Podcast appearances and mentions of josefa velasquez

In Newburgh City in Orange County, law enforcement waits to turn back a bus full of migrants at Crossroads Hotel. WNYC's Jon Campbell speaks live with WNYC's Michael Hill from the hotel. We'll be following the story throughout the day. Also, bodegas are a staple in New York City. They're more than just convenience stores, they're community hubs. WNYC is partnering with several organizations to learn more about what's top of mind for bodega owners and customers. Editors Nsikan Akpan of the health and science desk and Josefa Velasquez of the Economics and Equity desk discuss the reporting with Michael Hill.

Josefa Velasquez joins from Albany to break down the stop-and-start, hurry-up-and-wait path toward New York's forthcoming and already late $216 billion or so budget (and everything else) deal.

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Co-Founder and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. They start by discussing the impact of redlining on the City of Seattle today, housing affordability, and the initiative that would create social housing in Seattle. Then, they unpack why Seattle City Council's tree conservation plan would ultimately slow down housing development. Crystal and Erica then dive into this week's labor news and finish with a conversation about hiring and public safety – from the police chief to the downtown juvenile jail staff. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “New maps show strong correlation between redlined places in Seattle and worse air quality” by Nicholas Turner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/new-maps-show-strong-correlation-between-redlined-places-in-seattle-and-worse-air-quality/    “$100K-plus households are now the majority in most Seattle neighborhoods” by Gene Balk from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/100k-plus-households-are-now-the-majority-in-most-seattle-neighborhoods/    “Initiative Would Pave the Way for Social Housing in Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/28/initiative-would-pave-the-way-for-social-housing-in-seattle/     “Seattle City Council Embarks on Tree Conservation Crusade, but Strauss Says Urbanists Need Not Worry” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/30/69548451/seattle-city-council-embarks-on-tree-conservation-crusade-but-strauss-says-urbanists-need-not-worry    “Judge: Seattle concrete companies intentionally drove into striking workers at picket line” by FOX 13 News Staff from FOX 13: https://www.q13fox.com/news/judge-seattle-concrete-companies-intentionally-drove-into-striking-workers-at-picket-line     “Broadway is a union street — Capitol Hill Crossroads workers approve unionization” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/03/broadway-is-a-union-street-capitol-hill-crossroads-workers-approve-unionization/   “Amazon Warehouse Workers Win Historic Union Vote on Staten Island” by Josefa Velasquez and Claudia Irizarry Aponte from The City: https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/4/1/23006509/amazon-warehouse-workers-union-win-staten-island   “Amazon Spent $4.3 Million On Anti-Union Consultants Last Year” by Dave Jamieson from HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-consultants_n_62449258e4b0742dfa5a74fb?c9h    “Kirsten Harris-Talley: Why I Am Not Seeking Reelection” by Kirsten Harris-Talley from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/03/29/kirsten-harris-talley-why-i-am-not-seeking-reelection/    “Seattle mayor announces nationwide police chief search, urges interim Chief Diaz to apply”  by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-mayor-announces-nationwide-police-chief-search-urges-interim-chief-diaz-to-apply/    “Report Says Hiring Incentives May Not Work; 11 City Appointees Kept Hanging for Lack of Council Quorum” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/29/report-says-hiring-incentives-may-not-work-11-city-appointees-kept-hanging-for-lack-of-council-quorum/    “Parents Won't Have to to Pay Jail Costs for Incarcerated Children; Another Suicide at Downtown Jail Amid Ongoing Staff Shortage” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/25/parents-wont-have-to-to-pay-jail-costs-for-incarcerated-children-another-suicide-at-downtown-jail-amid-ongoing-staff-shortage/    Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am 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. I can tell I've had a lot of coffee. Full transcripts and resources referenced in this show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. 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. [00:00:58] Erica Barnett: Hey Crystal - great to be here. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Hey, great to be here with you. I've been reading you for over the past decade and enjoying all of our conversations that we have on here, so I'm excited to have you back. I want to start talking about a story here in Seattle this week that was published in The Times - talking about the correlation between redlined places in Seattle and worse air quality. What were these findings? [00:01:26] Erica Barnett: Well, I think you basically said it. The places that were historically redlined in Seattle, places like Georgetown - and redlining of course is, I'm sure your listeners know this, but the racist practice of restricting home ownership and where people of color, Black people in particular, could live - it still persists to this day in the sense that we are a very segregated city. And no surprise, a lot of the places that people were sort of redlined into - South Park, Georgetown, the industrial areas of Seattle - are more dangerous places to live. Life expectancy is lower where pollution is greater and so the study basically confirmed that with some real numbers. [00:02:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and part of the conversation related to zoning that we've had - what we are seeing today - the development patterns and where people today live has definitely been influenced by areas that have traditionally been redlined and those that haven't. Development has followed a very predictable pattern - looking at where it's occurred in areas that were outside of redlined areas, and where development has not occurred in areas that were redlined. This is just part of the continuing conversation of looking at how we build and shape our communities. And if we don't move with intention to undo the blatantly racist practices from a couple few decades ago, then we're continuing and enabling dangerous conditions to persist in these communities. [00:03:16] Erica Barnett: Yeah - one of the most predictive factors for pollution and for health impacts is living next to a big road - a freeway, or just a big arterial - where you have lots of trucks and buses and cars driving all the time. And of course in Seattle, since the 1990s, we have had official policy of concentrating density around larger arterials and into areas that we call urban villages, which have lots of shops and businesses and restaurants and all that great stuff, but they're also on the busiest roads. This is official policy that basically was designed to "protect single family areas" which make up the overwhelming majority of Seattle - and there are real pollution implications and there are real class implications to doing that - to concentrating people who can't afford to buy a $1 million, $2 million house into these tiny little sections of the City where we allow them, or we allow us, because I certainly can't afford a house to live. [00:04:26] Crystal Fincher: Well, I am in that same club. And this is related to another story that came out this week talking about $100,000-and-over households are now the majority in most Seattle neighborhoods. The average home in Seattle now has an income of over $100,000. What does this mean for Seattle? [00:04:49] Erica Barnett: I don't find these numbers surprising, so I think it means exactly what we've been seeing - for those of us who've lived here for a decade or two - have been seeing for a long time. The haves and the have-nots in Seattle are just living in very different cities. Something like, I think, it was 52%, 51%, maybe a little more - make over $100,000. That is just a different world than the 18% or so who make under $35,000 - because when you have that kind of income, when you have that kind of wealth, even in the rental market, you've got people who are making a tremendous amount of money driving up costs for everybody else. And so if you make $50,000 a year, that means that the apartment that would maybe cost a $1,000 10 years ago now costs $2,000. So your money just doesn't go as far when you have this kind of tremendous income inequality and you have this tremendous top heavy city, with so many people just making sums that are absurd to those of us in the middle income and lower brackets. [00:06:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this is so just revealing - and I should note that these numbers are an average of 2016 to 2020 - and we have seen incomes and housing prices continue to rise in that time. So these figures might technically be a little out of date and odds are that the average has actually increased, but with 53% of the homes in Seattle making over $100,000, it certainly skews so many things there. And just such small percentages of people who make incomes lower than that - and also interesting where they're concentrated - so looking at areas in interior of West Seattle, some areas in the Rainier Valley. Other areas where lower income, or households that earn less than $50,000, include part of Bitter Lake and part of Northgate, the CID and Yesler Terrace, and parts of Beacon Hill around New Holly. [00:07:16] Erica Barnett: It's Georgetown and South Park - the areas we were just talking about as being redlined - are also in those lower income brackets. [00:07:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and we have to do something about this. We can't continue to concentrate poverty and to kind of exempt people from healthier areas, more vibrant areas, more economically mobile areas. There's so many reports and studies that have been done - when you actually have areas with mixed incomes, the families generally do better, the neighborhoods are usually safer. It actually is harmful to the City to have it be this segregated and certainly harmful to the residents living in the areas that we just talked about - are experiencing all of the downsides from concentrating wealth in so few areas and kind of locking people out of wealth in other areas. And then also impacting their health and the way their community is just shaped and developed, and the way their families are forced to deal with the challenges that higher income people are able to buy themselves out of. I certainly am of the opinion that we should do more to protect the entire community - it's to all of our advantage to do that, but we will see how that continues to unfold. And then related to this, in response to so much of this that we've seen, there's a new initiative that was announced this week. What is it? [00:08:52] Erica Barnett: This is a new initiative put out by House Our Neighbors, which is a project of Real Change, that would essentially set up a public development authority to develop publicly owned, permanently affordable housing. The initiative would just set up an organization to do this work - it does not actually provide a funding source yet. The folks who are behind it said to me that they want to do this in steps because there's a single subject rule on initiatives and to sort of get people accustomed to the idea and educated on the idea of what they're calling social housing. And they distinguish this from affordable housing because it would not be owned and operated by a private non-profit or any of the other existing models. And because it would be permanently affordable, including if you move into a social housing apartment and your income changes, you would not be kicked out. So those are kind of the basics, and I think we'll find out more about their intent once they start the campaign - they have filed the initiative and they need, I want to say, a little over 26,000 signatures to get it on the ballot in November. [00:10:14] Crystal Fincher: All right. And then we're also seeing, in the City of Seattle, an effort to save trees that has some people suspicious. What's going on there? [00:10:26] Erica Barnett: Well, there has been a push for a very long time among single family homeowner advocates to "save trees". Seattle is a very green city compared to a lot of other cities and I think that is a wonderful thing about it. You go to San Francisco, you go to other places - and it's not as green and that is definitely a huge asset to the City. But there is an effort to sort of restrict what people can do in their backyards in terms of removing trees of sort of normal size, not giant exceptional trees. They're trying to make the - I'm trying to think of how to explain this - to make the size of tree that you can remove without taking extraordinary measures and getting permission from the City smaller. What this is actually aimed at is preventing development - it is an effort to say if you want to build a duplex, if you want to build a backyard cottage, and you have to remove a tree, we're going to make that incredibly hard for you to do. The legislation that they adopted this week was pretty anodyne - it was just about getting arborists to register and have licenses with the City before they can remove trees. But it was the first in a whole series of legislation - the largest piece of which is a giant update to the tree ordinance that would do all these things. It would make it harder to remove smaller trees - because now you already have to get a permit to remove exceptional, giant, enormous trees - so this would just kind of make it harder and harder to remove trees, and thus harder and harder to actually build new housing. And I think that is the ultimate goal. [00:12:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and what has a number of people who've been supportive of increasing zoning and density and building new housing - suspicious that this is a tactic just to prevent building new housing and is not driven by people with a principle motivation of maintaining trees. Trees are an important conversation. We've talked before on this program about how important the tree canopy is and having a wide variety of trees - particularly, just in terms of air quality in the area, but also in terms of regulating temperature - and as we continue to increase the types of harms that we are seeing from climate change and having more heat extremes, the amount of trees in an area completely dictates how hot an area gets, how long it takes to cool down, and there have been absolute heat zones correlated with areas that lack trees definitely here in King County. And The Seattle Times has covered this before with maps that demonstrate this, so trees are an important conversation. I do not want to discount the importance of talking about trees in terms of public policy and safety. This does not seem to be that. This seems to be just, "Hey, we want to make it harder to have anything to do with that." It's not talking about planting any new trees, it's not talking about addressing areas that are in heat deserts without trees. It's - just seems like it's, "Hey, we're going to make it harder to modify our existing landscape, particularly in single family zoned areas." [00:14:02] Erica Barnett: Right - I think the thing is, and the part of the conversation that we never seem to get to, is the fact that when we are in areas that do not have a lot of trees - development can be an opportunity to plant trees. And actually, we don't even need development to plant trees, but that is a great opportunity. And we're not talking about adding to the tree canopy in the same way that we are "protecting the tree canopy" by specifically not allowing people to cut down trees on private land. So I think that kind of reveals what this conversation is really about - because if it was about tree canopy, we would be talking about tree canopy everywhere and not just in these single family areas and these very wealthy single family areas that tend to have these huge urban forests, as opposed to these redlined areas - the poorer areas of town - where trees were cut down and where we don't have mature trees anymore. I think that part of the conversation just gets left out by these so-called tree advocates. [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. Now, I also want to talk about an update to a story that we've been covering on lots of these weeks in reviews, and it's about the concrete worker strike. And this week - kind of a big deal - a judge ruled that Seattle concrete companies have been intentionally driving into striking workers who are on the picket line. Literally driving into workers causing injury - evidently it's been a tactic that has been used. The King County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of striking workers who filed a lawsuit against the concrete companies - these companies have had drivers that have assaulted and blocked union members' constitutional right to protest. The judge agreed with that and found that there have been multiple instances at concrete company sites where non-union drivers or trucks, leasing from or serving the companies, have charged into picketers causing bodily injury and creating significant danger to the picketers. And also violating some signage requirements. They also found that one truck driver intentionally drove a truck against, or basically drove into a picketer who was clearly standing in front of the truck, and that another driver for Cadman drove a truck into the picket line causing physical contact with picketers and causing injury. This is really, really out of bounds and scary. A representative from the union said it's reassuring to have the Court affirm our legal right to peacefully picket, but the violence that they've seen against their members is unfounded, egregious, and frankly disgusting. They're trying to negotiate, and exercising their rights to stand up for their members and negotiate better terms. The Court also found that the construction companies - particularly Cadman, Merlino and Stoneway - had failed to fully comply with an earlier order to post signage to drivers and customers alerting them of the pickets, and in order to prevent trucks from charging through picketers as they perform their picketing and patrolling. This, as Teamsters reached a good faith agreement to try and come back to work for some of the concrete companies - as we continue to hear how projects around the region, whether it's Sound Transit or other affordable housing projects, a wide variety or bridge projects have been delayed by this and the County is searching for options, including potentially, a publicly owned concrete company. What's your read of this? [00:17:56] Erica Barnett: I don't think the concrete companies have a lot of sympathy, and I'm not on the inside of this obviously, but if they're betting that all these agencies that rely on them and companies that rely on concrete flowing are going to get fed up with the unions and with the picketing - this certainly seems like a major miscalculation - committing violence. We were talking earlier off mic about how this sort of tactic of driving through protests has become more and more common in a lot of different contexts. And when you're talking about these giant trucks - obviously, it's incredibly dangerous, incredibly violent - and I think I on a political level, I don't think that it serves their cause at all to be committing violence against workers who are trying to bargain in good faith and as you said - are voluntarily working out agreements for some of them to go back to work, even in the absence of a deal with the companies - who I think the terms that they initially proposed were pretty unreasonable. So it seems like the stalemate just is going to continue, and there have been major consequences and I think will continue to be - Sound Transit relies heavily on concrete flowing - they're in a big production cycle, they're building a lot right now and I think that they could see delays. I don't think that this is going to make government agencies more sympathetic to the concrete company's side. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree - we will continue to pay attention and stay involved. With that, we certainly hope those companies cease their violent tactics and just negotiate in good faith, please. This can cost lives. There is just no justification for those kind of violent tactics. In better, more exciting union news - just yesterday, a new union was formed. The Capitol Hill Crossroads workers voted unanimously to approve unionization, and this comes on the heels of hearing that Amazon's 5,000-member Staten Island facility also voted to unionize - which was a humongous uphill battle. And I don't know if you recall, especially in the Amazon example, there was a worker - a Black worker - who was fired unjustly for trying to organize a union. And it was leaked that Amazon suggested that this man was unintelligent, unarticulate, and that they wanted to make him the face of the unionization effort as if that was going to be some kind of liability, or that he was inherently problematic for some mysterious reason. And he said, "You know what? Bring it on." And actually led the unionization effort, and in a big David versus Goliath battle - came out on top and successfully organized that union. And so just a lot of news. I mean, we've talked about how just income inequality is flourishing as much as it ever has - and people are struggling in so many ways and experiencing so many consequences related to them just trying to earn a living and live a life - and certainly unionization helps. So congratulations to the Crossroads Workers Union in Capitol Hill. I definitely want to give a shout out to Emma Mudd who did an amazing job as a lead organizer there, and just hope that we are just seeing the beginning - between Starbucks and Crossroads, there is definitely a movement afoot. One other thing I wanted to touch on and talk about was an article this week that was written by outgoing, or who will be outgoing, legislator Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle's 37th legislative district - who announced that she is not running for reelection and called out a number of challenges that are currently happening in the Legislature - and really calling out the toxic environment that has festered there for quite some time and has played a role in a large number of departures that we've seen. What was your reaction to the story? [00:22:50] Erica Barnett: Well, I have to say it's not terribly surprising to me that the Legislature - she described the Legislature as a toxic work environment - and talked pretty specifically about some amendments that she tried to get in legislation and was basically just told, "Nope" - kind of a version of "not your turn." And this is something that I've heard about for years, that I'm sure you have even more so heard about for years since you are closer to the legislature than I am. And I think what's unusual about this is that - is for her to say all this explicitly - it's a very long piece in the South Seattle Emerald about what was the final straw for her. But I think that the Legislature seems to me to be the kind of place where there's leadership - leadership makes the decisions. If you are new, you are supposed to be quiet and not step out of line and take your turn. I would consider that a toxic work environment if it was in the private sector. And the fact is - people who serve in the Legislature do not get rich from it. It is not a full-time job. It is something people do because they want to make a difference, and it's largely a very, very thankless job. And I can certainly see why you would just get frustrated with being told, "Wait your turn. It's not your time. You're being unreasonable. You're being too loud." And there are a number of people of color who are leaving the Legislature this year - not all of them are being as explicit about why as Kirsten Harris-Talley was - but I have to imagine that some of their reasons are similar. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - again, to your point, this is something that has been a problem for a while. I have personally witnessed toxicity and have certainly dealt with a number of legislators who have dealt with it themselves. That's not to say everyone in the Legislature is toxic - Kirsten Harris-Talley points out there are a number of people there who are absolutely pushing for the right thing, who are principled - but as she states, "The environment of a caucus is a unique one that speaks of being a family and collaboration, but is also one of centralized control, consistency, and compliance." I hope that sparks some reflection because one of the things that I have, just over the past few years in particular, have had my eyes opened up to even more than it was before - those three words - control, consistency, and compliance. And when you think about how those things are enforced in areas, it is in toxic ways. And to your point, people are not making a ton of money from the Legislature. And even with that, a number of people are depending on this income to pay their bills. There are - I think to the Legislature's benefit - have been an increasing amount of people who are not coming in who are independently wealthy, who don't need the money. There are a number of people who do, and if you actually are relying on the job to pay your bills and you're pushing for the change that your district is demanding of you, and then you get a message that you could be punished for it, and punishment in a legislature can look a number of different ways - whether it's committee assignments or reelection support or anything like that. If people feel that could be in danger, that can do a lot to reinforce control, consistency, and compliance. So I hope this sparks a lot of reflection. This was a very brave thing for Kirsten Harris-Talley to write. It's a very difficult thing for lots of people to discuss - and just the inherent power dynamics - we just had the unionization conversation - a lot in terms of workplace health and safety and culture. And understanding when you have more power - and in the Legislature, chairs and leadership have a lot more power than the average member - all votes and opinions are not equal - those of chairs and of leadership are greater. That the way they use that needs to be examined. And I just hope it causes a lot of reflection and conversation and people really examine how they've been using their power, how people have been made to feel, whether they are creating an environment that includes and is truly welcoming of certain opinions or does not. And that is not just, "Hey, we have a caucus with a variety of viewpoints," but just some truly not being welcome or people feeling like not toeing the line as it has been dictated perhaps by people above, comes with consequences and just may not be good for their career or their position, which therefore reflects on and impacts their ability to serve their district. So I just hope it's listened to. I do want to say this was brave. It is accurate. There are some people who kind of defaulted to, "Well, this is just a person who's mad about a piece of legislation not passing." And man, it's a lot more comprehensive than that issue. Or, "Well, this is just a person who wasn't sure how the legislative process worked." And also want to point out that this is a person who had thrived in other public service legislative capacities within the City of Seattle - and certainly understood that situation - but to discount the toxicity that we have heard obliquely referenced so many different times, and this is one of the most overt examples, that people take heed. And with that, I also want to talk about Mayor Harrell kicking off a search for his new police chief in the City. Was there anything that stood out to you in his announcement and direction there, Erica? [00:29:51] Erica Barnett: Yeah. I mean, the fact that he made it stood out to me. The mayor is required by charter - which is something that Paul Kiefer reported on that I had forgotten about - that he has to actually consider three different candidates at least. And so this week he announced he's doing a national search. The tone of it was interesting because I think that the kind of common knowledge, or what is believed, is that he is going to appoint interim police chief, Adrian Diaz, to the permanent position. He said several times in press conferences and other contexts that he really thinks that the chief is doing a good job. Diaz is fairly popular compared to his predecessor, Carmen Best, among the rank and file - he hasn't made anybody particularly mad. But he's doing a national search. And so the announcement was basically - we're going to have a search firm do this, so they're going to spend some money on this search process - but Adrian Diaz is encouraged to apply. So the way that the announcement was made was a little bit surprising to me - this kind of emphasis on a national search. And the other thing that sticks out is - we'll see, but I don't know what kind of response he's going to get for a couple of reasons. One, the fact that he has encouraged the police chief to apply, that the police chief is considered a favorite or the interim chief is considered a favorite to get the position could depress applications from elsewhere. And second, it's not like there are a lot of police chiefs in other departments around the country that are untainted by problems with accountability, allegations of abuse, allegations of biased policing. There's not a huge pool out there of people who are going to be able to come in and say, "I know how to change the system. I know how to get you out from under the consent decree. I know how to do all these things because I've done it in my own city." So I will be very, very curious to see how many qualified and good candidates actually end up applying. I was also kind of fascinated by the fact that there has to be at least three. So if there aren't three - if there was a scenario where there were not as many as three, I'm not sure what would happen. [00:32:30] Crystal Fincher: That's interesting. [00:32:32] Erica Barnett: Yeah, it is kind of interesting to dig into that announcement a little bit. Paul Kiefer, our dearly beloved and outgoing police accountability reporter, had a piece about that last night. [00:32:46] Crystal Fincher: Well, another piece that was in PubliCola touched on something that we've talked about before on this program. And that was about the police department hiring incentives that were talked about and numbers were thrown out and, "Hey, let's increase these signing bonuses," and we noted at the time that it seemed odd - and there did not seem to be any kind of data that supported the fact that, "Hey, did people cite that they were not motivated to stay, and any data to indicate that this incentive and this amount would make that more likely?" And some data came out this week that shed more light on that - what did it show? [00:33:36] Erica Barnett: I mean, essentially it showed that there was basically no impact. The City has been offering hiring incentives for a number of months, since October through actually January, because of some shenanigans by outgoing former mayor, Jenny Durkan. They were supposed to end at the end of the year, they went through January - so short period of time - that period did not show any bump in recruitment to the police department from the hiring incentives. And it showed a slight bump to the new 911 department, which has been sort of dissociated from the police department. And it showed similar outcomes from a previous period of hiring incentives - the incentives are not really working to recruit police but nonetheless, City Councilmember Sara Nelson has proposed bringing them back and believes that this will be the ticket to hiring more police. Of course, Seattle Police Department is at incredibly high attrition - a lot of people are retiring and leaving the department - and that's probably going to continue because there are new incentives in place from the state for officers to retire. And I think what we're seeing is what we've tried hasn't been working. If the goal is - just leaving aside whether this should be the goal - but if the goal is to hire more police and that is the mayor's goal and the City Council's goal for the most part, hiring incentives are maybe a waste of money. [00:35:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so interesting and notable to me that for - especially for the mayor and councilmembers like Sara Nelson, who have talked about using data-driven approaches to public safety and just following the data - that when data is released that they don't agree with, there are reasons why it may not be complete or they may not have the full picture. But the same kind of grace or latitude is not given to other areas or other programs. If the goal really is to maintain police officers, this doesn't seem to be working. And we do need to keep people safe in Seattle - this is actually really important and no one wants to be a victim of anything. There are people who are concerned and worried, and we have seen types of crime increase and the stakes are - to me - too high to continue to move in directions that seem like a resource suck without delivering any results. We have limited resources here. We have a need to keep people safe. People talk about that being a very high priority. And it just doesn't seem they're taking it seriously if they continue to spend money that could be used on things that have a much better record and a lot more data behind it to ultimately keep people safe than to focus on a metric that - again, leaving aside whether it should be the goal - that putting it in place, there just doesn't seem to be any tie to how is this keeping people safer. And if we're going to use this limited amount of money, is it best used in this way or another way that's actually going to keep people from being victimized in the first place. I hope they start to take action that's effective in keeping people safe - also in the recruiting of officers, there is a long lag time between the time that they are actually signed and the time that they are deployed and active on the street - a really big delay. So what is the plan to keep people safer in the meantime? It feels like we're just talking about things that are not engaged with the reality of - how do we make people safer today and next month? There does not seem to be a plan for that and it is very concerning. I hope there is more of an examination of that from the mayor's office, from the Council, to actually do things to make people safer. There is not much time to waste and people are at stake. [00:38:08] Erica Barnett: And one other interesting thing that came out of this report - very briefly - was that there is also a problem with retaining people in other City departments that do a lot of important work - some of which also keeps people safe. And the problem that they cited was lack of advancement opportunities, an outdated classification system that makes it hard for people to get permanent positions and get full-time work. Those are things that the City could be focusing on, and it would take a lot of time and it's more complicated than it sounds to fix a classification system, but people are kind of feeling like they're in dead end jobs in other departments - and that is arguably as big or bigger problem than the problem of whether hiring incentives are working in the police department. So it's not just the police department that's hemorrhaging workers, it's the whole city. And I think Lisa Herbold on the Council has pointed out that we need to take a look at that too. [00:39:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the last thing I want to touch on today is a story that you covered in PubliCola - just talking about another suicide, death by suicide, at the King County Correctional Facility in downtown - occurring amidst the staffing shortage that has been talked about for a while. What happened? [00:39:30] Erica Barnett: Well, there have been four deaths this year so far in the King County Jail, and I think that some of them have been suicides, the others have been overdoses. I think it is in part a problem of the staffing shortage that we're seeing these deaths occur and not be stopped. But I also think when we are putting people in jail who are very high acuity - who have severe problems with addiction, severe behavioral health problems, all the people that frankly City Attorney Ann Davison wants to focus on throwing in jail so they can get some mysterious form of treatment that does not actually exist - this is the reality of what happens. I think people are ending up in jail who should not be in jail. I'm not speaking to the specifics of any of these cases because I don't know the specific circumstances of each of these people's lives, but my understanding is these are people who have problems that jail makes worse. And when the focus of the City is to take people with severe behavioral health conditions, severe addictions, and put them in jail to "get them off the street" - one of the results is that you're putting people in circumstances that are very, very dangerous for them. I think that is part of what's happening here, and my worry is that if the City's policy is going to be to take "prolific offenders" or "high utilizers" of the system and put them in jail to teach them a lesson and to get them off the street, we're going to see more of these incidents happening - particularly with the staffing shortage at the jail being as bad as it is. [00:41:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. There are currently over a hundred vacant officer positions and the president of the King County Corrections Guild just stated exactly what you said. You said it seems like the people coming through our doors are sicker than they've ever been in terms of withdrawal, mental health, and everything else in the recent past - and it's hard to meet that need. They're experiencing shortages, not just with officers, but with the jail's medical staff - and it is putting everybody at risk. And again, the point of this - seemingly - and it's being sold as, "Hey, we put people in jail, it keeps the community safer." This is being touted as an approach to help clean up our streets and keep people from committing crime and it actually does not result in that. And again, this conversation about keeping people safe is too important to continue to do things that don't result in that. We're exacerbating a shortage - they say that more corrections officers have left since the beginning of the year than the County has hired - the problem's getting worse - and we are not doing anything to address any of the problems that the people who are coming in have. And again, we don't just lock people up and throw away the key - it's unconstitutional, it is extremely expensive - we can't afford to do that. But what we are doing is undertaking the extreme expense of incarcerating people, doing nothing to treat them or to address anything that will help them get on a better path and keep the community safe, and then releasing them again. We are setting them up for failure. We are setting the community up to be victimized. And again, we need to do a better job of keeping people safe. And I hope we center more of our conversations around the need to actually keep people safe. And if our elected officials are not focused on things that are doing that and are not spending our limited resources on things that are accomplishing that, then we need to re-evaluate our elected officials. They need to re-evaluate their approach. So I thank you for having this conversation with me today, and for all of you listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 1st, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assistant producer is Shannon Cheng with help from Emma Mudd. Our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett - that's Erica with a C and ending with two Ts - and on PubliCola.com, and you can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery anywhere basically. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else to get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. You could also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in, talk to you next time.

On this week's edition of New York NOW (4/01/22): We'll take you inside the final days of negotiations around New York's $216+ billion state budget. In the final days of negotiations, the remaining sticking points include tweaks to bail reform, and funding over top priorities, like child care and home care. We'll break it all down with Josefa Velasquez from THE CITY and Bernadette Hogan from the New York Post. Will lawmakers do anything to restore and bolster public trust in state government? NYPIRG's Blair Horner breaks down what's wrong with the current system, and what could be on the table. Learn More: nynow.org

Josefa Velasquez lived a long and full life. When Josefa wasn't co-running a tamale factory and cantina just outside of Wastonville, she was hosting friends and family at her saloon, where "drinking, dancing, and eating tomales" abounded. Josefa's friend, Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, was surprised she lived so long: "this woman lived like a rich woman, she ate of the best and drank of the best, and in spite of that she lasted long." "Surely," deduced Maria, Josefa "must have taken after her ancestors." Josefa Velasquez "had no fear of anything," another testament to her ancestors. Josefa had been born in a mission, and she outlived the institution that silenced generations of Indigenous peoples across California starting in the late eighteenth century. Josefa "lasted long," and so have her descendants, who today make up the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Read a conventional history of the California missions, and you may not meet the lively Josefa Velasquez, hear the voice of her friend Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, or know that their descendants still live in the Santa Cruz region today. But when Indigenous voices are placed at the center of California history, they create a remarkable collective testimony to Indigenous survival. This is what makes We Are Not Animals: Indigenous Politics of Survival, Rebellion, and Reconstitution in Nineteenth-Century California (University of Nebraska Press, 2022) such a powerful book. With creative use of mission archives and oral history, author Martin Rizzo-Martinez shows how Indigenous peoples in the Santa Cruz region resisted waves of colonization throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This politics of rebellion took many forms, ranging from mass mobilization against missions themselves (like the 1793 Quiroste-led rebellion against Mission Santa Cruz) to unflinching assertions of Indigenous identity (such as Macedonia Lorenzo's 1851 testimony who, after stating "himself an Indian," was deemed an "incompetent" witness in American courts). Against increasingly considerable odds, Indigenous peoples repeatedly rejected various efforts of erasure, in turn revealing them as colonialism's great failure. An homage to Indigenous peoples' long struggle against colonization in California, We Are Not Animals narrates a critical history of how Indigenous families fought for their futures. Author Martin Rizzo-Martinez is the state park historian of California State Park's Santa Cruz District. Dr. Rizzo-Martinez is currently producing a podcast, Challenging Colonialism, that brings Indigenous voices back to the center of California history. He is also working on a documentary project about the 2015 Walk for the Ancestors pilgrimage in honor of Indigenous ancestors who suffered and perished in the Mission system. Listeners can purchase We Are Not Animals from the University of Nebraska Press for 40% off using discount code: 6AS21. Annabel LaBrecque is a PhD student in the Department of History at UC Berkeley. You can find her on Twitter @labrcq. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Josefa Velasquez lived a long and full life. When Josefa wasn't co-running a tamale factory and cantina just outside of Wastonville, she was hosting friends and family at her saloon, where "drinking, dancing, and eating tomales" abounded. Josefa's friend, Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, was surprised she lived so long: "this woman lived like a rich woman, she ate of the best and drank of the best, and in spite of that she lasted long." "Surely," deduced Maria, Josefa "must have taken after her ancestors." Josefa Velasquez "had no fear of anything," another testament to her ancestors. Josefa had been born in a mission, and she outlived the institution that silenced generations of Indigenous peoples across California starting in the late eighteenth century. Josefa "lasted long," and so have her descendants, who today make up the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Read a conventional history of the California missions, and you may not meet the lively Josefa Velasquez, hear the voice of her friend Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, or know that their descendants still live in the Santa Cruz region today. But when Indigenous voices are placed at the center of California history, they create a remarkable collective testimony to Indigenous survival. This is what makes We Are Not Animals: Indigenous Politics of Survival, Rebellion, and Reconstitution in Nineteenth-Century California (University of Nebraska Press, 2022) such a powerful book. With creative use of mission archives and oral history, author Martin Rizzo-Martinez shows how Indigenous peoples in the Santa Cruz region resisted waves of colonization throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This politics of rebellion took many forms, ranging from mass mobilization against missions themselves (like the 1793 Quiroste-led rebellion against Mission Santa Cruz) to unflinching assertions of Indigenous identity (such as Macedonia Lorenzo's 1851 testimony who, after stating "himself an Indian," was deemed an "incompetent" witness in American courts). Against increasingly considerable odds, Indigenous peoples repeatedly rejected various efforts of erasure, in turn revealing them as colonialism's great failure. An homage to Indigenous peoples' long struggle against colonization in California, We Are Not Animals narrates a critical history of how Indigenous families fought for their futures. Author Martin Rizzo-Martinez is the state park historian of California State Park's Santa Cruz District. Dr. Rizzo-Martinez is currently producing a podcast, Challenging Colonialism, that brings Indigenous voices back to the center of California history. He is also working on a documentary project about the 2015 Walk for the Ancestors pilgrimage in honor of Indigenous ancestors who suffered and perished in the Mission system. Listeners can purchase We Are Not Animals from the University of Nebraska Press for 40% off using discount code: 6AS21. Annabel LaBrecque is a PhD student in the Department of History at UC Berkeley. You can find her on Twitter @labrcq. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Josefa Velasquez lived a long and full life. When Josefa wasn't co-running a tamale factory and cantina just outside of Wastonville, she was hosting friends and family at her saloon, where "drinking, dancing, and eating tomales" abounded. Josefa's friend, Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, was surprised she lived so long: "this woman lived like a rich woman, she ate of the best and drank of the best, and in spite of that she lasted long." "Surely," deduced Maria, Josefa "must have taken after her ancestors." Josefa Velasquez "had no fear of anything," another testament to her ancestors. Josefa had been born in a mission, and she outlived the institution that silenced generations of Indigenous peoples across California starting in the late eighteenth century. Josefa "lasted long," and so have her descendants, who today make up the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Read a conventional history of the California missions, and you may not meet the lively Josefa Velasquez, hear the voice of her friend Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, or know that their descendants still live in the Santa Cruz region today. But when Indigenous voices are placed at the center of California history, they create a remarkable collective testimony to Indigenous survival. This is what makes We Are Not Animals: Indigenous Politics of Survival, Rebellion, and Reconstitution in Nineteenth-Century California (University of Nebraska Press, 2022) such a powerful book. With creative use of mission archives and oral history, author Martin Rizzo-Martinez shows how Indigenous peoples in the Santa Cruz region resisted waves of colonization throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This politics of rebellion took many forms, ranging from mass mobilization against missions themselves (like the 1793 Quiroste-led rebellion against Mission Santa Cruz) to unflinching assertions of Indigenous identity (such as Macedonia Lorenzo's 1851 testimony who, after stating "himself an Indian," was deemed an "incompetent" witness in American courts). Against increasingly considerable odds, Indigenous peoples repeatedly rejected various efforts of erasure, in turn revealing them as colonialism's great failure. An homage to Indigenous peoples' long struggle against colonization in California, We Are Not Animals narrates a critical history of how Indigenous families fought for their futures. Author Martin Rizzo-Martinez is the state park historian of California State Park's Santa Cruz District. Dr. Rizzo-Martinez is currently producing a podcast, Challenging Colonialism, that brings Indigenous voices back to the center of California history. He is also working on a documentary project about the 2015 Walk for the Ancestors pilgrimage in honor of Indigenous ancestors who suffered and perished in the Mission system. Listeners can purchase We Are Not Animals from the University of Nebraska Press for 40% off using discount code: 6AS21. Annabel LaBrecque is a PhD student in the Department of History at UC Berkeley. You can find her on Twitter @labrcq. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies

Josefa Velasquez lived a long and full life. When Josefa wasn't co-running a tamale factory and cantina just outside of Wastonville, she was hosting friends and family at her saloon, where "drinking, dancing, and eating tomales" abounded. Josefa's friend, Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, was surprised she lived so long: "this woman lived like a rich woman, she ate of the best and drank of the best, and in spite of that she lasted long." "Surely," deduced Maria, Josefa "must have taken after her ancestors." Josefa Velasquez "had no fear of anything," another testament to her ancestors. Josefa had been born in a mission, and she outlived the institution that silenced generations of Indigenous peoples across California starting in the late eighteenth century. Josefa "lasted long," and so have her descendants, who today make up the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Read a conventional history of the California missions, and you may not meet the lively Josefa Velasquez, hear the voice of her friend Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, or know that their descendants still live in the Santa Cruz region today. But when Indigenous voices are placed at the center of California history, they create a remarkable collective testimony to Indigenous survival. This is what makes We Are Not Animals: Indigenous Politics of Survival, Rebellion, and Reconstitution in Nineteenth-Century California (University of Nebraska Press, 2022) such a powerful book. With creative use of mission archives and oral history, author Martin Rizzo-Martinez shows how Indigenous peoples in the Santa Cruz region resisted waves of colonization throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This politics of rebellion took many forms, ranging from mass mobilization against missions themselves (like the 1793 Quiroste-led rebellion against Mission Santa Cruz) to unflinching assertions of Indigenous identity (such as Macedonia Lorenzo's 1851 testimony who, after stating "himself an Indian," was deemed an "incompetent" witness in American courts). Against increasingly considerable odds, Indigenous peoples repeatedly rejected various efforts of erasure, in turn revealing them as colonialism's great failure. An homage to Indigenous peoples' long struggle against colonization in California, We Are Not Animals narrates a critical history of how Indigenous families fought for their futures. Author Martin Rizzo-Martinez is the state park historian of California State Park's Santa Cruz District. Dr. Rizzo-Martinez is currently producing a podcast, Challenging Colonialism, that brings Indigenous voices back to the center of California history. He is also working on a documentary project about the 2015 Walk for the Ancestors pilgrimage in honor of Indigenous ancestors who suffered and perished in the Mission system. Listeners can purchase We Are Not Animals from the University of Nebraska Press for 40% off using discount code: 6AS21. Annabel LaBrecque is a PhD student in the Department of History at UC Berkeley. You can find her on Twitter @labrcq. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Josefa Velasquez lived a long and full life. When Josefa wasn't co-running a tamale factory and cantina just outside of Wastonville, she was hosting friends and family at her saloon, where "drinking, dancing, and eating tomales" abounded. Josefa's friend, Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, was surprised she lived so long: "this woman lived like a rich woman, she ate of the best and drank of the best, and in spite of that she lasted long." "Surely," deduced Maria, Josefa "must have taken after her ancestors." Josefa Velasquez "had no fear of anything," another testament to her ancestors. Josefa had been born in a mission, and she outlived the institution that silenced generations of Indigenous peoples across California starting in the late eighteenth century. Josefa "lasted long," and so have her descendants, who today make up the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Read a conventional history of the California missions, and you may not meet the lively Josefa Velasquez, hear the voice of her friend Maria Ascenciόn Solόrsano, or know that their descendants still live in the Santa Cruz region today. But when Indigenous voices are placed at the center of California history, they create a remarkable collective testimony to Indigenous survival. This is what makes We Are Not Animals: Indigenous Politics of Survival, Rebellion, and Reconstitution in Nineteenth-Century California (University of Nebraska Press, 2022) such a powerful book. With creative use of mission archives and oral history, author Martin Rizzo-Martinez shows how Indigenous peoples in the Santa Cruz region resisted waves of colonization throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This politics of rebellion took many forms, ranging from mass mobilization against missions themselves (like the 1793 Quiroste-led rebellion against Mission Santa Cruz) to unflinching assertions of Indigenous identity (such as Macedonia Lorenzo's 1851 testimony who, after stating "himself an Indian," was deemed an "incompetent" witness in American courts). Against increasingly considerable odds, Indigenous peoples repeatedly rejected various efforts of erasure, in turn revealing them as colonialism's great failure. An homage to Indigenous peoples' long struggle against colonization in California, We Are Not Animals narrates a critical history of how Indigenous families fought for their futures. Author Martin Rizzo-Martinez is the state park historian of California State Park's Santa Cruz District. Dr. Rizzo-Martinez is currently producing a podcast, Challenging Colonialism, that brings Indigenous voices back to the center of California history. He is also working on a documentary project about the 2015 Walk for the Ancestors pilgrimage in honor of Indigenous ancestors who suffered and perished in the Mission system. Listeners can purchase We Are Not Animals from the University of Nebraska Press for 40% off using discount code: 6AS21. Annabel LaBrecque is a PhD student in the Department of History at UC Berkeley. You can find her on Twitter @labrcq. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-west

As the walls close in on Andrew Cuomo, The City's Josefa Velasquez looks at how the governor got here and how this is likely to end (spoiler: it won't be pretty) and Comptroller Scott Stringer looks back on his mayoral campaign and forward to what's next for him and the city.

President Biden announced his goal to make new vehicles greener in his administration's first major use of federal regulatory power to cut carbon emissions. Still, some climate advocacy groups say that Biden's executive order doesn't go far enough compared to the plans of other countries to achieve zero emissions.  New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo has been given until Friday the 13th to submit evidence in his defense for his impeachment investigation, which began back in March and focused not only on sexual harassment claims but also the handling of data about COVID deaths in nursing homes. We discuss what the impeachment process might look like with Josefa Velasquez, senior reporter at The City. And in headlines: the Justice Department launches an investigation into Phoenix's police department, wildfires rage in Europe and the U.S., and Ibiza enlists undercover officers to infiltrate illegal dance parties. Show Notes: NY Times: “Facing Loss of Supporters, Cuomo Gains Attention From Prosecutors” – https://nyti.ms/3lCKmfs For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pastor Jose and Josefa Velasquez encourage us to seek God first, put our affairs in order and be about our Father's Business which is the expansion of the Kingdom of God. https://linktr.ee/Awakenthepodcast --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/awaken-thepodcast/support

Josefa Velasquez of The City talks with Chrissy and Harry about how, after a decade, the governor finally painted himself into a corner he might not be able to walk out of.

Jeff Simmons and Celeste Katz Marston speak discuss sexual harassment allegations against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the broader issue of harassment with reporter Josefa Velasquez of The City and Hollaback Executive Director Emily May. Original air date: March 4, 2021.

Mar. 3, 2021 - Has the state's vaccination program reached the people of color and marginalized communities that have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19? Josefa Velasquez, Senior Reporter at The City, joined us to discuss her reporting on the issue.

On this week's edition of New York NOW: The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis has sparked protests in cities across New York state — and the country. The state Legislature is now planning a trip back to Albany to pass a package of bills in response, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo makes the protests a feature of daily briefings. Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, joins us to discuss the protests, and what lawmakers could do to ease tensions between police and communities of color. Josefa Velasquez from THE CITY has details on what the Legislature could take up next week, and Massarah Mikati from the Times Union has perspective from inside the protests. New York’s battle with COVID-19 continues, and that could impact the state’s environmental goals. State Sen. Todd Kaminsky, chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, joins us with his perspective, and Jess Ottney Mahar from The Nature Conservancy speaks about the future of the $3 billion Restore Mother Nature Bond Act.   Learn More: nynow.org

Gov. Cuomo says New York may be slowly approaching an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it's anyone's guess when that is. Senate Deputy Majority Leader Mike Gianaris discusses last week's budget deal. Was it everything lawmakers wanted? Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler talks bail reform changes included in the new state budget. Josefa Velasquez of THE CITY breaks down the weeks' news. Learn more: nynow.org

Gaby gets a primer on small dollar donors, and some practical advice for running for office. We hear a lot of conflicting information when it comes to the giant gobs of money that pay for politicians to campaign. So what's actually true? Josefa Velasquez, who reports on money and politics for Sludge explains what's going on with money and campaigns this year. Rachel Shorey, from the New York Times takes a closer look at the big spenders in politics. And finally, Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something is helping young progressives (yes, even people without billions of dollars to spend on their own campaigns) get into office.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesOur Sponsors:* Check out Arena Club: arenaclub.com/badmoney* Check out Chime: chime.com/BADMONEY* Check out Claritin: www.claritin.com* Check out Indeed: indeed.com/BADWITHMONEY* Check out Monarch Money: monarchmoney.com/BADMONEY* Check out NetSuite: NetSuite.com/BADWITHMONEYAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Gaby gets a primer on small dollar donors, and some practical advice for running for office. We hear a lot of conflicting information when it comes to the giant gobs of money that pay for politicians to campaign. So what's actually true? Josefa Velasquez, who reports on money and politics for Sludge explains what's going on with money and campaigns this year. Rachel Shorey, from the New York Times takes a closer look at the big spenders in politics. And finally, Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something is helping young progressives (yes, even people without billions of dollars to spend on their own campaigns) get into office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You don’t listen to this podcast and the story ends. You believe whatever you want to believe about the safety of your personal information with your bank or insurance company. You listen to this episode, you stay in Poozerland, and Josefa Velasquez explains everything about New York’s new cyber security regulations for financial institutions. The … Continue reading "New York Regulations Target Cyber Crimes"

Jacqui and LeMar finally return to reopen Book Club, talk about the well-fated ‘tampon tax,’ pro-trans activism, and much more. We’ve missed you. Download Lady Bits on iTunes! Related Links All The Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister available on Amazon Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Eliminating ‘Tampon Tax’ – Josefa Velasquez for Politico #IllGoWithYou: An Ally […]

New York Governor Kathy Hochul was sworn in as the state's 57th governor on August 24. Her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, resigned under pressure, facing a likely impeachment vote after a state attorney general's report found he sexually harassed multiple women, including state employees. In this episode of 51%, we discuss New York's first female governor, and take a look at what's in store for Kathy Hochul. We also speak with former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift about her experience being her state's first female governor. Guests: Josefa Velásquez, state Capitol reporter for The City; former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift; and Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization For Women of New York Follow Along You're listening to 51%, a WAMC production dedicated to women's issues and experiences. Thank you for joining me, I'm Jesse King. We're talking women in politics today. Obviously, Kamala Harris made headlines earlier this year by becoming the country's first vice president. But this kind of history is still being made at the state level: on August 24, Kathy Hochul was sworn in as the 57th governor — and first female governor — of New York. The ceremony took place two days before Women's Equality Day, and to mark the occasion Hochul wore white, in a nod to the women's suffrage movement. Her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, resigned under pressure, facing a likely impeachment vote after a report by State Attorney General Letitia James found he sexually harassed multiple women, including state employees. Now, Cuomo has denied inappropriately touching anyone, and we've discussed some of the allegations against him on this show. But today I'd like to focus on Hochul — namely, who is she, what's in store for her, and what can New Yorkers expect from their first female governor? To many New Yorkers, Hochul is relatively unknown, despite a decades-long political career. She's a Buffalo native, and got her start with the Hamburg Town Board in the 1990s. She served in Congress representing the western, 26th District of New York from 2011 to 2013, and she's been lieutenant governor since 2015. But her relationship with then-Governor Cuomo was frayed, and she largely stayed out of the limelight that came with his inner circle. On her first day in office, Hochul made a point to introduce herself to New Yorkers, saying she wants to help people believe in government again. "You'll fine me to be direct, straight-talking, and decisive," said Hochul. "I will not be deterred, and I'm willing to be bloodied and marred in the pursuit of doing what's right for the people of this great state." Hochul has already instructed the state Department of Health to issue a mask mandate in schools, and in response to the overwhelming scandal that prompted her taking office, she said she will overhaul New York's sexual harassment training for state employees. To learn more about her, I spoke with reporter Josefa Velásquez during the transition. Velásquez is a state capitol reporter for The City, a digital news platform in New York City, and she's been reporting on state politics since 2013. What has Hochul's political career been like until now? Her job as Lieutenant Governor is really sort of ceremonial. So that involves, like, her traveling the state, doing things that, quite frankly, the governor doesn't want to do. So, you know, going to talk to a group of Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, going to the opening of a local business talking to union leaders. My favorite one is this appearance she had at a California Pizza Kitchen that involves union members – like, a lot of her experience has been her sitting in a car, traveling around the state. But that had its own benefits. I mean, she has been quietly amassing power and making relationships that Andrew Cuomo, frankly, didn't do. She's quite the people person, which again, is not something Andrew Cuomo's known for. So as she's doing this – I mean, she's from Buffalo, New York City is a very far place from Buffalo. You're closer to Cleveland than you are to Manhattan, if you live there. So she is going to be facing a lot of things as she comes into this new role. What are some of the issues that she's going to be facing right away as governor? She is facing something that I don't think any other governor in the history of New York has dealt with. I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned that David Patterson – who was Elliot Spitzer's lieutenant governor, and inherited a major financial crisis in 2008 – that pales in comparison to everything that Kathy Hochul is going to be dealing with. For starters, we have a pandemic going on. The new numbers of COVID cases are rising. We're seeing new cases that we haven't seen in weeks and months. The number of COVID cases now is similar to what it was in the spring. There's an increase recently in hospitalizations from COVID. She's gonna have to deal with, you know, a relatively stagnant vaccination rate, and figuring out how to get the remainder of New Yorkers vaccinated. And then there's other policy issues like the looming housing crisis that we might be facing in New York. A week after Kathy Hochul becomes governor, New York's eviction moratorium expires. She has seven days to figure out what to do, talking to lawmakers, talking to landlords, talking to tenant advocates, to figure out how do we fix this eviction moratorium – that the Supreme Court just partially deemed unconstitutional. With that, is also a really dysfunctional rental assistance program that has not distributed much of the money that's been allocated, and if that money doesn't get used up by the end of September, it goes back to the federal government. So that is all a lot to deal with, in you know, your first month coming into office. You also have to think about the fact that she is inheriting a state that's been besieged by scandal. She has to come into this role and rebuild trust within New York State government, with the people of New York, who've seen now the last few governors sort of implode. So she has a ton of work ahead of her. How much do we know about Hochul's stances on broader issues? I don't think we necessarily know that much. I mean, she propelled into sort of politics when she was at Erie County executive, and she was anti-immigrant. She had stated that if New York allowed undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses, she would call the police on them. And that stance changed in 2014, when she ran as Andrew Cuomo's number two, and she's become much more progressive as the Democratic Party has moved leftward. It remains to be seen, like whether or not she embraces the more progressive wing of the party, or she governs more as a moderate. Aside from the obvious – Hochul has said that her work environment will never be described as “toxic,” and that any staffers named in the attorney general's report won't be working for her – but aside from that, how can we expect Hochul to lead differently from Cuomo? I mean, right off the bat, she says that she's going to govern completely different from Cuomo. She's doing things that the governor I don't think has done period. That includes meeting with the New York City mayor, who has had a famously tumultuous relationship with Cuomo. She's already met with the New York City public advocate who ran against her in 2018. So right off the bat, she's trying to repair some of these relationships. And it's so funny, someone mentioned to me the other day that like, when things get really terrible, that's when women get brought in to lead and fix things. And there will be some sort of honeymoon period for her. Everyone wants her to succeed at this point, like, no one is sort of actively rooting against her in a way that they were actively rooting against Cuomo, because there was so much animosity towards him. She has more interpersonal relationships with people than her predecessor. Hochul has already said she plans to run for a full term in 2022. What does that field look like right now? And what can she do to improve her odds over the next year? She will almost immediately have to start running a campaign. That's because New York has now moved up its primary days to the summer. So you're going to start seeing people declare their candidacy for governor in the winter, before the year ends. You're going to have to raise millions of dollars to do that, and to her disadvantage, because she's from Buffalo – she's the first governor in like generations to not be from New York City or the surrounding suburbs. There are rumors that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to run. There has been the possibility that Letitia James might run too, although she has not said publicly. So she's up against a lot. And then going back to Cuomo, what issues and questions still remain with him? So I feel like the report was just the tip of the iceberg. There are now several investigations into possible criminal actions by Cuomo and members of his staff, you know, local district attorneys, they're looking into some of these sexual harassment allegations – there could be charges brought up against him. There's also the issue of his administration's handling of nursing home deaths during the height of the pandemic, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District is also investigating those. There is an investigation over the Tappan Zee Bridge and whether or not it is faulty. And we also have to think about the fact that Andrew Cuomo has been a prolific fundraiser, so that he's sitting on $18 million. A decent chunk of that will probably go to legal fees. But what's he gonna do with that money? Personally, you're someone who has been outspoken about the importance of equal access in the press, particularly with women. What is your assessment of reporting during the Cuomo administration? And what are your hopes with Hochul? The Capitol reporters that cover the Cuomo administration, or just cover politics in general in New York, are male. My experience covering the whole administration, the governor tended to take men more seriously. You know, it's a lot harder to distinguish yourself when you're in your early 20s, mid 20s, as a woman, when you're surrounded by men who are twice your age and have done this job twice as long as you have. And now I'm hoping that Kathy Hochul realizes that there is value in giving reporters equal access and equal opportunity. Not just women, too, but non-white reporters. You know, the political coverage tends to come from people who are white, there's very few Black, Latino, Asian reporters that cover the governor, or cover politics in general. There's ethnic media all over the state that haven't been given the same level of access either. And that's something to be mindful of. I mean, New York is a hub for immigrants. They're just as invested in the future of this state as someone who was born here. ———— With the swearing in of Kathy Hochul, the U.S. tied its record for the most active female governors at one time - a whopping nine of 50, but still. Hochul has peers, past and present, whose stories she can look to as she navigates her first few months. Among them is Jane Swift, who was the first female governor of Massachusetts from 2001 to 2003. Now, Swift and Hochul come from different sides of the political aisle (Hochul a Democrat, Swift a Republican), but their paths to the governorship have their similarities: Swift was lieutenant governor when then-governor Paul Cellucci was appointed U.S. ambassador to Canada by then-President George W. Bush. During her tenure, Swift would guide Massachusetts through the fiscal crisis that followed 9/11, and became the first acting U.S. governor to give birth while in office. I recently spoke with Swift about any advice she might have for Hochul's term. How would you describe your rise to power compared to Hochul's? Clearly we both became governor with the departure of a governor. I think the difference is that Governor Cellucci, he departed under his own terms, and was happy to move on to a new professional challenge. And that creates, you know, I think some challenges when I became governor, as folks were not always happy that he had left. And he left a very high functioning team. I think it may be easier for Governor Hochul to take over, as many folks believe there was a need for a transition of power in New York. And because some of the issues that led to her taking over the governorship had to do with gender issues, she has a natural mandate to address some of the shortcomings of the previous administration. And what was your initial reaction when you found out you were going to be governor? I was, I think, like many people, very honored, it is huge privilege to lead a commonwealth or a state. But also it's a daunting job. I, like Governor Hochul, have served in other elected positions. So I felt ready from a policy perspective. But I think you can never quite be ready for all of the attention and the weight of responsibility that settles on your shoulders. The good news is, I was pleasantly surprised with just how many people are willing to step up and lend their expertise, to help be successful. One of the things that I have read she is very focused on – which I think is exactly the most important first step – to assemble your own team to make sure that you have the right people, both the subject matter experts who can help you deal with a wide array of issues that a governor has to deal with, but also the people who you can trust. And I think it is critically important to have people not only that you can trust and confide in, but people who will tell you the things sometimes that you don't want to hear. Folks who you have a strong enough relationship and confidence in, that they can give you bad news and tell you things that perhaps no one else wants to tell you. In terms of political issues, what were some of the biggest things that you tackled as governor? So I was hoping to concentrate on an issue that I've continued to work on throughout my entire life, which is educational excellence. But unfortunately, several months after becoming governor, the events of 9/11 really shifted the focus of my time as governor to be about restoring strength to our economy, stabilizing the public's finances, and balancing our budget, as well as making sure the safety and security issues at our airports in our port and for all of our citizens were addressed. So one of the things that Governor Hochul I'm sure will realize is we certainly are in a crisis right now with COVID: there may be issues that emerge that you could have had no opportunity to predict. And that is both one of the challenges, but also a real opportunity in governing. Overall, what was your experience like as governor? Was it hard being the state's first female governor? Being first can be hard. The governor will be asked questions that other male governors don't get asked. But what's most important is that the symbolism of having a woman in that role has already created enormous importance and excitement to young women and girls, certainly throughout New York, but frankly, throughout the country. I'm the mother of three daughters in college. And because we live right over the border and watch a lot of Albany-based television, my daughters have noticed that there's a female governor in New York, and even though their mother served in that role, it's exciting to them to see another woman as governor. So for all the pressures of going first, and having perhaps some questions be asked of you that others don't answer, there's also this tremendous privilege of being able to inspire the next generation of leaders. I would also tell her to enjoy it. The opportunity to make an impact and improve the lives of the people in her state is just an unparalleled opportunity to make a difference. And I'm sure she will find that it is deeply, deeply rewarding. You said there's some questions that Hochul might be asked as being the first female governor. What kind of questions are those? Well, there's been a ton of research that often, when women are in political leadership positions, we focus more on what's called the three H's: hair, hemlines, and husbands. So, you know, there will be people who will pay too much attention to wardrobe, looks, and her family life. And it's important that the governor shift that focus right back to the important issues of what she's trying to achieve for families in all of New York – not on, I'm sure what is her own wonderful family life. How do you feel we can better support women in government or women in just the workforce in general? One of the things that I have always challenged individuals is, if you're asking a question that may have gender overtones, maybe run through your head first, “Would I have asked Governor Cuomo that same question?” And if the answer is no, then don't ask the question. One example I always give is, seldom do we see stories written about whether or not men are disappointed or supportive of a particular decision that a governor made. But often, when you're the first, there will be these stories about, “Oh, how do women feel about that?” Which most of the time is not done to be supportive, and is often trying to drive a wedge among a voting constituency, or just prolong a bad story. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where a woman taking over office is not a first, right? It'll be a third and a fourth. I would love to see us have parity, where we talk about a woman's platform rather than the historic nature of their ascendance. That will also help the women in those roles, to have other women to look to as allies to work with. So just having it be a normalized experience, to have women in these high level leadership roles, will be a wonderful day. ———— As Swift mentioned, who Kathy Hochul picks to be on her team will be incredibly important. In one of her first tasks as governor, Hochul tapped her replacement as LG, choosing Democratic State Senator Brian Benjamin from the 30th District in Harlem, perhaps in a bid to bridge that Buffalo-New York City gap that Velásquez mentioned earlier. What that means is that some of the top spots in New York state government right now are held by women and people of color: there's Hochul, Benjamin, State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, and Attorney General Letitia James, whose report, of course, kick started this whole thing. So, so what? Why is this all a big deal? Well, it comes down to representation, and the diversity of perspectives in our government. In case you missed the title of this show - women make up more than half the U.S. population. 2020 Census data demonstrates the country is becoming increasingly diverse. But according to the latest numbers from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, women make up only 26.7 percent of today's Congress. The number of women in office at the state and local level is higher, but only slightly, at 31 percent and 30.5 percent, respectively. Still, those numbers are slowly but surely rising, according to Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization for Women of New York. How do you see the current landscape for women in politics? And what do women bring to the table? I'm not one that buys into these kind of innate differences in leadership styles of men and women. Because I've certainly seen in my own career, that it runs the gamut. Men can be as collaborative, and compassionate, and empathetic as the descriptive words that people like to use and stereotype about women. I think the biggest quality women bring to the table is the desire to prove themselves, because very often they are the first to do it, or one of the first to do it. Donald Trump was the best advertisement to motivate women to run for office that we have had in decades. We had nurses, and teachers, farmers, who had never run for office, never even been politically active at the local level, who were driven to be a counterweight to Donald Trump. And they ran for office, and many of them won. And we're now at a point where we're really starting to hit that 30 percent Golden Rule – that's generally when minority groups hit 30 percent, they really start to have influence in power in a larger group. So it's a slow and steady progress. What has changed is that a larger percentage of those figures are women of color. For instance, 37 percent of the 23 percent of women mayor's in the U.S. are women of color. So that's real progress. on that end. You can take some cities as an example, in New York City – for the first time, the City Council is going to be, when all of the newly-elected are sworn in, in January of 2022, it's going to be women majority. And this is after a number of years where women's representation in New York City Council really was stuck at 9, 10, 11, 12 women out of 51. So what do you see as some of the barriers to having more women in elective office? You know, it really is a pipeline issue. We have to think about why politics isn't always attractive, not just to women, but to men as well. It's a tough decision to make, it's a tough road, and as an industry it's ruthless. You think about what you have to do: you have to ask all your friends for money, it's a 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. job, when you're running for office. When you get into office, you've got to turn around and do that again, in a matter of months – you know, within 13 months, you've got to start planning your next campaign, for many positions, from state legislatures to Congress. And a lot of people do not win on the first try. So there are things that we can talk about changing about elected office that would make it more attractive for people, because there are a lot of really talented people who would make exceptional legislators who aren't going to do it, because the calculus just isn't worth it. So what are some of those things that we can do to increase accessibility? One of the biggest changes that we could make, and it's one that New York City has implemented, is campaign finance reform. And many other countries do this: every candidate has the same amount of money, you're not raising outside money. It's an equal playing field. The public gets to know candidates through the public access of television and the airwaves. That would be a much more attractive way of running – and a more democratic way – of running elections. Is it working perfectly here in New York City? No, not yet. But if we can create a level playing field for all candidates, that would really diversify the pool of candidates that we now have. And let me give you example: here in New York, Liuba Gretchen Shirley ran for Congress on Long Island, and she had two small kids. And she did something that had never done before. She petitioned the Federal Election Commission to add childcare costs as an allowable expense of campaign funds. She became the first person in history to receive federal approval to spend campaign funds on childcare. And since then many people have, not just mothers but fathers as well. I mean, that is something that I had never heard about before this mom of two decided she wanted to take a chance to run, and got in it, and realized the biggest barrier for her was childcare. You say to yourself, gosh, if women would have been in politics in larger numbers for more years, this would have come up in the past, and we would have had this already as a rule established long ago. ———— That's a wrap on this week's episode of 51%. 51% is a national production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio — that theme underneath me right now, that's “Lolita” by Albany-based artist Girl Blue. A big thanks to Josefa Velasquez, Jane Swift, and Sonia Ossorio for sharing their time and experience. Thanks to our story editor Ian Pickus, our executive producer Dr. Alan Chartock — and, of course, you for tuning in. If you like what you're hearing, check us out on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram @51PercentRadio. And you can find episodes new and old at wamcpodcasts.org or wherever you get your podcasts. Until next week, I'm Jesse King for 51%.