. It's pretty dramatic - the statistics and the data on increasing the risk of overdose in those situations. And so I am concerned, I think we need to be thinking about what is best approach long-term - and particularly because the criminal legal system is also a very expensive system, right? And so when we're talking about investing limited public resources in a time of austerity in terms of the fiscal situation that we were just talking about - to me, it doesn't make sense to continue to invest in a system that has not proven to have, for lack of a better term, return on investment - when we see that there are programs that are currently underfunded, that we're not putting enough resources in, that do have an impact in terms of reducing peoples experiencing substance use disorder, and that will actually put them in a pathway to recovery. So I think we need to really rethink how we're approaching things. I think we've learned lessons for decades of using the criminal legal system to try to address substance use disorders. And I think we have been doing important things here in this community, and I think it's important to recognize that there's been programs like the LEAD program here locally, that have been seen as models for other places, but we've never sufficiently resourced those. And right now, of course, the need has only escalated because of the impacts of the pandemic and so many things that disrupted the lives of so many people. So I think we need to be investing in the things that actually have a return on investment. [00:11:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, you make a great point about our jails - one, not being a source of treatment, but they're not equipped to do that right now. And in fact, they're not equipped to do a lot of things that people think they do and things that they have done before. We've seen outcry from everyone from the ACLU to the guards and workers at our jails saying - Things are overcrowded, we're understaffed, we don't have adequate services, facilities, we don't have the tools to do the job that you're asking us to do and the way that you're asking us to do it, and the overcrowding is really making issues harder. In order to address that, the King County Council voted to initiate a contract with another jail provider - the SCORE Center in Des Moines - to transfer some inmates over there. Would you have voted to do that? And do you think we should do what Dow Constantine suggested and closing the jail? What is your plan for this? Would you have done what the County Council did? And where should we move forward after that? [00:12:56] Jorge Barón: Yeah, Crystal - that's a good question. So the answer to your question about the SCORE jail is that I would not have voted to enter into that contract and to transfer people, primarily because I think at the time - and I think still to this point, from what I understand - the concerns that a number of people raised, and particularly the public defenders who represent people in the facility, in the jail, that the issue of access to counsel and access to family was not adequately addressed at the time. And to me, this is a particular issue that I care a lot about, just because I've had a lot of experience being an attorney and starting my career at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project as a staff attorney working with people in the Immigration Detention Center in Tacoma. I did work during law school in the criminal legal issues and prisons in the South. And this issue of being able to access attorneys is a really important one that we as a community should be absolutely standing up for - because when people are put into jail pending a charge, we have a strong presumption in this country of being presumed innocent until we're proven guilty. And one of the key ways that people can have that right be enforced is through access to counsel. And so if we're gonna undermine that, I think that's a serious issue. I absolutely, to be clear, do not think that the conditions at the King County Jail are adequate, and we absolutely need to take steps to address the overcrowding. I think people in the community may not always be paying attention to this, but it's remarkable that we have groups that don't normally align on this - like the public defenders on the one side and the correctional workers in the jail - calling for the same steps because of how bad the situation was. And so we should be listening to people who are working most directly with people in there. And obviously we should be deeply concerned about the fact that multiple people have been dying in our care. I've been telling people that we need to think about, as a community - when we take one of our neighbors into custody because we determine that they need to be held in jail, we become responsible. They become our responsibility, and we need to make sure that we have the staffing and the resources to adequately care for them. And if we see that people are dying at the rate that we've seen, we're not living up to that commitment. And so we need to take steps, and I would support, at least as an interim measure, the call from the public defenders and from the correction officers of having booking restrictions that will limit the number of people who are gonna be in the jail until we know that we can actually take care of people. I know it's a complex issue because I think part of the challenge has also been that the state has failed in its obligation to make sure that we provide treatment and assessments for and evaluations for people who have behavioral health issues, and that's also exacerbated the problem in terms of people being able to be released. But we need to address this with more urgency because literally people are dying in our custody, and it shouldn't be - even if you're accused of a crime, this should not be a death penalty situation where we're putting people in fatal consequences because they're accused of a criminal offense. And so I think we need to be taking very significant steps to move that. And again, the SCORE Jail - I understand the intention, but we also need to be respecting the right for people to be able to defend themselves in court. [00:16:19] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I do wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And it's been an issue that has been on the top of mind of everyone, basically. One thing that it's a big challenge for our community to deal with, and another because so many people are struggling themselves. One issue called out by experts as a barrier to our response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, and that services provided by frontline workers, especially those with lived experiences, are necessary to effectively reduce the amount of people who are homeless. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:17:04] Jorge Barón: So Crystal, I absolutely agree that nonprofits have a responsibility to make sure that their workers are adequately compensated. It's something that I've been working on here at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and I think one of the things that I see frequently at the county level - and I think a lot of people don't realize that a lot of the human services that the county provides is actually done through nonprofit entities that the county contracts out with. And so the county does have a responsibility to make sure that we're structuring the contracts in ways that are going to incentivize our nonprofit partners to do the right thing. I've seen practices where, for example, we have contracts where there's lesser amount of funding year-over-year for a nonprofit partner. And of course, that doesn't help when we have a situation where the cost of living is increasing. I've also seen situations where there's this pressure of - well, you're not delivering enough services per FTE, and so it incentivizes employers to try to do it as cheaply as possible in kind of a race to the bottom that actually hinders the ability of organizations to be able to adequately compensate their employees. And so I definitely think that the county has a responsibility to make sure that it's structuring its practices to incentivize for people to be paid well. And I think part of the problem is that sometimes we think of short-term - how many services we can provide in the very immediate term - but we lose sight of the fact that when we don't compensate people well, we end up losing those workers. And so you get into the cycle where people, the attrition rate is very high, the experience that we get from workers - it's lost. You spend a lot of energy and time with recruiting and hiring and training new employees. And so I think people need to understand that there is actually - it's a better investment to compensate people well. Even in the situations where that might mean - in the very short term, you might not be able to do as many services. But in the long term, you're actually gonna be able to serve people better and more fully if you invest in the workforce so that they will stick around. Because particularly in a place - obviously the cost of living is increasing, it's all connected - housing affordability is limited. So we need to make sure that the people who are providing services to county residents can also themselves be able to be county residents - because I hear that from a lot of people that they're having to, they can't even live in the county that they work in because of the high cost of living. So I absolutely think that needs to be a responsibility that the county plays a role in doing better from its part. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And as you talk about, there are shortages everywhere, there are staff shortages even in the county. And this impacts how the county is able to deliver services. There's been lots of coverage about staffing crises in a variety of government agencies, school districts, just seemingly at every level. And these people are crucial to programs and services that people count on, that have been around for decades, and that are now in jeopardy. King County has done hiring and retention bonuses for deputies in the Sheriff's department. Should we be doing that for other workers in other departments? How do we address this? [00:20:11] Jorge Barón: I do think that we should look at those options. I do wanna work and wanna be very proactive in engaging labor partners that represent workers and finding what they think would be best for their workforce. 'Cause I wanna be very respectful of the role that they play in channeling the voice of the people who are working for the county. Because I know sometimes that can create some tensions for people who have been working there for a long time and then money is being invested to attract new workers. And so I wanna make sure that it's done in a way that we're engaging people who are already part of the workforce and who have devoted a lot of time to serve the community. So I think that is important. But Crystal, one other thing that I was gonna mention when you talk about workforce issues is important role - and again, how lots of these things are connected - is childcare issues. That's one topic that I've heard a lot from community members that is making these workforce development issues more difficult, and in terms of attracting and incentivizing people to join the workforce is the high cost of childcare. And particularly the way that our current subsidies are structured at the county level, we have the situation where if you make above a certain amount, you then don't qualify for any subsidy at all. And that makes it difficult because then if you're considering - Well, okay if I take this job and maybe it's a good union paying job, but it actually will put me above the income level that qualifies for the subsidy. And then when I start doing the math, it turns out that doesn't make sense for me to take the job because I'll end up paying more on childcare than would make the job worth it. And as a parent who had three children go through the childcare system, who's gone through the public school system, I felt that very directly. And I've been fortunate to be able to have the resources to make that happen, but it was a big stretch. And so for a lot of people in the community, that's gonna be something that I think has made it more difficult for people to be able to join the workforce. And that impacts us all, right? We can talk about, for example, the challenges that the Metro Transit is having and the fact they're having to reduce routes - and it's not because of lack of money, it's because of the fact that they can't find enough drivers and they've had challenges there. So I think we need to be able to connect those dots and realize that investments in those areas are important to make sure that we have an adequate workforce. And it's also a good social equity and racial equity issue to make sure that we're investing so that folks can get the support they need to make sure they can not fully be participants in the community. [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and thank you so much for bringing that up because that is a major factor in just the affordability of our community, the ability for people to participate in our workforce and our economy, to be upwardly mobile, and to get out of poverty. So thank you so much for talking about how important it is to help make affordable childcare accessible. I also want to talk about health, and especially with the county doing the heavy lifting when it comes to public health, really, and being the source of delivery for so much of it. I wanted to talk about something that we've been dealing with increasingly, whether it's because of COVID, which is still around and still here, and trying to reduce transmission and mitigate the impacts of it, or wildfire smoke, which we have to contend with, and that is extremely unhealthy to breathe and be in the midst of. Or other illnesses, viruses that are all around - trying to just reduce the prevalence of illness in our community. And it's become more apparent that how we treat air, how important air is to health, and how air filtration and ventilation is important to public safety. Do you have a plan for, would you advocate retrofitting, ensuring that all of our public buildings have the recommended air filtration, air turnover, healthy air systems for our community? And how can we help private businesses and spaces do that? [00:24:08] Jorge Barón: Yeah, I absolutely support that. And I think it's an important - and I think there will be some important opportunities with some of the investments that are coming through the Inflation Reduction Act that - mostly focused on energy efficiency, but there could be opportunities where some of those resources could be used at the same time to make sure that we're improving air quality inside buildings, homes, and businesses as well. And it's interesting 'cause I think one of the things that I think about when I think of this - when you're talking about the community health - one of the things that's most disturbing to me and one that I absolutely wanna continue to focus on if I'm given the opportunity to serve in this role, is the disparities that we see in life expectancy in our communities. I'd encourage people to look up some of the research that's publicly available where you can see the life expectancy disparities in census tracts around the county, around the region. And I think to me, it should be disturbing to all of us that there are census tracts in South King County where the life expectancy is 17 years less than census tracts in other parts of the county - just a short drive away. And of course, when you dig into the reasons for that - and of course, there are many - but issues of pollution and of all the social determinants of health are driving a lot of those disparities. And that is something that we should not find in any way acceptable at this point of time in a county, particularly a county that we renamed in honor of Dr. King. I always think of what he would think about those kinds of disparities and obviously, he would find them unacceptable and I find them unacceptable. And so addressing those issues and looking at the reasons that the impact - that all kinds of issues are impacting people's health, including air quality, both inside and frankly outside would have. And so when we talk about that and of course, with the ongoing impacts of climate change and the climate crisis, we're gonna be needing to tackle that even more - because unfortunately, we're gonna continue as we work in the long-term strategy, obviously, of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have to mitigate the impacts that we're seeing day in and day out with now the wildfire season that we see where the smoke is impacting people. And of course, many of us may have the fortune of being able to work inside and protect ourselves to some degree, but a lot of other people can't. And so we need to be addressing on multiple levels - ensuring that all community members and of course, particularly the most directly impacted communities, which of course overwhelmingly are people of color, immigrant refugee communities - that they're being given the tools and the protection to make sure that we don't see the level of disparities that we're currently seeing across the county. [00:26:47] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And following on that - talking about how exposed people are - climate change is a major factor in this. And on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing some of the devastating impacts that you just talked about - from wildfires and floods and cold and heat. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet the 2030 goals? [00:27:10] Jorge Barón: I think there's a number of things. So one of our major drivers in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, of course, is our transportation system. And so a lot of that has to be focused on stopping our reliance and reducing our reliance on cars. And trying to build a transit infrastructure that is gonna be reliable, it's gonna be safe, and that it's going to be such that people can rely on it to get to work and to get to other places in the community. So for me, that's important. I think it's important - obviously, I appreciate and support the efforts to electrify our bus fleet and would do anything I could to expedite that and move forward on that. But the challenge is that if we can have the buses be electric, but if people are not using them and they're still relying on their cars, that's not gonna help us achieve the targets. So that's gonna be really important. I think the other sort of big sources is obviously our infrastructure and our buildings and homes. And as I mentioned earlier, there is gonna be some opportunities for credits and investments through federal resources in the coming years that we need to make sure that we as a county are promoting and incentivizing and fully tapping into so that we can further reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we can get closer to reaching the goals that we've set for ourselves. So I think that's gonna be an important work that we need to do in the community. And this is, again, where a lot of things are connected to - also how we build and how we structure our communities is gonna be important, because as we talk about transit - I fully support what the legislature did to create greater density 'cause that has a significant impact on climate justice goals. And so that's something that I think we are going to need to also monitor - as these new changes that the legislature made - how those are implemented will have an impact in our long-term strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So I think this is gonna be an important period of time for us to really step up in our commitment to addressing what is a very urgent issue. [00:29:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. One issue impacting, I guess a major issue that impacts residents is how we implement policy - state level, county level, federal level really. There's been some great, helpful policy passed, but when it comes to the implementation of it, there's been a lot that has been desired in some circumstances - including those where some partners may not understand what needs to be stood up at the county level to deliver services. The county is pretty visible in this 'cause a lot of times the county is the entity responsible for the ultimate disbursement of funds or provision of services that come through the state or county level. And there seems to be sometimes a disconnect between what the county has capacity for, what it's capable to do and what legislation or funding or program calls to be done - leaving a shortfall in service delivery, things getting delayed, things not turning out as intended. What can be done to better improve the implementation of policy so that more people can receive the benefits that were intended? [00:30:17] Jorge Barón: I completely agree, Crystal, 'cause I've seen that myself in terms of being able to get policies done both at the local level and at the state level in terms of changes to policy. For example, we did some work many years ago on the connection between immigration enforcement and local law enforcement - and we achieved a victory of getting an ordinance passed at the county level. And then time went by and the actual implementation of that was not happening. And we later found out that some of the things that we had thought that the policy had changed had not changed. And so I've definitely seen that situation play out. And I think what it takes is constant oversight and very intense focus from entities like the council. I think the council has a particular responsibility and a duty to be the one who is providing oversight as the elected officials who are responsible for making sure that the policies that are in place are actually being implemented. 'Cause oftentimes what I see in those situations is that things get passed and then you move on to the next thing, but if the implementation and the oversight is not there, then changes aren't actually playing out on the ground level. So that's an important thing. I think the other thing that I think is important is a genuine engagement with communities that are going to be served. And I think that's another element that I would like to bring to the council is the fact that I have been working for nearly two decades now with marginalized communities throughout the state, particularly here in King County, and have built those relationships with people. And I would wanna be very proactive. I often tell people - Sometimes people say, I'll have an open door. And that to me is not really a good way to approach it because that still means that people have to come to me and my office. I wanna be very proactive in being out there - as I have been in my work here - of being out in community, talking to people, seeing how things are actually playing out on the ground level, and being engaged, and having genuine relationships with people so that you can actually assess how those policies are being implemented because that's what it takes. It's not just about receiving a report in council chambers, but it's about discussing with people how is this actually playing out. And that's how we've found things out here in my work at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - has been working with community members - hearing how is this actually playing out on the ground level? How is this policy that looks nice on paper, on the King County Code, actually being impacted or being reflected on what people are experiencing in the community? And that's what it's gonna take to make sure that implementation is actually - that things are being done the way that we've intended them to be done when there's been changes in policy. [00:32:54] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. As we move to close today, I just want to give you the opportunity to share with voters who are going to be making a decision between you and a couple other candidates in the primary election. What differentiates you from your opponents most of all, and why should voters choose you? [00:33:14] Jorge Barón: For me, I think I hope voters will look at the track record that I've built over the last two decades working as a civil rights and human rights leader, working directly on behalf of marginalized communities with a deep commitment to equity and justice. I think that to me is really important because it's the work that I don't just talk about, I have done that work. And also the fact that I had the experience of working at the state level - building coalitions with community members, with allies - in a range of issues to make actually proactive and significant progressive change to policies that have impact marginalized communities across the state. And I hope to bring that same level of expertise and skill of building coalitions to impact policy that will make the situation for the county and county residents better. And then finally, again, the fact that I've had this experience and I've been fortunate to have this experience of leading a nonprofit organization, building an effective organization that has delivered, that's widely recognized as delivering strong services. And that puts me in a good place to be able to provide that oversight, to be able to ask the tough questions, to make the tough decisions because I've been in that kind of executive role before. And be able to make sure - because I think this is an important component of county government, and I think something that will help us build the case for more investments is - I think one of the things that people in the community rightly are concerned about is - are our tax dollars being invested well in various programs that the county funds? And because I've been a nonprofit leader, seeing how to properly allocate and distribute and make resources be spent effectively, I'm in a good position to be able to evaluate those things when those issues come up at the County Council. And so all of those experiences that I've had - I've been very privileged to be able to play that role - have prepared me well for this role. And I hope the voters in the District 4 will give me the opportunity to represent them in the council. [00:35:12] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today and for helping us learn more about you, and certainly wish you the best. [00:35:17] Jorge Barón: Thank you so much, Crystal - it was great talking to you. [00:35:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by the former Director of Progressive Majority who has now transitioned into public service but remains involved in numerous political efforts across Washington, EJ Juárez. They discuss today being the final day for this year's candidates to declare their candidacy for elected office, the legislature's decision to make personal possession of drugs a gross misdemeanor, Crosscut laying off women reporters in a pivot to podcast and video, Marc Dones' resignation as CEO of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, and Seattle reclaiming the title of America's fastest growing city.  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, EJ Juárez at @EliseoJJuarez.   Resources Becka Johnson Poppe, Candidate for King County Council District 4 from Hacks & Wonks   King County Council races begin to take shape by David Gutman from The Seattle Times    Washington to Paper Over Drug War with Some Treatment Money by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger    OPINION | In Special Session, Lawmakers Are Hiding Behind a False Moral Imperative to Justify the War on Drugs by Jude Ahmed for South Seattle Emerald   Slog AM: Crosscut Lays Off Five Newsroom Staff, LA Pride Pulls Out of Dodgers Pride Event, Bouncy Castle King Accused of Arson by Nathalie Graham from The Stranger   Regional Homelessness Authority CEO resigns by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times    Why Did Marc Dones Resign? by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Seattle is once again the fastest-growing big city, census data shows by Gene Balk from The Seattle Times   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 show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen. 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 - our Tuesday topical show - I chat with Becka Johnson Poppe about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the skillset she brings from overseeing half of King County's $16 billion budget, and her thoughts on addressing human services sector wages, issues plaguing the King County Jail, housing and homelessness, drug possession and substance use disorder, climate change and air quality, and budget transparency and efficiency. However, today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: the former Director of Progressive Majority who's now transitioned into public service and remains involved in numerous political efforts across Washington, EJ Juárez. [00:01:34] EJ Juárez: Hi, Crystal - thanks for having me back. [00:01:36] Crystal Fincher: Hey - always excited to have you and your perspective on the show. Today is Friday, May 19th. For people who are involved in or adjacent to politics, this is known as the last day of filing week - the week where candidates officially declare their candidacy to run for a position on the ballot. We have hundreds and hundreds of positions up for election in Washington State. Here in King County, there are some interesting races shaping up. We will see - the deadline is 4 p.m. today - what the official candidate field looks like. We're nearing the end. There's usually a flurry of late additions just before the end of the last day of filing. I guess - what are your thoughts as we head into this final day? [00:02:24] EJ Juárez: My thoughts are - I love Friday of filing week. It is my favorite day of filing week because you get to go hang out at Elections and watch the folks at 3:50 p.m. that are standing around watching which races don't have anybody filed, so they can get a free pass or where they're gonna jump in. But I think some of the most exciting races out there right now - King County Council is starting to fill up with some late additions to the pack, especially in some races that looked fairly settled where we had clear challengers and clear insurgent candidates - and now we've got a different mix happening. And I would not be surprised if many organizations who were planning to do early endorsements are putting a pause on those plans because of new faces that are getting in - and just the pure number of folks that are running for some of these open seats, whether that is King County, City of Seattle, or some of the suburbs. [00:03:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This week, we did see a new dimension in one King County Council race - I believe it's District 4 - to replace Councilmember Kohl-Welles. And already in the race were Sarah Reyneveld and Rebecca Johnson Poppe. This week, we had Jorge Barón join the race, formerly of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - that's where I'm certainly familiar with him from. And this is gonna be a really interesting race and I don't know how it's gonna wind up. [00:03:40] EJ Juárez: Yeah, I think of all the King County Council races this year, this is the one that excites me the most - because there are three really great candidates who are bringing such different perspectives and have such different, I think, experiences that they would supplement the Council with. Certainly with Becka - newcomer, bringing a really deep set of experiences from her own personal and professional life. But then Sarah, who I don't think it is a surprise to anybody - who has been fairly widely known to be running for this for quite a while now, and now the opportunity is here. And then Jorge, which was a complete surprise and I think now within the last week has caught a lot of people off guard and really thrown a wrench into - certainly, Sarah and Becka's campaign plans, I'm sure. His decades of advocacy and his quite frankly historic leadership at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project would bring some really interesting perspectives to council as well as that race - representing a part of Seattle that has not always led on some of those issues. And Sarah being an Assistant Attorney General - I am so excited to see what issues bubble to the top and how this plays out. How about you? [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm interested - I'm certainly interested - three people who have formidable resumes behind them in different ways, but certainly all who have, I think, valuable perspectives to be shared. I think a lot of people are going to be wondering - hey, they clearly know what they're doing, they're professional, but what does that mean in terms of votes and how they're going to represent me and fight for the issues that are important to me? To not just be a vote, but to be a leading advocate for the issues that are important to me. How can I trust that? And I think how well each of those candidates addresses that is going to make a difference in how people view them and see them. Because we do have a lot of people who make a lot of promises, get elected, and then the way they vote doesn't quite turn out how people assumed based on their value statements. So it's gonna be really interesting to examine and see - those are not necessarily critiques of anyone in this race at all - just one of those overall things that will be interesting to follow. [00:05:49] EJ Juárez: It'll also be expensive. I cannot even imagine right now how much money will be spent in this primary, especially given the deep networks of all three of these candidates - I would expect this to be a very expensive seat. [00:06:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is probably a lock on that one - maybe a historically expensive King County Council District race. We will see. I'm also just curious to see - certainly in the City of Seattle, a number of the larger cities - candidates usually start early. Late filing week doesn't usually - we don't usually get significant surprises today, or people who enter the race and you're like - Okay, they are in a prime position to win this thing. But for most of the suburbs and other cities that are not the handful of large cities, that's not the case. And the Friday of filing week brings just a flurry of activity. Names that pop up - some people are familiar with, some people aren't. But these city council races across the state, school district races - which are definitely extremely important to pay attention to. Don't know that we'll have any Municipal or Superior Court Judge races here in King County, but there certainly are elsewhere in the state. So some of those races that - once again - don't necessarily get top billing in the news, that people are clamoring over and paying attention to. But that are vitally important to just the daily lives of people - where we see sometimes in coverage of national politics and Congress, the debates that they're having in other states, the legislation that they're passing that are obliterating people's civil rights - particularly trans people at this point in time. But the eradication of teaching anything basically, but white-approved material, and not teaching any kind of LGBTQ queer history, any kind of ethnic history - to the people who are here and who've made contributions to our country and our communities. And this is happening here locally. We have people trying to ban books here locally, people talking about taking away funds from public education to go to vouchers and private education and dismantling parts of the system. These are really important races that don't get a lot of attention, but I hope wherever you are listening from - you pay attention to in your community, because they make a big difference and your vote just counts so much more in those elections because so many people don't vote. A few people can make a really big difference. So we will keep our eyes on who files today. Also this week, there was a one-day special session on the 16th to address legislation - known as Blake legislation - coming out of our State Supreme Court's Blake decision a couple of years back, which invalidated - basically struck down personal possession laws for substances, illegal substances - drugs, basically. This didn't have anything to do with dealing, distribution, paraphernalia - but for simple possession, it said that the existing law was invalid, which made the Legislature act. And at the time - this was either two or three years ago, pandemic time is weird for me - they intervened, made possession a regular misdemeanor. And at the time, the justification for that was - hey, we know that decriminalization is the right thing to do. We don't think we have adequate supports in place yet. So let's double down on providing resources to localities and counties to make sure that they have treatment services, diversion services established so that we aren't doing nothing, that we are doing something to address the problem. And we'll put a sunset in this bill for 2023 so that we can revisit this, hopefully things have progressed as we've intended, and we can then proceed with decriminalization. So they did that - I believe in 2021. And this year comes around - maybe - it was probably 2020. This year comes around - sunset's happening, they have to deal with this legislation. And during the regular session, they were not able to come to an agreement. There was certainly a significant faction of people who followed evidence and data and said - This should be treated like a public health problem. The War on Drugs has failed - we need to move in a different direction in order to finally address this and improve this problem. Others were in favor of a misdemeanor. Others wanted a gross misdemeanor - which, for people who don't know, gross misdemeanors can actually carry jail time and fines that exceed that of the lowest level felony penalty. As people talk about this, felonies certainly are a different class of crime, and stay on your record differently, and happens differently in background searches. But one of the things we do know is that jail is very destabilizing. And taking someone out of their community, away from their job, away from their family for that amount of time has - as any criminologist will tell you - proven to be more destabilizing than helpful, which is why locking people up for jail is frowned upon by most people who actually study this. It's viewed as counterproductive, making the problem worse and not better. And if we look at the War on Drugs over the past 40 years - I did the DARE program when I was in elementary school - we've only gone backwards in that time after spending billions, if not trillions, of dollars in that time on this War on Drugs. So when we had this decision, it was really viewed this time coming up - hey, they stated their intention when they first passed this legislation, now it's time to continue to work and do the job. Now - real talk - we did have a pandemic that slowed down some of this implementation, so it's not a shocking surprise that all of the infrastructure wasn't there. But it seemed like it was a time to double down on actually getting that done instead of just walking backwards and moving towards a gross misdemeanor. How did you feel about this? [00:11:44] EJ Juárez: I had a lot of thoughts. And first and foremost, I think the thought that comes to my mind the most is that - and you brought it up a couple of times - we are collectively still in a pandemic. And during that pandemic, many people's access and proximity to services to help them either in recovery or manage their life sober went away. And at the same time as many of those services and support systems - whether that was a person, or a formal group, or medical assistance - was taken away from people, they became isolated. And the expansion and explosion of addiction and dependency issues is here in our communities. And for as much as I love a good sunset in public policy - just like I love the ability to evaluate if our policies are going well - in this case, this is one of the ones that I think is well-timed to really say - Does this meet where we are as a community and a state right now? How are we gonna make this last and make good policy? And I think unfortunately, what we saw in this one-day special session from the Legislature was not necessarily the most bold solution and was not a solution that was - I think really, in my opinion - based on helping the most amount of people become the person that they wish to be, but instead was a failure of leadership to count votes within their own caucus. And I think - as much as I think the Speaker is an incredibly historic figure and I think having her leadership has definitely changed the nature of our House - we watched this fail to pass in the regular session, having to come back, and watch Democrats fight other Democrats on a bill that should not have been that contentious. [00:13:30] Crystal Fincher: And that's such an important point - and especially that this is really about Democrats. Democrats control both the House and the Senate - and the Governor's office - by healthy margins. And sometimes we hear that - Well, Republicans won't let us do that. That wasn't actually the case here. And I'm very curious to hear more information about the negotiation that took place - because there are a couple things that were odd to me. One, the motivation for acting - for why it was so important to step in for the state, for our Legislature to step in and make a law - was that there is a fear that patchwork legislation on-the-ground in cities would create a wild variance between laws in different cities and counties. So - hey, it could be a felony in one place and completely legal in another place, and that could be problematic in people not knowing what the deal is within a particular jurisdiction. In reality, what actually happened was that there seemed to be a coalescing of opinion on the Republican side - because we saw a number of Republican mayors, county council people step up in the last month or so of session, when it became clear that it was definitely a possibility that Blake legislation may not pass, certainly not during the session. And they said - You know what? If the Legislature doesn't act, we will step in. But what they said they would step in with did not exceed a gross misdemeanor anywhere. In fact, there were some Republicans, including Republican Reagan Dunn on the King County Council, who were proposing misdemeanor. And so I'm wondering who Democrats were actually negotiating with here. It doesn't seem like it was Republicans - because in that situation, Democrats seemingly would have been where the base was at. And the State Democratic Party passed a resolution saying that they favored decriminalization, and as an absolute last-ditch effort in a negotiation - a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing as far as a gross misdemeanor. So as they were negotiating, if that's the Republican starting position - is gross misdemeanor - where were Democrats at? And how did we only wind up at the exact place where Republicans - some MAGA Republicans - were at, right? We have not heard anyone talk about felonizing this. So what was this negotiation? It doesn't seem like we were negotiating with Republicans. And so if this was just where Democrats were at - this seems like this would be the result if this is just where Democrats were at. [00:16:03] EJ Juárez: Yeah, and I think it's just an important point to really explore - when Democrats are negotiating with Democrats, you have to look at two different places. One, who's recruiting the people that are at the negotiating table, right? And two, the folks that are at the negotiating table - what is their personal ambition? And I think we have a number of people this year that are watching openings coming up for Attorney General or other positions - where taking a vote that would have aligned with the Party that they support and identify as would have, anecdotally, hurt them in their own opinion. The polls do not support that opinion. The population does not support that opinion. And unfortunately we let, I think, individual elected officials' own personal ambition probably influence these negotiations, right? I wasn't in that room. But it is not unreasonable to assume that when you recruit more moderate candidates than the actual party that they identify with and the planks in that party's platform, that they are going to be pulling from the left towards the center - which allows the right much more room to hold on to that gross misdemeanor line that they have in the sand here. It was particularly telling with the quotes that came - I think that were published in The Seattle Times right after this kind of failure to get across the finish line before sine die happened - that this was a Democratic problem and this was an own goal on Democrats. I'm glad that they did get something done. But again, if it doesn't match the Party, I'm really curious what accountability looks like, especially for those legislators in King County where they do not have either their local LD or their county parties in alignment with perhaps the vote that they took. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's going to be very interesting to see. We have heard some legislators try and justify this by saying - Well, we got some additional money in for some services. And wow, when you look at the actual money that was there and added - one, I would argue that that money was always going to be part of the package. Two, it's so minute in comparison to anything else. If you were negotiating with that, it seems like there would be something more substantial that happened than the money that actually ended up being tacked on at the end. And I don't know that that justifies a wholesale criminalization statewide with no sunset. This is now just the policy moving forward that is, as you say, not in alignment with local parties and is not in alignment with evidence. And we're saying we have limited resources. And this costs money - criminalizing something, arresting people, jailing people, prosecuting people costs so much money. And so the limited resources that we do have are once again being spent in a direction that we know can't fix this, while we're starving the resources and somehow trying to justify throwing some coins in the other direction, saying - Well, this is gonna be part of improving it. It's just really difficult to see how this is really going to improve things. [00:19:16] EJ Juárez: And I know we need to move on, but my last point on this is really - this is where the lack of a real robust advocacy organization in our state that does this work - that brings in the stories and brings in the experiences at a scale that can hold legislators accountable - their absence is profound in these moments, right? Our ecosystem of advocacy organizations that influence policy has some pretty deep holes when it comes to some of these issue areas, and this is one of them. And I don't mean to discount the groups that are doing great work in this space, but those that are doing hard, (c)(4)-dollar, political expenditures that can engage in political activities is fairly thin. And I can't help but believe that if we had a more robust set of advocacy organizations that were playing in the political side, we would have better policy and we would actually get to the problem of the systems. Because we can't buy our way out of these problems with just more funding for services - we need to change systems, and that starts with how robust our advocacy systems are and how good our candidates are once they get into office. [00:20:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also in the news this week is a local layoff - a local media layoff. Crosscut - Cascade Public Media, which is Crosscut's parent company, announced that it intends to lay off five newsroom employees - all women, by the way, two of them happen to be women of color, some with seniority over other people there. They're laying them off effective July 1st - in a pivot to video and podcast. This is just reminiscent of the mid-2010s and the really perilous, tragic pivot to video - that wound up being based on gerrymandered metrics - that led to a real decimation of many newsrooms across the country. And we're seeing this - some newsrooms have cited AI, there's recent - MTV News is closing, BuzzFeed News is shuttering. So many local media outlets are struggling and making do with so many fewer staff than they used to have. But this is really curious from Cascade Public Media. They're not saying they don't have the money to continue employment. They're just saying we're shifting directions - we're moving to podcast and video. We're gonna lay these people off and we're gonna replace them with additional video and podcast producers. Joseph O'Sullivan - to his credit - who is a white male reporter there called out online - Hey, curious to see why I'm safe from these layoffs here - I don't have seniority, but I definitely noticed that everyone laid off was a woman, two of whom were women of color - that just doesn't seem like it makes that much sense. Certainly not a good look. How did you see this? [00:22:09] EJ Juárez: I, and maybe this is the most inappropriate way to articulate this, but every time I have seen or heard a media company say they are pivoting to video and podcasting, I think that is really the death rattle, right? That didn't work for VICE, who just had a historic bankruptcy just this past week. It's not working for BuzzFeed, which is shuttering its newsroom. It didn't work for so many other companies. This is how I think big corporations - and in this case, public media - preserves its assets while it's winding down its obligations. The true cost is - we are in Washington state, I think, at a real critical juncture around how many local reporters we have left covering city halls, school board meetings, library trustee meetings. And all the sites that have suddenly become the most contentious sites of culture wars - we now lack the journalistic infrastructure to actually tell us why those places are becoming so politicized and why they are becoming the place where these fights are happening. It is incredibly disappointing that Crosscut - to me - has made this pivot because podcasting and video doesn't give you investigation. Podcasting and video doesn't give you the ability to do the long-term relationship building behind the scenes where you're developing sources and you are cultivating broad swaths of information from different people. What it does is it gives you the ability to be on somebody's TikTok as they're scrolling in their bed at night. But I would say the issues that we're facing are much more deep than 30 seconds can provide any one person. And the dearth of long-form reporting is what is going to kill this republic. The fact that we don't have the ability to go deep on why water treatment systems are so difficult to fund and renovate and keep operational - because they're unseen and unsexy, right? So it's incredibly sad to me. And I think it is even more telling that - as Crosscut probably increased their donor rolls on the backs of their highly promoted people of color coverage, are now laying off those very same reporters that brought in new donors. And I don't think that's lost on anybody. I think that this is what happens. You bring in folks to do the racial work, to do the work in communities that traditional media has not been able to do - and then they're first out the door after they've made their profit for the bosses. [00:24:36] Crystal Fincher: And we've seen this replay in so many different layoff scenarios exactly as you just laid out - whether it's mass media, whether it's news - it's just frustrating. Certainly a lot being talked about in - is AI part of this? We've heard in other layoffs cited that - well, AI can do so much more than it used to do, and we can rely on that for some of this. Or - hey, not lost on us, right? We're talking on a podcast - talking about how a pivot to podcast is not the thing to do, but it's not. That's - it's a different thing. And sure, supplement reporting and coverage with that, but to just replace it - like you said, this is what happens before they die. And it's also not lost on people that this is seeming - this is not the first action that people have felt in this direction. When they cut off their community editorial, guest editorial program - which did a really, really good job - was something that picked up a lot of support and steam, actually talking about on-the-ground solutions to many of the issues that plague us. One of the reasons I do this podcast is because I'm - I get so frustrated with the lack of conversation about actual solutions about what works - Should we address this or not? Not how do we address this? What are the options on the table? And there are usually a lot of options on the table that even people who consider themselves aligned politically can disagree on, different things need to be tested and tried out - there's so much to talk about in terms of how we solve things. And that series was really informative in that reason. And it was rumored - because of some board leadership or new leadership that came aboard, they felt like that was catering too much to progressive forces where it's - this is Seattle, that this is serving. It is reflective of the community that it is serving. But certainly if you are not living in Seattle, or if you do not interact with many people from Seattle, you may think that it is more appropriate to do that. Wasn't lost on people that - in the Crosscut Ideas Festival, people were platformed with severely anti-trans views, advocating for punitive criminal legal system policies and procedures, the othering of so many people, criminalization of homelessness and poverty. And Michael Cohen was there. Just things that made a lot of people scratch their heads and say - one, what in the world anywhere, but especially in Seattle, what is happening? What's even going on? So it just seems like the people who are making decisions just have a different alignment. And even though they said this decision was partly in place to pursue a younger audience - seemed like they were doing that - and they're getting rid of the people who were successful at doing that. [00:27:31] EJ Juárez: I think you hit the nail on the head of - this idea of pursuing a younger audience is not always pivot to video. It is reductive to assume that young people cannot consume anything more than 30 seconds. And it also does them a disservice when this is an incredibly politicized set of young people and set of generations that are hungry to understand their world in really complex and nuanced ways, and Crosscut has missed that boat. For me, what I think of a lot when I think of Crosscut now - and especially after the last Ideas Festival, which to me was less about ideas and more about provocative speakers to bolster their brand - was really this idea that you touched on around Crosscut had a moment in which it was super relevant. And that moment of relevancy was incredibly dense, but it was on the upswing and it was with those editorials. It was with the expansion of their reporting. What Crosscut did not do is capture its own growth and capture that moment, and instead pivoted towards a very traditional understanding of how that business needed to be run. They benefited greatly by the Seattle PI shutting down its very last legs of local content. And frankly, at the same time, as The Stranger really losing a lot of its best reporters and watching their own newsroom shrink and the quality is what it is now. But I think there's definitely a market change in both the Seattle and Puget Sound landscape, and Crosscut is such a cautionary tale of watching a group of people not capture their moment. [00:29:03] Crystal Fincher: Cautionary tale indeed. There was a point in time where - everyone I knew was tuning in to Crosscut, checking out Crosscut and what was there - the coverage was just so relevant locally. You really nailed it. And it's a shame that they moved in a different direction and it's certainly is not what it was, and moving further away - by the day, evidently. The union that represents those employees does say that they do plan on fighting this, that it doesn't seem like this transpired fairly. And so we'll definitely be paying attention to how this unfolds over the next weeks and months. Also this week, we got news that Marc Dones from the King County Regional Homeless Authority is stepping down and resigning from his position. How do you see his tenure and, I guess, the establishment - 'cause he basically built the thing from the ground up - of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority? [00:29:58] EJ Juárez: I think this one is so complex. I think there are many reasons why we're in this place and this surprise resignation - that maybe wasn't so much of a surprise. I feel like - for the past year, the only thing we've heard about the Regional Homelessness Authority in the news has been terrible. It has been punch after punch after punch where the nuts and bolts of that organization have left the folks on the ground doing the hardest work waiting to be paid, waiting to get the funds that they're promised. We've also seen, I think in some ways, a somewhat confrontational approach from that organization with the very regional structure that it's supposed to uphold. One of the things I think with this is I think Marc - I do not know Marc - and my interactions with that organization are as a spectator and somebody who depends on them to do the great work that they've set out to do. The vision that that organization set forth is incredible. And unfortunately, I think that in order for any organization to develop on an incredible vision, you have to build a great team. And unfortunately, that's an organization that did not build a regional team in order to execute on that vision. So you can be bold and visionary, but if you don't have the chops and you don't have the ability to bring a team with you - ideas are a dime a dozen, but true organizers and folks that can bring folks with them - I think that is what that organization desperately needs in its next leader. [00:31:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, for me, it feels like this was a challenging task from the outset. And I don't know that there was even the alignment between the regional parties involved that would have supported anything, but what had been happening in a status-quo-type of path moving forward. People who know me have probably had this conversation with me, but - even the formation of this regional homelessness authority felt like - we heard, certainly Ed Murray when he was the mayor, talk about the need for regional solutions. Several people talk about the need for a regional solution. To me, it always felt like that was an excuse and a way to escape accountability for local action, for action in their purview and in their jurisdiction. Certainly there was a lot more that a - Mayor Ed Murray, Mayor Jenny Durkan could have and should have done to address this - that they just didn't. They didn't agree with, they didn't execute on. And here we have now Mayor Harrell. And it just seemed like the vision that Marc Dones laid forth and the vision that you heard from local leaders like Mayor Harrell or some housing providers were never in alignment. And it seemed like there were silos there. It seems like there was some feeling that they needed to protect what they were doing, and maybe the Regional Homeless Authority was gonna take away some of their power or their resources. And a reaction to that was what it seemed like was happening in a few different places. Certainly Marc Dones talked about doing things in a different way. People didn't always agree with that way. Is that on him, or is that just on a lack of alignment? Certainly they hired him, so it seems they would have hired someone who was closer to what they - the direction that they wanted to go - but it's challenging. And it took - it's hard to build an organization. And what he got dumped on him was a ton of money and said - okay, build it and go. It took longer than anticipated to build it. It does seem like they were achieving some good results, especially recently. But as you said, there were other stories always peppered in there. And for every step forward, it felt like there was a story or something about a challenge that they were facing. And even the issue of - this latest major issue where somehow, because of someone's lack of oversight - and I'm still not sure exactly who that is - this organization wound up overspending its budget by quite a lot, which could leave people evicted, basically, without any place to live through no fault of their own in this situation - was really, was a challenge. And it seemed like that was a result of a lack of alignment, and people operating in silos and not wanting to share or collaborate on what they were doing. And so I certainly hope that this next person who is stepping in can manage those relationships better, or at least level set better. And hopefully these partners will give them the tools that they need and the collaboration that they need to succeed. But we will see how this continues to play out. Also, we got news - and I guess we will wrap up on this today - Seattle's, once again, the fastest growing city in the country. This is particularly amusing to many people in Seattle because of a long-term kind of insistence in trying to spin a narrative from some very conservative forces - in a documentary a while back that was pretty hyperbolic and exaggerated that "Seattle is Dying." And it's alternating between a city that's controlled by anarchists, that's being burnt down by Antifa, and being overrun by drugged-up zombies and homeless people who they characterize as all criminals and out there due to some moral failing or their own fault, right? And that just does not - it was just false. It is not the reality on the ground for most people. Most people are not fearing for their safety as they're walking throughout Seattle. They're just carrying on about their lives. And sure, there are challenges. And sure, there are people outside who shouldn't be - although the problem with that is the people outside, not people needing to see the people who are outside. And so it just is curious and interesting. And I'm wondering what you think, or why you think Seattle continues to be one of the fastest - or now the fastest - growing city in the country once again. [00:36:06] EJ Juárez: Seattle's awesome. I think that's - I love Seattle, and I think Seattle has a problem with people saying that they love Seattle. And there is a real culture in the Puget Sound of the other cities' political leaders scoring cheap political points by dunking on Seattle, right? And at some point, the chorus of those other politicians doing that work becomes something. And that has unfortunately permeated into the City, where I wish more people were open about how much they love this place - because that's why people are moving here. That's why people want to be here. And I think especially as we look at this return-to-the-office moment that we're in, Seattle is gonna come back. And I think that the work that the Downtown Seattle Association and the Mayor's office are doing to reimagine what's possible in our downtown, given that we have so many opportunities unlike other major cities - I'm super excited about it. I also think that we might be on the first wave of climate migration. I think that it would be foolish for us not to at least consider - those who have the means and opportunities now to relocate to a place where they are less exposed to natural disasters comparatively from where they might be from, where heat swings - barring last week - are less frequent. So I think that we're well poised for a comeback and I think that this is the first maybe harbinger of that, where we've got folks coming back and we're growing again. [00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's a very valid point, especially talking about - now is the time with people - when people of means are making changes based on this. And I've had conversations with people about this, and people are absolutely looking at - What is the weather likely to be? Is there likely to be flooding? Is there likely to be extreme heat waves? On top of that - of the challenges brought by climate change - the challenge is brought by our failure to manage our infrastructure appropriately. Some folks in Texas - not only is it a problem with heat waves or extreme cold, but also their power being completely unreliable when that happens. Or elsewhere in the country - or water being completely unsafe to drink and unpredictable in that way. Different ways that also a failure to manage infrastructure is exacerbating our struggles with climate change and leaving people more vulnerable to that. I also think that we are - we're, comparatively, a very educated place, a very engaged place. It's a beautiful place to live. It's not - this is one of the easier places for businesses to attract employees to come. And really that's what was behind our incredible population growth in the first place. This is a place, this is a good place to do business. We heard so many times from - whether it's the Association of Washington Cities or the Chamber or Washington Roundtable - these raises in minimum wages or this tax that the city council wants to put on businesses, it's gonna make the sky fall. Everybody's gonna leave. Everyone's gonna move out. And now they're - as the "Seattle is Dying" crowd will be - bad things are taking over Seattle. No one wants to be here. And that is just laughably false and continues to be proven laughably false. Definitely don't wanna give the impression that there are not significant challenges - there are lots of significant challenges everywhere. And the set that we have is, unfortunately across the country, a better set than many people are dealing with in other places. We should do better. We should still be doing better. But comparatively a lot of places are doing worse. Not to mention just attacks on civil rights, and people being able to be people and live their own lives in different places. And we are a place that is welcoming to people - as you talked about before. So I definitely understand why Seattle is at the top of this list and continues to return to the top of the list. I hope we do things to make it even more welcoming and inviting and support the population that is moving here, like making appropriate decisions on housing and renter protections and rent controls and preventing displacement from the continued population growth. [00:40:40] EJ Juárez: I think a key difference, too, as we look at some of those places that are less hospitable to business - Washington was rated number one best place to open and run a business multiple times here in the last few years, including last year. But I look at places like Florida, where also massive migration to that state and also very large high profile exodus by companies out of that state - because it is so hostile given the conditions for its employees to live safe, prosperous lives within their communities. So to places like that and people that are talking about how great Florida and Texas and all these other places are, I say - Hey, Disney just canceled a billion dollar expansion in Orlando for their employees because they did not believe their employees were safe in how hostile that government was towards them. Hey, come on up to Washington. We like Mickey Mouse, let's do it. [00:41:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we won't just exact a vendetta against a company because they didn't agree with what the governor said. So it'll be, it's certainly an interesting exercise to go over all the things that do make Seattle a pretty cool place to be - took me longer than many people to warm up to Seattle, but I have arrived, I'm here. [00:42:06] EJ Juárez: Just wait two years, it changes every two years. You'll like one of them. [00:42:09] Crystal Fincher: Oh goodness - with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, May 19th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is the former Director of Progressive Majority, who's now in public service and remains involved in numerous political efforts - and you all hear how insightful and intelligent he is when he's on - EJ Juárez. Thank you for joining us. [00:42:36] EJ Juárez: Thank you. [00:42:37] Crystal Fincher: You can find EJ on Twitter @EliseoJJuarez. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, it's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get the 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.

Vamos de corchazo en corchazo... 1) Federico Chedrese nos presenta su novela SAMURAI, editado por Azul Francia 2) Nos subimos al auto derechitos a EL DESIERTO Y SU SEMILLA. Analizamos con todo lo que tenemos: Pasión y conocimientos, y un poco de humo también... ah, y vino, eso también... no olvidemos el vino. ENJOY! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/elsonidoylafuria/message

Si usted comía Gudiz, mandaba esquelas, soñaba con ganarse un carro con las tapas de gaseosa y esperaba ansiosamente El Show de Jorge Barón, para ver a sus artistas favoritos, no solo está viejo, sino que después de oír este episodio, podrá presentarse a cualquier oficina del Ministerio de salud a exigir su vacuna, por ser población de alto riesgo.

En 6AM Hoy por Hoy de Caracol Radio estuvo el reconocido presentador, Jorge Barón, hablando sobre los anuncios falsos que se están publicando acerca del negocio de las criptomonedas con su nombre e imagen.

Entre la virtualidad de Juan Zabala y los apuntes de Steven, La Mala Hora habla de la literatura y el universo. Se habla desde Amparo Grisales hasta Jorge Barón

Panchi Perez Lence, nuestra maravillosa columnista literata de 'Leyendo Pancha', nos trajo esta sumena una historia trágica bien de lunes con la novela 'El Desierto y su Semilla' de Jorge Barón Biza.

Dario Gómez empezó a componer y cantarle al despecho cuando esa música era mal vista en algunos sectores de la sociedad colombiana. Especialmente en la sociedad bogotana. Las canciones de Dario y otros compositores y cantantes de su generación como Oscar Agudelo, Alci Acosta, Olimpo Cárdenas y Julio Jaramillo sonaban durante el día en bares considerados de mala muerte, pero eran cantadas a grito herido por las clases altas al final de sus fiestas cuando al calor de unos tragos afloraban la tristeza y la ira propias del despecho. Hasta que siendo Presidente de la República Belisario Betancur, paisa como Dario Gómez, confesó que esa era su música preferida y la subió de estatus. Desde entonces la música de carrilera, como la llamaban entonces empezó a sonar con fuerza en las emisoras de las grandes ciudades y a los programas musicales de la televisión como el Show de las Estrellas de Jorge Barón, Espectaculares JES de Julio Sánchez Vanegas o El Show de Jimmy hasta ese momento reservadas a las baladas en inglés y español, a la música clásica y la música bailable de las grandes orquestas. Algo parecido a lo que ocurrió con el vallenato que se volvió importante cuando otro presidente, Alfonso López Michelsen lo llevó a la Presidencia de la República. Un género musical que parece tendrá larga vida porque nuevas generaciones de intérpretes como Johnny Rivera, Jhon Alex Castaño, Alzate, Jimmy Gutiérrez, Pipe Bueno, Yeison Jiménez, Fernando Burbano, Paola Jara, Jessi Uribe, Giovanny Ayala o Arelys Henao - de quien se presentó hace poco una serie en el Prime de la Tv Colombiana - no sólo la rescataron sino que le están dando alcance global gracias a las redes sociales. Redes sociales que Dario Gómez, a sus 71 años de edad, entendió y adoptó con lujo de detalles especialmente durante la pandemia. Tanto las entendió que estaba produciendo en Instagram una serie llamada "Un Día con Dario Gómez" en la cual el Rey del Despecho nos abrió las puertas de su casa a sus seguidores para mostrarnos como era el día a día de Dario Gómez Zapata cuando no estaba viajando o cantando. #información #análisis #opinión --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/elpodcastdericardogalan/message

El presentador Jorge Barón recibió el Récord Guinness por su trayectoria en la televisión.

Entrevista con escritores peruanos Jorge Bar y Max Pinedo presentes en la FIL Guadalajara 2021 #UACJ #SomosUACJ #uacjradio #FILGuadalajara2021 #Perú

En 1986 se lanzó el segundo álbum de estudio del cantante Ricardo Montaner, el cual lo catapultó al estrellato internacional con la canción “Ojos negros”. Así la escuché yo… “Ojos negros” de Ricardo Montaner es en realidad una versión al español de la canción que grabara originalmente en italiano el artista Marco Rancati en 1985 bajo el título “Occhi neri” (Ojos negros). Como dato curioso hay que decir que “Ojos negros” se utilizó en Colombia para la banda sonora de la telenovela “Destino” de la productora Jorge Barón Televisión. ¿Y tú, conocías la versión original? Autor: Rosalino Cellamare (italiano) - Versión al español Ricardo Montaner (argentino) Ojos negros - Ricardo Montaner (1986) “Ricardo Montaner” álbum (1986) Ricardo Montaner (nombre real Héctor Eduardo Reglero Montaner, argentino) Occhi neri - Marco Rancati (1985) single “Occhi neri/Take me” (1985) ___________________ “Así la escuché yo…” Temporada: 4 Episodio: 21 Sergio Productions Cali – Colombia

Cada vez son más los negocios que encuentran en las nuevas tecnologías digitales las herramientas necesarias para alcanzar el éxito. Guillermo Ortegón y Jorge Barón de Global Technology Services, entablan una interesante charla sobre la adopción de las redes inalámbricas y las soluciones más novedosas en el mundo de la conectividad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jorge Barón es un verdadero símbolo patrio que ha recorrido Colombia y varios puntos del mundo gracias a su legendario Show de las Estrellas. En esta conversación con Alejandro Marín recuerda anécdotas y sueños a lo largo de más de cincuenta años de carrera en los medios, de ser pionero en estrategias publicitarias y de su gran apuesta por llevar todos los sonidos en vivo a diferentes lugares del país, no sólo a su estudio. Jorge nos da una lección de cómo hacer negocios sin irrespetar a la audiencia, de cómo adaptarse al cambio de los tiempos y de cómo mostrar diferentes facetas de territorios tan complejos como los de Colombia. Desde Menudo hasta Kraken, pasando por Shakira, Aterciopelados o J Balvin y nombres internacionales como Village People, Ricardo Montaner y Soda Stereo, la lista de nombres que pasaron por el Show de las Estrellas es infinita y el cerebro de Jorge Barón ha estado presente siempre en los formatos musicales de la televisión nacional. Esta vez, #ElPodcast (y el que Jorge Barón llamó TV Trece) recibió la patadita de la buena suerte.

Durante la pandemia, don Jorge Barón ha estado repasando en televisión nacional sus más de 60 años de experiencia en el mundo de la música. Una selección de los programas más importantes de 'El Show De Las Estrellas' me motivó a buscar al famoso presentador y empresario de medios de comunicación, con quien tuve el gusto de hablar sobre esa historia, un archivo de incalculable valor cultural y mediático que sigue sorprendiendo a todos los periodistas musicales del país.  Dedicado a la memoria de mi gran amigo Edwin Alexis Niño Durán. 1977-2021. This one's for you, Gatico.  Presenta MERCADO LIBRE. 

El reconocido presentador colombiano pasó por los micrófonos de W Fin de Semana para hablar sobre su carrera y las mejores anécdotas que le ha dejado este programa.

La complejidad de la geografía de Colombia y el conflicto armado no fueron, ni han sido impedimento para Jorge Barón, un presentador de radio y televisión que logró a través de su programa El Show de las Estrellas, conectar puntos remotos del país, como si de formar constelaciones se tratara.Equipo de Postales:Diseño sonoro y Edición: Ariel Sosa Guión: Dan GamboaProducción: Sergio Tapias Ilustración: Laura TéllezAsistente Editorial: Manuela Erazo.Equipo de Caracol Podcast:Dirección: Félix RiañoGestión de producto: Alejandro RiañoProducción tecnológica: Miller Suárez.Agradecimientos especiales: Jorge Barón.Pueden encontrarnos en las redes sociales como @postalespod. Para más información pueden entrar a postalespod.com Para escuchar el resto de los episodios pueden visitar caracolpodcast.com

La complejidad de la geografía de Colombia y el conflicto armado no fueron, ni han sido impedimento para Jorge Barón, un presentador de radio y televisión que logró a través de su programa El Show de las Estrellas, conectar puntos remotos del país, como si de formar constelaciones se tratara.Equipo de Postales:Diseño sonoro y Edición: Ariel Sosa Guión: Dan GamboaProducción: Sergio Tapias Ilustración: Laura TéllezAsistente Editorial: Manuela Erazo.Equipo de Caracol Podcast:Dirección: Félix RiañoGestión de producto: Alejandro RiañoProducción tecnológica: Miller Suárez.Agradecimientos especiales: Jorge Barón.Pueden encontrarnos en las redes sociales como @postalespod. Para más información pueden entrar a postalespod.com Para escuchar el resto de los episodios pueden visitar caracolpodcast.com

En el mundo de la música se inventan todo tipo de rumores, noticias y cuentos. Julio Correal y Luisca Guerrero hablan sobre las conspiraciones en la música y cuáles son verdaderas: ¿Le sellaron la habitación a los Guns N Roses? ¿Jorge Barón es tan amable como parece? ¿Un mánager puede complicarle tanto la vida a un artista? Péguelo el Podcast y conozca esas historias que solo acá le cuentan...

Si usted comía Gudiz, mandaba esquelas, soñaba con ganarse un carro con las tapas de gaseosa y esperaba ansiosamente El Show de Jorge Barón, para ver a sus artistas favoritos, no solo está viejo, sino que después de oír este episodio, podrá presentarse a cualquier oficina del Ministerio de salud a exigir su vacuna, por ser población de alto riesgo

¿Cuál es el significado de la paliza de la opción Apruebo y de la opción Convención Constituyente, respectivamente? Cómo se decanta el proceso y cuáles son las claves para entender lo que viene en este proceso constitucional sin precedentes. Participan Pablo Selles, miembro de la Comisión de Discapacidad de Convergencia Social, Andrea Montero, socióloga, Jorge Barías, presidente de Red Liberal, y Brayan Honorato, Vice Presidente de Evópoli Región Metropolitana. Conduce Rodrigo Figueroa Reyes.

Si usted está inquieto por aprender las artes imitatorias, hemos hecho un tutorial para imitar a Jorge Barón, el primer peldaño en el escalafón de la imitación. Después de debatir llegamos a la conclusión de que existe un vacío que no han suplido los champús ni las peluquerías: el pelo semichuto como el de Checho. Nos está yendo bien en las redes con el podcast y les contamos nuestro secreto: ahora trabajamos con un algoritmo y en este capítulo lo entrevistamos. Volvió el declamador llanero promocionando cerveza y también volvió el sobrino de Ivancho y está más gamín que nunca. Capítulo surtido y variado, pónganse el babero que se vienen 70 minutos de estupideces. Bienvenidos!

Juan Pablo compró un dios en la India, diseñó una iglesia en Silicon Valley y la lanzó a todo el mundo en Times Square. En este destino de Nómada, la historia de la iglesia de la religión portátil y su libro, Un Dios Portátil (Planeta Chile, 2020). Junto a Jorge Barías y Andrea Montero. Conduce Rodrigo Figueroa Reyes.

Un nuevo #RadioRedonda llega con un toque de Nueva Orleans, y con viejas historias del fútbol nacional, e internacional (léase en tono Jorge Barón). En esta ocasión: - Debatimos entre la Libertadores y la Champions. ¿Cuál torneo es mejor y por qué? - 'Campeones Olvidados': Absalom Herrera nos cuenta la gesta del Aston Villa, campeón de Europa en 1982. - Futbolistas caídos en desgracia: Esos ídolos que pasaron del cielo al averno, por culpa de su mal comportamiento. Con: Leandro Melo, Gregorio Peñaloza y Ricardo González-Rubio.. Dirige: Absalom Herrera Acero. #ElAmorEsRedondo

President Trump tweeted this weekend in reference to Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came...I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!” His racist comments were in the context of a widening rift between moderate Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the four progressive Congresswomen. Anti-immigrant raids begun by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the weekend largely failed to materialize, but still spread fear in immigrant communities across the country. Meanwhile, the Trump administration rolled out a new hardline policy making it more difficult to apply for asylum. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Juan Carlos Ruiz, cofounder of the New Sanctuary Movement, join the show. European Union Foreign Ministers are currently meeting in Brussels to discuss ways to save the Iran nuclear deal, but Iran is expressing skepticism that the EU powers will deliver on promised sanctions relief. Walter and John speak with Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies and postcolonial literature who teaches at the University of Tehran. One hundred Amazon employees at a cavernous warehouse in Minnesota are on strike today to protest working conditions, poor benefits, an anti-labor corporate culture, and treatment of employees at the company. The strike falls on what Amazon calls Prime Day, one of the company’s flagship events that generates billions of dollars in profits. Meanwhile, federal authorities have ordered Facebook to pay the largest ever corporate fine--$5 billion-- for mishandling users private data. Dr. Jack Rasmus, a professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California, author of “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression,” joins the show. Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? Joel Westheimer, University Research Chair in Democracy and Education at the University of Ottawa and education columnist for CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning and Ontario Today shows, joins John and Walter. In this segment, The Week Ahead, the hosts take a look at the most newsworthy stories of the coming week and what it means for the country and the world, including President Trump’s racist attack on four progressive Congresswomen, the administration’s latest attacks on immigrants, and Amazon Prime Day boycotts and strikes. Ted Rall, an award-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist whose work is at www.rall.com, and Sputnik News analysts and producers of this show Nicole Roussell and Walter Smolarek, join the show.Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules with Chris Garaffa is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Ted Rall, an award-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist whose work is at rall.com.In the week since it was released, politicians and journalists have changed their narrative about the Mueller report, saying that its criminal findings are being suppressed and that Attorney General William Barr is part of a pro-Russia conspiracy. House Democrats will prepare subpoenas this week seeking Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted report. Former Vice President Joe Biden is facing a crisis in his not-yet-launched presidential campaign as Lucy Flores, a Democratic politician from Nevada, says Biden once sniffed her hair and kissed the back of her head. Biden says that he has no memory of the incident, but other senior Democrats are demanding that he explain himself and apologize. Biden said only that he doesn’t believe that he ever acted inappropriately with Flores, but has a long-standing reputation of inappropriate behavior toward women, on top of his widely-criticized handling of the historic Anita Hill hearing when he was head of the Senate judiciary committee. Nicole Roussell, a Sputnik News analyst and a producer of Loud & Clear, joins the show. British parliamentarians considered a series of alternatives to Prime Minister Theresa May’s unpopular Brexit deal today, but none were binding. Less than two weeks away from the already-extended deadline, the UK and the European Union appear to have made no progress towards a deal. Brian and John speak with Alexander Mercouris, the editor-in-chief of The Duran. Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? Bill Ayers, an activist, educator and the author of the book “Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto,” joins Brian and John. A comedian with no political experience has won the most votes in the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election. Volodymyr Zelenskyi received 30 percent of the popular vote, while current president Petro Poroshenko received just 16 percent. Former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko was eliminated from the race. Mark Sleboda, an international affairs and security analyst, joins Brian and John. President Trump yesterday threatened to completely close the border with Mexico, saying, “We are closing the border. We’ll close it. And we’ll keep it closed for a long time. I’m not playing games.” This is one of Trump’s boldest threats yet as he escalates his anti-immigrant rhetoric ahead of the 2020 election. The President also is threatening to cut off all aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, saying, “They’re not doing anything for us.” Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Dave Lindorff, an investigative reporter and founder of This Can’t Be Happening!, joins the show.Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules with Chris Garaffa is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Dan Kovalik, a human rights and labor lawyer and author of the new book “The Plot to Control the World: How the US Spent Billions to Change the Outcome of Elections Around the World.”President Trump is considering declaring a national state of emergency as a way to obtain funding for his border wall. With the partial government shutdown nearing its third week and no end in sight, Trump says he is willing to take the unusual action. Immigrant rights advocates, on the other hand, say that there is absolutely no reasonable argument that the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border constitutes a national crisis. Will the Trump administration get away with this massive expansion of executive authority? Tuesday’s weekly series is False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show. News broke today that prosecutors in New York charged Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya with obstruction of justice. But a closer look at the indictment reveals that U.S. authorities charger her essentially for corresponding with Russian prosecutors to advocate for her client, the corporation Prevezon. Nevertheless, the indictment is now being cited as evidence that Veselnitskaya is an agent of the Russian government, and was acting as such when she participated in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting prior to the election. Brian and John speak with Jim Kavanagh, the editor of thepolemicist.net, and Lee Stranahan, co-host of the Radio Sputnik show Fault Lines. Today is the start of a new regular segment that will air every Tuesday called Women & Society with Dr. Hannah Dickinson. This weekly segment is about the major issues, challenges, and struggles facing women in all aspects of society. Hannah Dickinson, an associate professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and an organizer with the Geneva Women’s Assembly, joins the show. US-China trade talks showed signs of progress today with President Trump tweeting optimistically that a deal is likely. Tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports are set to jump from 10 percent to 25 percent on March 2. Meanwhile, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is in Beijing for talks with Chinese premier Xi Jinping for the fourth time since assuming power. Andy Brennan, a journalist with Asia Times and CGTN, and Jude Woodward, the author of the new book “The US vs China: Asia's new Cold War?,” joins Brian and John. Turkish President Erdogan issued a blunt put-down of National Security Advisor John Bolton yesterday over his pledge to ensure Turkish non-aggression against Syrian Kurds, saying, “We cannot accept Bolton’s messages given from Israel,” and adding, “Bolton has made a serious mistake.” Bolton was in Turkey yesterday, but Erdogan refused to meet him. Dr. Gönül Tol, the founding director of The Middle East Institute’s Center for Turkish Studies and former professor who has taught courses on Islamist movements in Western Europe, Turkey, world politics, and the Middle East, joins the show.The French government will take new measures to deter violence against police and damage to property as it seeks to corral the Yellow Vest movement after another weekend of mass protest. More than 50,000 people demonstrated over the weekend, with some of the marches turning violent. The Macron government is taking full advantage of the opportunity to clamp down on dissent. Brian and John speak with Gilbert Mercier, editor in chief of News Junkie Post and the author of “The Orwellian Empire.”

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Daniel Lazare, a journalist and author of three books—“The Frozen Republic,” “The Velvet Coup,” and “America's Undeclared War,” and Jim Kavanagh, the editor of thepolemicist.net.Two reports prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee boldly assert that Russians working at the Internet Research Agency clearly sought to influence the 2016 election to the benefit of the Republican Party. But they don’t include anything about the dollar amounts spent (they’re absurdly low), when they were spent (56% after the election), or that when this agency actually showed up in court post-indictment, that the prosecution asked for a continuance -- and hasn’t made any moves since. Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules with Chris Garaffa is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show. There are only five days to go before a partial government shutdown, but the White House and Congressional Democrats are digging in their heels. As members of Congress left Washington for the Christmas holiday, Presidential Senior Advisor Stephen Miller said the administration will do “anything that is necessary” to build a border wall. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “the President is not going to get a wall in any form.” Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. US airstrikes over the weekend killed 62 purported members of the al-Shabaab fundamentalist armed group affiliated with al-Qaeda in a remote area of southern Somalia. A spokesman for the Pentagon’s Africa Command, or AFRICOM, said the strikes were carried out jointly with the Somali government and were designed to prevent future Shabaab attacks. But what’s behind the stepped-up role of AFRICOM that these strikes reflect? Is the U.S. engaged in a major escalation of its drone war program? Glen Ford, the executive editor of Black Agenda Report, joins the show. A federal judge in Texas on Friday struck down the Affordable Care Act, ruling that because Congress changed the tax law associated with it, the entire system is no longer legal. The decision will be appealed immediately and will likely end up in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, experts say that the decision will affect literally every American. Dr. Margaret Flowers, a medical doctor and the co-coordinator of Popular Resistance, at PopularResistance.org, joins Brian and John. President Trump on Friday named as acting Chief of Staff OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney also is director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. Both of these latter positions make him susceptible to Congressional subpoena. Why did Trump finally settle on Mulvaney, someone already with two jobs, after an embarrassingly protracted search for a Chief of Staff? Dave Lindorff, an investigative reporter and founder of This Can’t Be Happening! as well as a columnist for CounterPunch and a contributor to The Nation, joins the show.Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? Bill Ayers, an activist, educator and the author of the book “Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto,” joins Brian and John.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by João Rodrigues, a longtime political activist in Brazil, and Aline Piva, a journalist and a member of Brazilians for Democracy and Social Justice.Far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro won the presidency of Brazil yesterday with 55 percent of valid votes cast. Thirty percent of Brazilians cast blank ballots. Bolsonaro is seen as a populist and has been compared to Donald Trump and to Philippines President Duterte. He also has spoken warmly of Brazil’s 1964-1985 military dictatorship and said recently that he would have served in Hitler’s army if he had had the chance. Monday’s regular segment Technology Rules with Chris Garaffa is a weekly guide on how monopoly corporations and the national surveillance state are threatening cherished freedoms, civil rights and civil liberties. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show. Robert Bowers walked into the Tree of Life Synagogue on Saturday in Pittsburgh and opened fire with an AR-15 assault rifle. He’s facing 29 felony counts, including 11 counts of murder with a hate crime enhancement and the Assistant U.S. Attorney says that he will seek the federal death penalty. Bowers’ virulently anti-Semitic online posts presaged the attack. Brian and John speak with Mindy Isser, a labor organizer and member of the Jewish community in the Philadelphia area. The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that the number of troops the US is sending to the border in anticipation of a migrant caravan is up from the reported 800 last week to 5,000. They’re joining 2,000 National Guardsmen already there. Meanwhile, Mexican officials say that the size of the caravan has dropped by half as some migrants are electing to remain in Mexico’s southern Chiapas state. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, joins the show. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced this morning that she would resign from the leadership of the Christian Democratic Party in December and would not seek re-election as chancellor in 2021. The announcement was unexpected, but comes in light of a resounding defeat for Merkel’s coalition in recent regional elections in Bavaria. Activist and journalist Diani Baretto joins Brian and John. The fight for stronger rent control in California is headed to the ballot box next week. Proposition 10 would repeal the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which strictly limits rent control in cities across California. It’s blamed for the state having some of the highest rents in the country. Nathalie Hrizi, a public school librarian who ran on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket for state insurance commissioner in California in the last election and received over 5% of the statewide vote, joins the show.Monday’s segment “Education for Liberation with Bill Ayers” is where Bill helps us look at the state of education across the country. What’s happening in our schools, colleges, and universities, and what impact does it have on the world around us? Brian and John speak with Bill Ayers, an activist, educator and the author of the book “Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto.”

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Shelby Shoup, a student activist at Florida State University who was in the center of the hurricane yesterday, and Gail Walker, the executive director of Pastors for Peace and a Cuba solidarity activist.Hurricane Michael slammed into Panama City, Florida yesterday as a Category 4, with winds of 155 mph before moving inland to Georgia and South Carolina. Two people are dead and more than a 800,000 are without electricity. Hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent—that’s a fact of climate change—but can governments and citizens keep up? Thursday’s weekly series “Criminal Injustice” is about the most egregious conduct of our courts and prosecutors and how justice is denied to so many people in this country. Paul Wright, the founder and executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center and editor of Prison Legal News (PLN), and Kevin Gosztola, a writer for Shadowproof.com and co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure, join the show. Days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment, he was drawn into a heated dispute between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe over who would ultimately oversee the investigation. McCabe argued that Rosenstein’s memo justifying the firing of former FBI director James Comey implicated him in a potential obstruction of justice case against President Trump. McCabe lost that fight and was later fired. Brian and John speak with Daniel Lazare, a journalist and author of three books—“The Frozen Republic,” “The Velvet Coup,” and “America's Undeclared War.” A senior Chinese intelligence official was arrested in a sting operation and extradited yesterday to the United States to face espionage charges. Yanjun Xu, a deputy division director in the Ministry of State Security is the first Chinese intelligence officer ever to be extradited to face trial in open court. He is accused to trying to procure intelligence related to the design of jet engine fan blades. Meanwhile, a Bloomberg story about Chinese efforts to clandestinely install spy chips in US computers servers appears to be fake news. Web developer and technologist Chris Garaffa joins the show. The US military has grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets in the wake of a crash last month in South Carolina. The F-35 has been dogged by cost overruns, poor performance, and engineering problems virtually since its inception. Pierre Sprey, a special assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a former defense analyst who is considered to be one of the fathers of the F-16 and A-10 fighter jets, and one of the country’s foremost critics of the F-35, joins Brian and John. US intelligence services apparently have intercepts of Saudi government communications indicating that Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman ordered the kidnapping of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who has been missing for more than a week since entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials believe that Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered inside the consulate. The Saudis are denying any wrongdoing. Massoud Shadjareh, the founder of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, joins the show.Federal court judges are balking at what they call unlawful efforts by US immigration authorities to continue to detain people charged with entering the country unlawfully, even after they had been granted bail. The rulings complicate the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy against defendants charged with crossing the border illegally. Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Dave Lindorff, an investigative reporter and founder of This Can’t Be Happening!, Ted Rall (rall.com), an award-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist, and Dr. Jack Rasmus (jackrasmus.com), a professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California.A blockbuster New York Times investigation has found that Donald Trump in the 1990s participated in dubious tax schemes, and committed outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune that he had inherited from his parents. Trump won the presidency in part by proclaiming his status as a self-made billionaire. That, it turns out, was simply not true. Wednesday’s regular segment, Beyond Nuclear, is about nuclear issues, including weapons, energy, waste, and the future of nuclear technology in the United States. Kevin Kamps, the Radioactive Waste Watchdog at the organization Beyond Nuclear, and Sputnik news analyst and producer Nicole Roussell, join the show. Last night Donald Trump went before adoring crowds on the campaign trail to mock and deride the credibility of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who had alleged that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her and attempted to rape her while he was severely inebriated at a gathering in a home in Bethesda, MD. Dr. Ford was 15 years old at the time and Kavanaugh was a seventeen-year-old football player. Meanwhile, it appears that the FBI is wrapping up its very limited investigation without interviewing Dr. Blasey Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. Brian and John speak with Dan Kovalik, a human rights and labor lawyer. He’s the author of the book “The Plot to Attack Iran.” More than 1,600 children in recent weeks have been sent in the middle of the night and with no notice or public announcement to a tent city in west Texas where there is no schooling and almost no access to legal representation. The Trump Administration says it has done this because migrant shelters are overflowing. But apparently nobody bothered to consult attorneys or consider human rights. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, joins the show. The Pentagon is expected today to announce that, if asked, it will offer NATO allies its formidable cyber warfare capabilities. A Pentagon spokesperson said that the Defense Department will offer allies both offensive and defensive capabilities, but the U.S. will maintain control over the program. Meanwhile, controversy continues over comments by U.S. NATO envoy Kay Bailey Hutchinson about preemptively “taking out” Russian missiles. Alexander Mercouris, the editor-in-chief of The Duran, joins Brian and John. After a breakthrough agreement between the political bloc led by Muqtada al-Sadr and the pro-Iran Fatah Alliance, Iraq has a new Prime Minister. It’s Adil Abd al-Mahdi, a Shia Muslim former communist who will now try to create a new government. Abd al-Mahdi is a 76-year-old French-trained economist who has spent much of the past 30 years working at European think tanks. Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies and postcolonial literature who teaches at the University of Tehran, joins the show.British Prime Minister Theresa May gave a keynote address at the Conservative Party Conference today in which she said that the economic austerity policies of her party are now a thing of the past. On Brexit, her policy was simple: My way or the highway. But most British observers think that May’s policy changes are too little too late. She faces strong challenges now from both the right and the left. Brian and John speak with Sputnik news analyst Walter Smolarek.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Walter Smolarek (sitting in for Brian Becker) and John Kiriakou are joined by Dr. Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.With the midterm elections fast approaching, will big tech companies be able to sway the results by manipulating the information the public sees first? Most Americans have no idea how their private information is used online. Indeed, a recent study shows that internet users would divulge 40 percent less information if they knew what it was being used for. And how do search engines and search results influence our voting habits, and especially the voting habits of independents and undecided voters? Thursday’s weekly series “Criminal Injustice” is about the most egregious conduct of our courts and prosecutors and how justice is denied to so many people in this country. Paul Wright, the founder and executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center and editor of Prison Legal News (PLN), and Kevin Gosztola, a writer for Shadowproof.com and co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure, join the show. South Korean president Moon Jae-in said yesterday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wants to complete denuclearization by 2021. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has since invited North Korean officials to talks next week in New York. Walter and John speak with Gareth Porter, a historian, investigative journalist, and analyst specializing in U.S. national security policy. The Senate on Tuesday passed a new defense spending bill that would increase spending by $17 billion by a vote of 93-7. It was opposed by 6 Republicans and Bernie Sanders—no Democrats. Despite incessant rhetoric against the Trump Administration by Democrats, they just handed him $607 billion to build his military with. Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war activist and journalist whose son Casey was killed during the Iraq War, joins the show. Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday placed new limits on the ability of immigration judges to terminate deportation cases, the latest in a series of decisions to facilitate the removal of people in the United States without documentation. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, joins Walter and John. The State Department has been pushing Iran into entering negotiations for a new nuclear treaty that would include limits on Iran’s ballistic missile program. The Iranian government has responded with a loud “no.” While the State Department’s new special envoy says that Washington is seeking a treaty, rather than a personal agreement, Tehran says the US has already violated the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) by canceling it, and Iran will not enter into negotiations when it can’t trust the other side. Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies and postcolonial literature who teaches at the University of Tehran, joins the show.In June, Arkansas became the first state to require that able-bodied Medicaid recipients do some combination of work, volunteering, job training, or education to keep their benefits, just like Kentucky and several other states are trying to do. Three months into the new rules, Arkansas has kicked 4,353 people off of Medicaid for noncompliance. Thousands more could be kicked off next month. Walter and John speak with Leo Cuello, an attorney and the director of health policy for the National Health Law Program.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Ambassador Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria, and Mark Sleboda, an international affairs and security analyst.The governments of Russia and Turkey yesterday announced a demilitarized zone in the Syrian province of Idlib, a move that appears to have delayed what was believed to be an imminent assault on the area by the Syrian army. Meanwhile, a Syrian anti-aircraft battery accidentally shot down a Russian transport plane last night, killing all 15 Russians on board. The Russian and Syrian governments blamed interference by the Israeli air force for the accident. Tuesday’s weekly series is False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show. President Trump yesterday ordered the declassification of documents related to the Russia investigation, including supporting material for a FISA warrant targeting former Trump campaign official and advisor Carter Page, and text messages exchanged by former FBI agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend. Supporters laud the move’s transparency. But detractors are criticizing the president for politicizing intelligence. Brian and John speak with Jim Kavanagh, the editor of thepolemicist.net, whose latest article is “Be Careful What You Ask For: Wasting Time with Manafort, Cohen, and Russiagate.” Hurricane Florence is now a tropical depression, but she left much of North Carolina underwater and killed at least 17 people. As the state begins to dry off, what happens to those North Carolinians who have no flood insurance, especially the poor? And why is it that for many, flood insurance simply isn’t available? Samuel Gunter, the interim executive director of the North Carolina Housing Coalition, joins the show. South Korean President Moon Jae In and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met in Pyongyang today in the hope of making more tangible gains toward a Korean peace treaty and reenergizing faltering denuclearization talks between Pyongyang and Washington. The talks will continue for two more days. Simone Chun, a fellow at the Korea Policy Institute and a member of the Korean Peace Network, joins Brian and John. There is a gubernatorial race taking place on the Japanese island of Okinawa, and the top issue there is the US military base. Most Okinawans want the base to be closed, but residents of other Japanese cities don’t want a US base in their neighborhoods either. All of this comes after years of high-profile crimes committed against Japanese civilians by US servicepeople. The US position is that it isn’t going anywhere because it needs the base to counter China. Peter Kuznick, who just returned from Okinawa and is a professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University and the co-author with Oliver Stone of the book and the hit Showtime television series “The Untold History of the United States,” joins the show.The White House announced yesterday that the annual refugee quota for fiscal year 2019 would be cut to only 30,000 people, down from 45,000 last year and down from an average of 95,000 per year over the past two decades. Human rights groups are calling the decision an abandonment of the American promise to the world’s neediest people. Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Bruce Fein, a constitutional law scholar and a former assistant deputy Attorney General of the United States, and Sputnik News analyst Walter Smolarek.Two longtime war critics in the House of Representatives sponsored a bill last week that says any president should face impeachment for waging war without a formal declaration from Congress. Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat, and Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, say that unauthorized military action should be considered a “high crime and misdemeanor.” Tuesday’s weekly series is False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey. Today they discuss elder care, the 2.5 billion pounds of meat that are now sitting in a warehouse instead of being eaten because it’s more profitable, and how Portugal’s non-austerity approach has led to a healthy economy compared to the austerity in the rest of Europe. Daniel Sankey, a financial policy analyst, joins the show. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, yesterday asked President Trump to revoke the security clearances of six former Obama Administration intelligence officials who have been harshly critical of the president. Trump is considering the request. But why do former officials with no governmental responsibility, who are now employed by media outlets, have security clearances in the first place? In the first half of this interview, Brian and John speak with Joe Lauria, the editor-in-chief of Consortium News, founded by the late Robert Parry, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst turned political activist and journalist. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, yesterday asked President Trump to revoke the security clearances of six former Obama Administration intelligence officials who have been harshly critical of the president. Trump is considering the request. But why do former officials with no governmental responsibility, who are now employed by media outlets, have security clearances in the first place? In the second half of this interview, Joe Lauria, the editor-in-chief of Consortium News, founded by the late Robert Parry, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst turned political activist and journalist, join the show. As the Senate continues its deliberation on passing the enormous $717 billion defense spending bill for 2019, new details continue to emerge. The bill is likely to include a number of provocative policies aimed at turning up pressure on Russia, including allocating $250 million for lethal military aid to Ukraine. Mark Sleboda, an international affairs and security analyst, joins Brian and John. The Israeli military said today that it had shot down a Syrian fighter jet after it entered Israeli airspace—an allegation the Syrian government denies. The announcement sparked fears of a widening conflict. Ambassador Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria, joins the show.The Trump Administration said today that 463 immigrant parents may already have been deported without their children, adding yet another stumbling block to the reunification of families in advance of a court-ordered deadline to do so on Thursday. Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Sputnik News analyst Walter Smolarek.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Medea Benjamin, an anti-war and anti-torture activist and the co-founder of Code Pink, and Simone Chun, a fellow at the Korea Policy Institute and a member of the Korean Peace Network.The US and South Korea have canceled a major military exercise scheduled for August after President Trump made the surprise concession in Singapore last week. Meanwhile, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is in Beijing for consultations. He has also been invited to visit Moscow and Washington, and rumored to have been invited to Japan. In Loud & Clear’s weekly Wednesday series False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey, the hosts join Daniel in analyzing the back-and-forth trade war between China and the US. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show. Former FBI Director Comey released an op-ed today in the New York Times defending his actions in the Hillary Clinton email probe. The hosts continue to discuss yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing featuring the Justice Department’s Inspector General and the FBI Director. Inspector General Michael Horowitz defended his finding that political bias played no role in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, although he said that he was deeply concerned about the inappropriate and unethical behavior and actions of dozens of FBI agents. Brian and John speak with Dan Kovalik, a human rights and labor lawyer who is the author of “The Plot to Attack Iran.” Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were American citizens who were accused in the 1950s of spying for the Soviet Union. They were put through a politically charged trial and quickly convicted, despite convincing evidence that Ethel was innocent of any crime and Julius was guilty of no more than a minor one. Sixty five years ago today they were executed. Their sons, Michael and Robert Meeropol have worked for years to clear their parents’ names. Michael Steven Smith, who is an attorney, author, activist, and host of the radio show Law and Disorder, joins the show. A former CIA employee was charged with multiple counts of espionage for allegedly leaking documents that became known as the Vault 7 revelations. Prof. Bryan Ford leads the Decentralized/Distributed Systems lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), joins Brian and John. Political pressure is growing rapidly on the Trump Administration to end its policy of separating migrant families at the border. A poll released yesterday shows that 66 percent of Americans oppose the policy, the United Nations declared it a form of child abuse, and even Republican senators are sponsoring bills to end it immediately. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, joins the show.Today, the 19th of June, is Juneteenth, which commemorates the day in 1865 when 250,000 slaves in Texas were finally told that they were free, two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. One hundred fifty three years later, Juneteenth is still relevant as people of color still struggle for equal rights in the United States and as migrants fight to keep their families together. Brian and John speak with C. R. Gibbs. He’s an author and co-author of six books and a frequent national and international lecturer and he appears regularly on television to discuss historical issues. He is the featured speaker at a Juneteenth history event going on now hosted by ONE D.C. & Stop Police Terror Project DC.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Heather Benno, an immigrant rights activist and attorney, and Angie Kim, the Community Engagement & Advocacy Coordinator for the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium.In a major blow to the Trump Administration’s immigration policy, another federal judge has ruled that attempts to end the popular Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, are illegal. However, the judge gave the Administration 90 days to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the travel ban finally reaches the Supreme Court today. All three versions of the travel ban have been ruled unconstitutional at every level of the federal courts. Now it’s the Supreme Court’s turn to weigh in. Wednesday is the regular segment looking at nuclear issues, including weapons, energy, waste, and the future of nuclear technology in the United States. Today, they discuss the pushback on a proposed new nuclear waste facility in New Mexico (submit comments against the facility at beyondnuclear.org), the Iran nuclear deal potentially being ripped apart, the North Korea-US talks, and the US breaking of international law about nuclear non-proliferation. Kevin Kamps, the Radioactive Waste Watchdog at the organization Beyond Nuclear, joins the show. Busloads of Central American migrants arrived in Tijuana Mexico yesterday, where they intend to turn themselves in to US border authorities and to ask for asylum. Most of the migrants are from Honduras and are fleeing crime, violence, and political repression in that country. The Trump Administration, however, is warning that anybody without a valid claim will be swiftly deported. And anybody who tries to cross the border will be arrested and prosecuted. Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. A Filipino human rights activist scheduled for a speaking tour in the US was detained upon arrival at San Francisco Airport. A Customs and Border Protection officer said there was a problem with Jerome Aba’s visa, but Aba maintains that customs officers planted a weapon on him and tortured him when he was first detained. Adrian Bonifacio, National Chairperson of Anakbayan-USA, and Mong Palatino, a journalist and former member of the Philippines’ House of Representatives who was set to be on the same speaking tour as Jerome Aba, joins the show. The Taliban announced the start of their annual spring offensive today, dismissing an offer of peace talks by President Ashraf Ghani, but pledging to focus on attacking only US forces in Afghanistan. Ghani had called for peace talks without any preconditions, but the Taliban refused, calling the offer “a conspiracy.” Brian Terrell, a long time peace activist and a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, joins Brian and John. Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is on trial in that country on myriad corruption charges. He and his family have been major political players in Pakistan for much of the past 30 years and have been accused of corruption before. But allegations of Sharif having assets beyond his means, leaked as part of the Panama Papers, may be enough to finally put him in prison. Marvin Weinbaum, the Scholar-in-Residence for the Middle East Institute’s Center for Pakistan Studies, joins the show.Facebook yesterday made public for the very first time a 27-page memo explaining the criteria for banning content on its site. The company also said that it would be more clear about its privacy policies in light of a new European Union law mandating transparency. Meanwhile, Twitter has released its privacy policy to the public. Brian and John speak with Professor Bryan Ford, who leads the Decentralized/Distributed Systems lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Walter Smolarek (filling in for Brian Becker) and John Kiriakou are joined by Dr. Gerald Horne, a professor of history at the University of Houston and author of many books, including “The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America.”Linda Brown died yesterday Brown was a young schoolgirl when she was at the center of a landmark Supreme Court case that ended racial segregation in American schools, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The hosts talk about her legacy, the impact of Brown v. The Board of Education at the time, and the way that school segregation has morphed, but in effect stayed the same, since then. Tuesday’s weekly series continues, looking at the top economic issues of the day, focusing on the power of Amazon and the decline of department stores and shopping malls. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show.Syria and rebel groups have made evacuation deals in two of three rebel pockets outside of Damascus, in Harasta and Douma. The third pocket, controlled by the Jaish al-Islam, or Army of Islam, Saudi Arabia’s main ally, is not yet being evacuated because the Army of Islam has refused to surrender. That group is still in negotiations with Russia, Syria’s main ally, and another round of talks starts tomorrow. Civilians eagerly await the arrival of humanitarian aid from the Syrian government once rebel forces are gone. Walter and John speak with Rick Sterling, an investigative journalist and member of the Syria Solidarity Movement. A bipartisan group of congresspeople has called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate whether Aljazeera, the news outlet owned by the Qatari government, should register as an agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. Peter van Buren, a former State Department Foreign Service Officer who became a renowned whistleblower, a journalist, and the author of four books, the most recent of which is “Hooper’s War: A Novel of World War II Japan,” joins the show. Over the last day, the US and the European Union have announced that they would expel more than 100 Russian diplomats, many thought to be intelligence officers, from their countries as a result of the Skripal poisoning case. The actions return the state of relations between Russia on one side, and the US and EU on the other, to the days of the Cold War. Reiner Braun, co-president of the International Peace Bureau, joins Walter and John. A Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a teenager who threw a stone at him from the Mexican side of the border, has gone on trial in federal court in Tucson. The agent, who shot the boy ten times, maintains that he was in danger for his safety. Isabel Garcia, co-founder of Coalición de Derechos Humanos, joins the show.The state of California is suing the Trump Administration, arguing that its decision to ask about citizenship status in the next census is an unconstitutional attempt to undercount immigrants. Brian and John speak with Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Non-Violence who just returned from Afghanistan.Afghan President Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to begin peace talks, and he offered security and other incentives to those who participate. Meanwhile, since the International Criminal Court began collecting material three months ago for a possible war crimes case involving Afghanistan, it has received a staggering 1.17 million statements from Afghans who say they were victims of ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or the Afghan government and the US-led coalition. Will the United States be able to reassert it domination over Asia? After scrapping the Trans Pacific Partnership, a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy, the Trump administration has been pursuing the so-called “Quadrilateral Alliance,” of US, Australia, Japan, and India. Alfred McCoy, the Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of the news book: “In the Shadows of the American Century-- The Rise and Decline of US Global Power,” joins the show. In a blow to immigrant rights and basic civil liberties, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-3 to restrict the rights of immigrants held in detention centers, limiting their right to bail hearings and making it easier for authorities to detain them indefinitely. Brian and John speak with Miguel Andrade, the communications manager at the immigrant rights advocacy organization Juntos and a member of the Board of Directors of the US Human Rights Network, and Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear took its fight to the Supreme Court on Monday with a rare petition asking the justices to require federal regulators to change rules that exclude nuclear power plants' transmission lines from environmental review. The petition marks the first time the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to allow expedited construction of a new power plant is being challenged in the Supreme Court. Kevin Kamps, the Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear, joins the show. A debate has erupted over the effectiveness of the Trump and Clinton campaigns’ social media operations during the 2016 election. How does social media advertising work and what is its impact on democracy? Dr. Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, joins Brian and John. President Trump blasted Attorney General Sessions on Twitter this morning, saying that Sessions’s decision to simply refer a FISA investigation to the Justice Department’s Inspector General was “disgraceful.” Plus, The Atlantic has new secret messages between Trump adviser Roger Stone and Wikileaks, which they’re using to bolster Stone’s claim that he was in contact with Wikileaks. The only problem is the content of the messages--they show that they were clearly not working together. Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent who in 2002 was named Time Magazine person of the year along with two other whistleblowers, and David Cobb, campaign manager of the 2016 Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka presidential campaign, join the show.Fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is heating up as regional powers and western corporations fight amongst each other over the right to loot the country’s vast mineral wealth. Brian and John speak with Kambale Musavuli, the national spokesman for The Friends of the Congo, and one of that country’s leading political and cultural voices.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Jana Nakhal, an independent researcher and a member of the Central Committee of Lebanese Communist Party, and Dan Cohen, a journalist and filmmaker.An Israeli fighter jet was shot down in Syria over the weekend, after the Israeli Air Force attacked Syrian installations. That attack was in response to an Iranian drone crossing into Israeli airspace. By the time it was all over, six Syrians were dead and many more wounded.The hosts talk about North and South Korea and the attitude of the Trump Administration. Mike Pence went out of his way to demonstrate unhappiness with the possibility that peace could break out on the Korean Peninsula. The two Koreas marched under one flag at the Olympics and North Korea has invited South Korean President Moon Jae-in to visit Pyongyang for more talks. The Korean War began 68 years ago—might it finally be coming to a close? Patrick Lawrence, the author of “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century” and a columnist at Salon and The Nation, and Bruce Gagnon, the coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, join the show.The Trump administration submitted today a budget proposal that would see massive cuts made to social programs, including Medicare, alongside a huge boost to military spending. Meanwhile, President Trump will unveil his infrastructure bill today that critics say falls well short of what is needed to address the country’s needs. Brian and John speak with Dr. Jack Rasmus, a professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California and author of “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression.”Debate is set to begin today in the Senate on a new immigration reform bill, although no such debate has been scheduled in the House, casting doubt on Republican protestations that they want immigration reform. Meanwhile, 120 immigrants detained in an ICE facility in Washington State have begun a hunger strike. Jorge Barón, the executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, joins the show.Lissa Lucas was asked to testify before the West Virginia legislature on an oil and gas industry-sponsored bill that would allow companies to drill on private land without the owner's consent. A few minutes into her testimony, her microphone was turned off. And a few minutes after that, she was forcibly dragged from the room. Natalie Thompson, the Executive Director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, joins Brian and John.The Ohio Attorney General is suing DuPont and its spinoff Chemour Co. for years of dumping toxic chemicals from its West Virginia plant into a river that fouled air, water, and land in neighboring Ohio, despite knowing the damage it was doing. Robin Blakeman, the Huntington Project Coordinator with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, joins the show.The New York Times reported over the weekend that the US intelligence community recently conducted a top secret operation to recover stolen classified documents from Russian operatives. The article says that the operation also inadvertently yielded a cache of documents related to Donald Trump and to Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The only problem is that the CIA, in a very rare public statement, says the report is “fantasy” and “patently false.”

Nuestra periodista 'Chiqui' Dávila pudo conversar con Jorge Barón, luego de haber sido hospitalizado de una apendicitis. Parodia de Azuquita Pa'l Café. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest Jorge Barón is a national figure in the immigration debate. He was born in Bogota, Colombia and moved to the U.S. when he was 13. As the son of a TV legend in Colombia, it seemed like Jorge's destiny was to be in the entertainment business. But instead, his career took a different path. Now he’s the leader of one of the largest immigrant rights nonprofits in the U.S. In 2008, Governor Gregoire appointed Jorge to serve on Washington’s New Americans Policy Council. In 2009, Puget Sound Business Journal selected Jorge as one of “40 under 40”—a list that highlights 40 business and nonprofit leaders under the age of 40. In 2012, the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington awarded Jorge its Model of Excellence award. These only among some of his honors. In this episode, I asked Jorge about his life in Colombia. What it was like to grow up under the shadow of his famous father. And why he left his career making movies in Hollywood to fight for immigrant rights. I also asked Jorge to share his take on running a successful nonprofit and his future aspirations as he continues to do his part to change the world. Full show notes: bit.ly/btsep016

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern. We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern. We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker is joined by Jorge Barón, Executive Director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the organization that filed the class action lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order.The legal and political drama continues over Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning entry from 7 majority-Muslim countries and all refugees. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday, but is this case destined to be decided by the Supreme Court?For the first time ever, the Vice-President has had to break a tie in a Senate confirmation hearing. Education Secretary and billionaire political donor Betsy DeVos’ performance during the confirmation showed a profound lack of knowledge about education policy, and her support for privatizing education has sparked outrage among education rights activists. Derek Ford, professor of education studies at Depauw University, joins the show. Could tensions in the South China Sea be resolved through dialogue despite the Trump administration’s aggressive posture towards China? Secretary of Defence James Mattis said diplomats should work to solve the issue, leading China to express cautious optimism. John Ross, a Senior Fellow at Chonyang Institute for Financial Studies at the Renmin University of China, talks with Brian about if it's too early to tell if diplomacy will win out in U.S.-China relations.

Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, breaks down three executive orders by President Trump that deal with immigrants. Then, Seattle Times data columnist Gene Balk describes his reporting on Washington state residents born in the seven Muslim-majority countries whose citizens Trump has banned from entering the United States.

We are incredibly honored to have Jorge Barón, Executive Director of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) on this episode of Immigration With Tahmina” on Desi 1250 am which aired on March 1st at 10am PST. Jorge shares information about NWIRP and the services available for people in the community. He shares tips on how to get through the phone lines. He also shares his insights on #immigrationreform as well as the Supreme Court case on #DAPA and #DACA (deferred action for parents of US citizens and green card holders). This is truly an educational episode for those who need help on immigration issues.