Podcasts about king county jail

ICE apprehended multiple criminal illegal immigrants in Bellingham. King County Jail is going to finally start booking more criminals. Guest: Benton County Commissioner Jerome Delvin says he’d like to see the county work with ICE and violate the sanctuary law. // Big Local: Marysville is trying to step up and help out a local theater that has suffered multiple break ins. Officials in Sunnyside are attempting to rescue multiple husky puppies that are trapped underground. // Jason and Jake Skorheim discuss a new study that shows some of the adverse effects smartphones may have on teens.

FAIR News Weekly | 12/20/24

What’s Trending: A well-known Seattle minister is facing child pornography charges. It took 4 years, but King County jail has finally started booking criminals for low-level crimes again. Business owners in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District are at their wit’s end with the rampant crime and drug use. Joe Rogan says that one of the reasons Kamala Harris didn’t come on his podcast is because she didn’t want to talk about marijuana legalization. // LongForm: GUEST: Curtis Houck (Newsbusters) on news that CNN is about to fire a lot of people and they discuss who should be Trump’s press secretary. // Pete Hegseth is ruffling feathers over past comments he made about the military being too woke.  

A 37-year old man remains in custody at King County Jail at this hour, held on $2 million dollars bail. He's awaiting charges connected to the stabbing of up to 9 people in Seattle's Chinatown International District and South Jackson street on Thursday and Friday.   While setting bail, the judge noted the suspect had a warrant out for his arrest and a history of multiple felonies, including robbery, theft and attempted burglary. A police spokesman described the attacks as random assaults. Several victims were hospitalized with multiple stab wounds.  CID and Little Saigon community members and business leaders are speaking out after the attacks, saying the community needs more law enforcement and social services support to deal with problem areas like 12th and Jackson – where residents have long complained of safety problems due to crime and rampant drug use. Quynh Pham is the Executive Director of Friends of Little Saigon, a community development organization focused on the Vietnamese community in the Chinatown/International District, and spoke with Soundside's Libby Denkmann. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. GUEST: Quynh Pham - Executive Director of Friends of Little Saigon RELATED LINKS:  $2M bail set for ‘unprovoked' mass stabbing suspect in Seattle - Seattle Times Seattle Chinatown International District mass stabbing: What we know - Seattle Times  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s Trending: Local business continue to suffer from the Boeing strike. The State of Virginia is appealing a federal court decision that would put noncitizens back on the voter rolls. Republicans are calling on Democrats to tone down the “fascist” rhetoric regarding Donald Trump. The McDonald’s E. Coli outbreak has come to Washington State. // A King County Jail nurse quit after trans “women” started attacking female inmates. // The Heritage Foundation ranked Washington State 46th out of 50 states in election integrity.

What’s Trending: An affordable housing provider is filing a lawsuit against Seattle for laws that are designed to make rent more affordable, but have made it harder for them to stay in business. Boeing is reporting massive losses ahead of the machinist union’s next vote on their proposal. Guest: Gwyneth has two kids in the Seattle Public School system. She’s disgusted that the district is hosting an antisemitic conference this weekend. // Big Local: A recently-opened Kent bubble tea store was broken into. Marysville School district had its first community meeting ahead of potential closures. A new police academy has opened in Arlington. A Washington State defense attorney has been indicted for smuggling drugs into King County Jail. // A woman was caught on camera reaming out her pro-Trump neighbor.

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and Erica C. Barnett, founder of Publicola, discuss the tradeoffs in Mayor Bruce Harrell's budget proposal, a new plan for lateral police hires and increased neighborhood surveillance, a new contract between Seattle and the King County Jail, and a major upheaval for King County's public defense system. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

Charlie Harger - The only Journalist to ever interview Gary Ridgeway // Gary Ridgeway booked in King County Jail, but no one will say why, Families of victims express shock at the move // ELECTION 2024 // Court could clear the way for Americans to legally bet on US elections // Hear Trump’s reaction to Taylor Swift endorsing Kamala Harris // The list of celebrities that have endorsed either Harris or Trump for president // Will Ferrell Says Dressing Like Janet Reno For Laughs Is ‘Something I Wouldn’t Choose To Do Now’

Charlie Harger - The only Journalist to ever interview Gary Ridgeway // Gary Ridgeway booked in King County Jail, but no one will say why, Families of victims express shock at the move // Seattle City Council holds public hearing to consider 7 ‘stay out’ drug or prostitution zones The hearing had some VERY…. memorable moments including “The Bell Town Singer” and “Bingo in the Bunny Suit” // ​​Texas Candidate Smokes Bong In Campaign Ad

What’s Trending: The Green River Killer Gary Ridgway was transferred from the state penitentiary to King County Jail completely unannounced. The body cam footage from star NFL player Tyreek Hill’s arrest has been released and it shows he failed to comply with officers’ instructions. // Tonight is the first, and maybe the only, debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. A new CNN report reveals just how far-left some of Kamala Harris’ positions on immigration are. // The Highline school district has closed schools again tomorrow due to a cyberattack. At what age is it acceptable for kids to walk home alone from school?

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the arrest of Belltown Hellcat driver Miles Hudson, an ultimatum from DoorDash to the City of Seattle, a new agreement with the King County Jail, a push for low-income energy assistance, and a response to one of our show patron's questions. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Assistant Managing Editor for Diversity and Inclusion and the Social Justice Columnist for The Seattle Times, Naomi Ishisaka! They discuss: New Candidates Running for Seattle City Council  Everyday Gun Violence Seattle Dual-Dispatch Pilot is Underutilized Ferguson's Police Centric Plan Deaths at Tacoma ICE Facility, SCORE and KC Jails Problematic Gravel Yard Gains AG's Attention As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Naomi Ishisaka at @naomiishisaka.   About the Guest Naomi Ishisaka is the Assistant Managing Editor for Diversity and Inclusion and the Social Justice Columnist for The Seattle Times. She is a journalist and photographer who focuses on racial equity and social justice.   Resources “Tanya Woo faces these candidates in bid to keep her Seattle City Council seat” by Katie Campbell from KUOW   “Alexis Mercedes Rinck Launches Progressive Challenge to Tanya Woo” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Outraged by police violence? Everyday gun violence is outrageous, too” by Naomi Ishisaka from The Seattle Times   “Coming about! What it means that Bob Ferguson just tacked right on cops” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Seattle's Dual Dispatch Program Is Underutilized” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Activists monitor Tacoma ICE facility 24/7 after detainee death” by Lilly Ana Fowler from KNKX Public Radio   “Immigrant rights groups outside Northwest ICE Processing Center face intimidation” by Brian Hayes from The News Tribune   “Woman's Malnutrition Death Raises Questions About Medical Care Standards at South King County Jail” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola   “Man dies at hospital after medical emergency at King County Jail” by Vonnai Phair from The Seattle Times   “WA's AG, health officials raise questions about gravel yard by school” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

As we travel further into the new year, it provides new opportunities for the world's scammers. In this episode of the BTC, we look at two strange cases of scams going awry. A special thank you to this week's guest host, Eileen Walters!You can check out 600 Second Saga here!Research links below!Ring the Damn Bell - "A Wrestling With Sin Mystery: The Carny Con Man Jerry Balisok"Casetext - "State v. Balisok"Mental Floss - "How Conman Jerry Balisok Pulled the Ultimate Disappearing Act"68 Wn. App. 277, 843 P.2d 1086, STATE v. BALISOKStevenWarran - "March 10, 1990, Seattle Post Intelligencer, 'Jonestown Victim' Turns Up Alive In the King County Jail, by Jack Hopkins"Find A Grave - "Jerry Bibb Balisok"Justia - "State v. Balisok"The Seattle Times - "Murder Conviction Overturned By Court -- Court Of Appeals Rules Jury Action Prejuduced Trial"The Seattle Times - "Man Feared Dead In Jonestown Ran Hoax, Police Say"AARP Podcast - The Perfect Scam - Colorado Funeral Home Body Brokering Scheme Part 1 & 2 - Episodes 153-154 - May 11 & 18, 2023.KKCO11 News - "Montrose funeral home mastermind and co-conspirator sentenced"United States Attorney's Office: District of Colorado - "Sunset Mesa Funeral Home Operators Sentenced to Federal Prison For Illegal Body Part Scheme"Courthouse News Service - "Colorado funeral home director to pay restitution for selling body parts"The Daily Sentinel - "Body of complaints piled up: State knew of funeral home concerns long before FBI raid"

Seattle budget season may be over but it's never too early to start preparing and studying up for next year! On this topical show re-air, special guest host Shannon Cheng chats with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget about the City of Seattle budget process. After covering budget basics and where we're at in Seattle's budget process, they cover the ongoing fight over the JumpStart Tax and what's being done (or not done) to address the upcoming $251 million budget deficit in 2025. Next, the trio breaks down the difference between “ghost cops” and the fully-funded SPD hiring plan, as well as why ShotSpotter still isn't a good idea. The show wraps up with a sampling of this year's other budget fights, how people can learn more or get involved, and Amy and BJ's dream budget items! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle, find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg, and find Solidarity Budget at https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/.   Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog.   BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid.   Resources Seattle Solidarity Budget   Notes from the Emerald City   Tools to Understand the Budget | Seattle City Council   “Mosqueda, Council Colleagues Pass JumpStart's COVID Relief Package and Economic Recovery Spending Plan” by Joseph Peha from Seattle City Council Blog   “Seattle's Jumpstart payroll tax raised more than expected. Is the money going where it's most needed?” by Angela King & Katie Campbell from KUOW   Memorandum: General Fund Deficit Historical Analysis from Seattle City Council Central Staff   “Harrell's 2024 Budget Leaves Big Questions on Safety and Looming Shortfall” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Final Report of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup   “Removing Vacant Police Positions in Seattle's Budget Is Good Fiscal Stewardship” by BJ Last for The Stranger   “Police Budget Fizz: Hiring Falls Short, Shotspotter Gains Support, Burgess Misrepresents Jane Jacobs” from PubliCola   “Nearly half of Seattle police calls don't need officers responding, new report says” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times   “Set Money Aside for Illegal Surveillance, or Fund Community Needs Now?” by BJ Last and Camille Baldwin-Bonney for The Stranger   “New UW study says human-services workers are underpaid by 37%” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   City of Seattle Budget Office   Stop ShotSpotter! Webinar - Seattle Solidarity Budget and ACLU of Washington | Nov 8, 2023   Guaranteed Basic Income Panel - Seattle Solidarity Budget | Oct 10, 2023   The People's Budget Seattle | Announcing Winning Projects   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. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everyone! This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I'm here as your special guest host for today. Everyone's been super busy with elections, but another important thing currently happening right now in a lot of our local jurisdictions is that they're having budget deliberations for the coming year. Budgets are super important - we talk a lot about policy on this show, but what really matters in the end is how that policy is implemented and budgets manifest our intent. So Crystal let me take over the show for a day, and I wanted to have some folks on who are closely following the budget here in Seattle. They're two local community organizers with Solidarity Budget. And before we get to meeting them, I just wanted to point out that while we're gonna be focused pretty deeply on the City of Seattle's budget, a lot of what we talk about is applicable to other places. So if you're interested in getting involved in the budget where you live, we can learn something from these experts. So without further ado, I just want to welcome Amy Sundberg and BJ Last. Amy, starting with you, can you tell us a little about yourself and how you got involved with Solidarity Budget? [00:02:00] Amy Sundberg: Yes, hello! It's good to be here. I'm Amy, and I am the publisher and writer of the newsletter Notes from the Emerald City, which is a weekly newsletter that covers issues involving public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system - in our local area - so Seattle and King County mostly, and occasionally the state of Washington. As well, I sometimes cover public safety issues for The Urbanist. And I organize with People Power Washington and Solidarity Budget. Originally, I got my start organizing with People Power Washington and we would uplift the demands of Solidarity Budget. And eventually I connected with the folks at Solidarity Budget and started working with them as well, so that's how I initially got involved. [00:02:45] Shannon Cheng: What about you, BJ? [00:02:46] BJ Last: Hi, thanks. Great to be here. BJ Last - don't do anything as cool as Amy on a regular basis. I've lots of years as a budget analyst, former small business owner, was a professional baker - did pop-ups, but then COVID, so that kind of went by the wayside. I actually first got involved with Solidarity Budget over SPD overtime. SPD has a massive history of overspending on overtime. In 2020, there was a resolution the City passed mid-year saying if SPD overspends on its overtime, we won't give them more money for it. Lo and behold, SPD did. At the end of the year, council was like - Okay, fine, we'll give you more money, but we swear we're gonna take it from you next year to do an offset. And wanted that fight to be like - No, we need to actually try to get that money from them next year to have any kind of budget accountability. And spoiler, that sadly never happened. [00:03:34] Shannon Cheng: I agree with you that Amy is cool and also that the SPD overtime issues are very frustrating. For folks who don't know, could you give a little background on what Solidarity Budget is, and how it came to be, and how you all work together? [00:03:48] BJ Last: Sure thing. So Solidarity Budget came up out of - actually Mayor Jenny Durkan. Groups caught that Mayor Durkan was promising a lot of different groups the exact same pot of money and then being like - Y'all fight amongst yourselves to do this. And groups came together and was like - We're tired of actually just always being pitted against each other and forced to fight each other for scraps in the City budget, while all the funding goes to things that no one was wanting, like while all of the funding goes into SPD. SPD alone is still a quarter of the budget, getting everything carceral - it's about a third of the general fund. So it was that desire of - No, we don't want to be pitted against each other. And just rejecting this framework of - we have to fight against each other for scraps. So coming together as groups to be like - what are our big priorities and saying - Look, we are advocating for all of these things. [00:04:38] Amy Sundberg: I would say in addition, we wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the budget every year, that those most marginalized are centered in that conversation. And often they aren't, right? So it's important to have a coalition who has that front of mind when advocating. [00:04:54] Shannon Cheng: That's super smart. Our experience has been - it can be hard to get heard by electeds, just - if you're not the people in power, sometimes it just feels when you send your email and make your phone call, your voice might not be heard. And so trying to come together and forming a coalition so that you can have a larger voice seems like it would make a lot of sense if you want to push the lever on budget-related issues. Okay, so let's jump into some background and some budget basics before getting deep down into the weeds. Did you want to give, Amy, a sense of what the scale of budgets are at different jurisdictions and then what we're talking about here in Seattle? [00:05:31] Amy Sundberg: Sure. So there are many different government budgets. The biggest one, of course, is the national budget for the United States, which is around $4.4 trillion. So obviously a huge pot of money. Most of that money comes from personal income tax that we all pay every year and also corporate income tax, et cetera, et cetera. Then we have the state budget, which is about $72 billion per year. And then we have the King County budget, which is $6.2 billion per year. So you see, we're kind of getting smaller and smaller as we get into smaller jurisdictions. And then we have the City budget. And city budgets tend to be around $5 to $6 billion per year in total. All of these budgets are made up from various types of taxes and fees, and they each are responsible for funding different services in our communities. [00:06:26] Shannon Cheng: Great. So for the City of Seattle - let's just focus in on that as our example for today's episode. So where does the money for the City of Seattle come from? [00:06:35] Amy Sundberg: If we're talking about - particularly general fund - most of that money would come from property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax, which is a business tax. I think that's about 60% of the funds. And then there are a lot of other very small buckets of money that come in as well to make up the entire amount. [00:06:56] BJ Last: That's a great overview, Amy. And one thing I do want to just mention - so the total Seattle budget is $7.8 billion, but the vast majority of that is stuff that is extremely restricted. For example, we have public utilities. So City Light - that's $1.5 billion - that is all funded by the rates people pay for their electricity. So while that's there in that total number that makes the City's budget look absolutely huge, it's not accessible - the council can't use that to fund things. So the general fund is a much smaller slice of that. It's just about $1.6 billion. And that's the money that the City pretty much has full discretion as to where it decides to go and spend that. [00:07:37] Shannon Cheng: So if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying Seattle's budget is pretty big, but a large part of it is already appropriated to specific things. So when it comes to these priorities that when people - they're looking around at their city or their neighborhood, and they want things - it's gonna have to come out of this thing you call the general fund. Is that correct? [00:07:57] Amy Sundberg: Yes, that's correct. So most of what we're advocating for every year is general fund dollars. [00:08:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, and so you are saying, BJ, that the general fund is about $1.6 billion. So what types of things are currently getting funded out of the general fund? [00:08:14] BJ Last: Yeah, that's correct. So it's $1.6 billion. It's - very broadly defined, Public Safety is 47% of it. And that is SPD, also includes the Office of the Inspector General, the CPC, the police pension - those are all four different departments that are in there, that are all cops. The Fire Department and CARE/CSCC, which is the 911 dispatch - which is currently CSCC, may be getting rebranded CARE soon. So that's 47%. The next biggest bucket is Administration and that's 22%. And Administration is kind of a massive catch-all that includes a lot of things - so major expenditures in there are for indigent defense and the City's contract with the King County Jail. So when SPD goes and arrests someone and puts them in there, the City is effectively leasing part of the jail from King County - and that's to pay part of it. And it also includes things like Judgment and Claims Funds, which is for when people are suing the City - that comes out of there, that's housed in that Admin section. And unsurprisingly, that one's also been increasing a lot lately due to lawsuits coming from 2020, which we know what those were. And then the other thing that is anything really is Education & Human Services, and that's about 15% of the general fund. So those three things of Public Safety, Administration, Education & Human Services account for 80% of the general fund. [00:09:39] Shannon Cheng: Wow, so what's left in that 20% that's remaining? [00:09:43] Amy Sundberg: Oh gosh, it's a lot of small things. Libraries, for example, will get funded out of that. A lot of our Transportation actually gets funded through specific levies, so it wouldn't come from general fund. And I think that's true of Parks & Rec as well. But there might be some little bits of money that go to Transportation and Parks & Rec - they have varied funding sources, basically. [00:10:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, great. So that's the general fund, the discretionary portion of the City of Seattle's budget. So what's happening right now with the process? [00:10:14] Amy Sundberg: When we talk about budget season in Seattle, it's generally just a two-month period in the fall. But really, budget goes on for much of the year - because before the fall, the City departments are having to analyze their budgets and turn in reports to the mayor. And then the Mayor's Office is developing a proposed budget - that's the budget that gets announced at the end of September. At that point, the City Council is able to come in and make their changes that they might wanna see in that proposed budget. So that's where we are right now. First, they review the proposed budget to make sure they understand what's in there and what isn't in there. And then the Budget Chair, who this year is Councilmember Mosqueda, puts together a balancing package - that's a package where she thinks that there is consent amongst the councilmembers, that everyone agrees that these are changes that should be made for the most part. And then each councilmember is given the opportunity to suggest amendments to that balancing package. And they need to get two other councilmembers to sponsor that in order to get those amendments considered. So that's where we are right now - we've just heard the amendments that are being considered. And eventually what will happen is that those amendments will be voted on by the Budget Committee, which is all of the councilmembers to be clear. [00:11:35] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so Mayor Harrell sent over his proposal end of September and we're about a month into the Council's involvement. And this is the budget for next year? [00:11:45] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, for 2024. [00:11:46] BJ Last: So Seattle operates on a biennium budget basis. So last year they set the budget for 2023 and 2024. So this year they're currently doing adjustments to that 2024 budget. And then next year it'll be back to doing the full biennium, where we'll be looking at 2025 and 2026. [00:12:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so this is just finishing up last year's work through the end of the year, and just adjusting based on the realities of how much money is coming in and new needs for expenditures. [00:12:15] Amy Sundberg: Theoretically that is the case. Seattle is a little bit less strict about that than some other municipalities. I would say King County is more of a true biennial budget, whereas Seattle's kind of a biennial budget. And I think actually there's been some push to make it more like King County, to make it more of a true biennium. So we'll see what happens with that. [00:12:36] Shannon Cheng: Okay, interesting. Another thing I keep hearing about all the time is this fight over the JumpStart Tax. And I think it'd be good to just lay out very clearly - what is that fight all about? [00:12:47] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the JumpStart payroll tax passed in the summer of 2020. And then the council passed a spending plan for it in 2021 to put into statute what exactly the JumpStart Tax is supposed to go to pay for. And just so we're clear on what that spend plan is - 62% of JumpStart funds are supposed to go to affordable housing, 9% to Green New Deal, 9% to Equitable Development Initiative, and 15% to small business. What has happened though - basically, because this was going on in the middle of the pandemic - obviously there was a lot more needs, the City budget was a little messier than maybe normally. So they allowed some of these JumpStart Tax dollars to be spent as a kind of a slush fund for the general fund so that we wouldn't have to have an austerity budget. And the idea was that over time this would transition and eventually all of the JumpStart Tax funds would go to those percentages that I mentioned a moment ago. However, what has ended up happening is that every year - regardless of what mayor we have - every year the mayor will take some of the JumpStart dollars and move it over for general fund purposes, instead of those specific Green New Deal and affordable housing purposes. Every year Council kind of tries to claw back those JumpStart funds to put them into the main purposes they were meant for. Now we're still having some budget issues, so there has been - even for this year - some money that Council agreed could be used from JumpStart funds to fund general fund priorities, especially because JumpStart funds ended up being larger than originally anticipated. So the compromise that was struck was that those extra dollars that we weren't originally expecting can be used to kind of help prop up the general fund. But what ends up happening is sometimes more money beyond that gets pulled from JumpStart into the general fund. And of course, because affordable housing in particular is a large percentage of where that money is supposed to go and is such a priority in the city right now, given our housing crisis, this becomes a big fight every year. [00:15:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, yeah - that's helpful. So I think I saw - in 2021, the JumpStart Tax generated $234 million. And so that was one of those years where the City and the Council felt that some of that needed to go towards other things than that spend plan that you referenced. And so about 37% of it ended up going to the general fund. And then that leaves a much smaller slice left for addressing those issues that you listed - housing, small business support, Green New Deal, equitable development - which, if people stop and think about - looking around, what are the biggest issues that the City's facing right now? I mean, that's what these are trying to address - the housing crisis, small businesses struggling after the pandemic, needing to do something about climate change in a meaningful way, and then also trying to spread our resources in a more equitable way across residents of the city. And so - to me then - thinking about JumpStart Tax, it's sort of a mini version of a whole budget. Because we had purported values that we stated out when we passed this legislation - saying this is what we want to spend this money on. And then, as with many things, it's the reality of the implementation that lets us see where our priorities truly are. And it sounds like - in 2020, we said very strongly - We need to meaningfully address these issues that we've been in a state of crisis for for a long time, and they've just been getting worse. And people are pointing that out - you see that. What I find really interesting is that the original people who've opposed the JumpStart Tax - so that would be the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association - are these the same people who are now pushing to take the money away from JumpStart's original purposes and redirect it towards other things? [00:16:53] BJ Last: Honestly, yes. They're a lot of the people pushing that they want to - I'll use the phrase - "liberate" JumpStart funds so that it can be used as effectively just more general fund backfill. They also haven't entirely given up on fighting JumpStart. As part of the Revenue Stabilization Task Force that was meeting this year, the representatives from the Metro Chamber of Commerce, she made comments of - Hey, we think we should actually pause JumpStart for a year or two - supposedly to help businesses on recovery. So they are still fighting on JumpStart a little. The opponents of JumpStart have much more moved to - they just want it to be more general fund. [00:17:32] Amy Sundberg: And I do think it's important to state also that when we talk about wanting to allow businesses to recover, JumpStart Tax only applies to very large businesses with very high payroll and very highly paid employees. It's not hitting small businesses - that's not how it was set up. [00:17:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, previous to JumpStart Tax, there was an attempt to pass the Amazon head tax and that did pass, but then eventually got repealed because of a lot of protest. And I believe the JumpStart Tax came out of a coalition that got built after that failed attempt, which included small business groups - because 15% of the JumpStart revenue is supposed to go towards small business support. Which everybody likes to say - small business is super important to the health and vibrancy of the Seattle economy. But are we willing to put our money where our mouth is on that? I just find it pretty insidious the way that they're approaching this because they oppose the tax to begin with, they're still opposing it now, they wanna pause it. But when they ask for the money to go back to the general fund, it seems like it's going back to a lot of their own interests, such as downtown activation. So not only are they taking the money back for themselves, they're also weakening the implementation of what this tax was originally said to do. People probably heard about this tax when they announced it - there was all sorts of glowing praise of this is gonna address meaningfully these problems that everybody cares about. And yet now, by weakening it and taking money away, we can't spend as much of that money on it. And so obviously, when you look at the results of what the JumpStart Tax has done, it will look like it's less. And so I just really wanna call that out. I also wanna call out that the council that passed the JumpStart Tax in July of 2020 is pretty much the same council we currently have other than Councilmember Nelson who replaced Councilmember González in 2021. And JumpStart Tax passed 7-2. The only two councilmembers who did not vote for it were Councilmembers Juarez and Pedersen. How have they been reacting to all this JumpStart scuffling? [00:19:33] Amy Sundberg: They definitely have been less supportive of increasing the JumpStart Tax in any way - that has been noticeable. [00:19:40] BJ Last: Yeah, they have also been very much on the wanting to just throw the spending plan out the window. Actually, it was Councilmember Pedersen who's the first one that I heard use the expression of "liberate" JumpStart funds - create additional flexibility and disregard that. There are also subtler attempts to pretend that the JumpStart spend plan is very unclear, and so potentially needs to be revisited due to that - even though it's actually an extremely clear spend plan. People just keep trying to violate it - it's not that the plan isn't clear, people just keep asking for stuff that goes outside of that spend plan. [00:20:13] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so then the councilmembers who did vote for it - so those would be Councilmembers Herbold, Morales, Sawant, Strauss, Lewis, and then obviously Councilmember Mosqueda, who spearheaded the effort. Are they staying strong behind the values that they voted for on the JumpStart Tax, or has that kind of squished up since then? [00:20:31] Amy Sundberg: I would say - I mean, you know - it's hard to say what is in their hearts, but I would say it's a mix. I think some of them have stayed pretty strong, and I think others of them have, you know, less so. [00:20:45] Shannon Cheng: Okay, fair enough. I guess I'm just concerned 'cause it sounds like this JumpStart Tax issue will continue to carry on, and it is possible that we will lose its biggest champion on the city council next year. So I just want everybody listening to understand what this fight is about and why it's so important. To me, it kind of comes down to differences in opinion over what is gonna float all the boats in this city, right? I mean, business wants us to believe that if we just pour all the money into business and their interests, that that will just generally help everybody. Whereas what JumpStart was trying to do, I believe, is trying to build from the ground up by providing people housing, trying to spread the resources in a more equitable fashion, tackling climate change, providing good jobs that come out of tackling climate change. And so I just really think this is a fight over shifting decision-making about how we spend our resources from being concentrated with a few powerful interests, and letting more people have a say and access to success and opportunities to do well in this city. [00:21:48] Amy Sundberg: I would say Councilmember Mosqueda in particular has been a stalwart advocate of JumpStart. And as the Budget Chair, she has been in good position every year to counter the attempts to try to use JumpStart as more and more of a City slush fund. So if we lose her on Council at the end of this year, that certainly will make it more concerning going forward in terms of what will happen with JumpStart. I'll also say there is this spend plan. It is in statute currently. That statute could be changed, so it's not like it's protected forever. [00:22:21] Shannon Cheng: All right, so everyone - it's Election Day. Get out and vote - try to think about who's gonna be our next champion for the JumpStart Tax. So moving on, we also keep hearing all this news about an upcoming budget shortfall in 2025. What's happening with that? [00:22:39] Amy Sundberg: So the City of Seattle is facing a massive budget deficit starting in 2025. It is now estimated to be around $251 million deficit, which has gone up based on the mayor's proposed budget. So basically, the mayor's proposed budget this year has made the problem worse - potentially - in upcoming years. $251 million is a lot of money. And so the question is, what are we going to do to address that? There are two main ways to do that. You can make cuts to the budget - spend less money. Or you can pass new progressive revenue that will help fund the budget. We are not allowed by law to have a not balanced budget, so that is not an option - it's not on the table. Or of course you can do a combination of cuts and new progressive revenue. So those are kind of the two levers that councilmembers have to play with. And what is relevant in this budget season right now is speaking about new progressive revenue, because if we want to pass new progressive revenue for the City of Seattle, we would need to plan ahead a little bit. Because it will take some time to implement any new progressive revenue that we might pass - there's a ramp up to getting it done. So if we wanted to have that revenue to rely on for 2025, we would really ideally want to pass things now before the end of the year. [00:24:03] BJ Last: What I'd add on to what Amy mentioned is how we actually ended up getting to this upcoming deficit. Over the last two decades roughly, Seattle's population has grown at a really robust clip. We have all seen that. We have not seen the same growth in the general fund revenues that come in. Property tax increases are limited to - I believe it's at most 1% a year for the city - because sales tax also does not increase. So while we are seeing this really big increase in population, we have not seen the same with our general fund. It has really not moved that much. So it isn't the narrative of - Oh, the city has added a bunch of new pet projects or whatever, and that's where it's come from. It's come from largely - the city has gotten bigger and the general fund growth has not kept up with that. 85% of that upcoming deficit projected is all due to just open labor contracts. The Coalition of City Unions - their contracts are open. SPOG - their contract is also open. Paying Coalition of City Unions, paying the City workers - the people that like literally keep the lights on, fix the roads - of actually going and paying them is where this is coming from. [00:25:06] Amy Sundberg: And especially because inflation rates have been so high the last couple of years, right? So that's - they need a much larger raise than they would need if inflation was not high. [00:25:15] BJ Last: Also on the inflation part - thank you, that's a great call out, Amy - growth of the general fund has not kept up with inflation, especially just these last two years. I think there've even been other years where it hasn't happened, but these last two years in particular, we have not seen the general fund grow at the same rate. So things have gotten more expensive for the city that the general fund has to get spent on, but the dollars coming in the door haven't kept up with that. [00:25:35] Shannon Cheng: Is anything being done about that? Did the mayor propose anything about progressive revenue, or thinking about this upcoming problem? [00:25:42] Amy Sundberg: The mayor did not propose anything having to do with new progressive revenue in fact, which is a decision that he has been critiqued for in the local media. And there certainly has been a fair amount of rhetoric about just tightening our belts, right? But to be clear, $251 million - that's a lot of cuts that would drive us straight into an austerity budget, one would think. So that is where the mayor's office has landed, but there have been a lot of conversations about potential new progressive revenue that started with the task force that BJ mentioned earlier, which was brought together to look at various possibilities of what could be good new revenue sources. And certainly there were people that sat on that task force that had a priority of finding good new progressive sources of revenue in particular, as opposed to regressive taxes that will hurt people who have less more. And they did find some reasonable options that would not require a change in state law, and so could potentially be implemented in time to address the 2025 budget shortfall. So I would say that there are three main possibilities at play right now that are being discussed. One of those is a capital gains tax, so we had a capital gains tax at the state level pass - so far it has survived any legal challenges that it has faced. So it would be possible for the City to institute a tax above that. It would be a fairly small amount, probably 1-2% capital gains tax. Councilmember Pedersen originally was the councilmember who suggested this, and he also suggested that we remove a certain water fee. So it'll be interesting to hear a more robust analysis of that water fee to find out - is that truly a regressive tax? Or with various rebates, et cetera, that are available for people - is it not that regressive a tax? Because if we were to take away that water fee, it would be revenue neutral, so it wouldn't actually assist us with the upcoming deficit. Not to say it's still not worthwhile to talk about, even if that's true, because we want to get rid of more regressive taxes and institute more progressive taxes. So either way, that's a good conversation to have - but it's unclear to me more of the details of that water tax, how regressive it is. So that is an important thing to discover. The other two options have to do with the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about. One of them would be just to increase that JumpStart Tax across - it has a tiered structure right now, so across the tiers to just increase it. Councilmember Sawant has already proposed very, very modest increases in that JumpStart Tax in two of her amendments for the 2024 budget to fund specific priorities. So increasing the JumpStart Tax just full stop is one option. Another really intriguing option that has been discussed is something called a CEO pay ratio tax. This would require corporations that pay their top executives exorbitant amounts to pay an extra tax, or fee, or surcharge. So basically what we could do is use the JumpStart Tax as a vehicle by adding an extra layer to it. So there would be an extra tax that would only apply to corporations that exceed a certain CEO pay ratio. And what I have heard about this tax - again, so it would be fairly easy to implement because you don't have to change state law, you would just add an additional layer to an already existent tax. And what I've heard is that it would collect a significant amount of funds, but I don't have any actual numbers on that. So it will be really interesting to hear an analysis of how much money that could potentially actually bring in. And what Councilmember Mosqueda has announced is that there will be an extra Budget Committee meeting after the main 2024 budget is passed to discuss some of these possibilities at more depth. So they will be discussed earlier in November, kind of as a briefing, and then the councilmembers will meet after the budget is passed to potentially vote on some of these possibilities, if they're not already passed in the 2024 budget. [00:30:09] BJ Last: One thing I wanted to mention - so the Revenue Stabilization Group looked at about 20 different taxes. They did a great write-up that finally made it out in August after having been delayed a few times. The three taxes Amy mentioned - one of the reasons that they're at the top three is how quickly they can get implemented. So, you know, we're currently sitting and recording this - it's November, the budget deficit starts on January 1st, 2025. There is very limited time to go and get an ordinance passed and actually then to have that go into effect - since a new tax doesn't go into effect the day that it is passed - and to make sure that it would survive any legal challenges. So there is even like a broader list of things, but because we have kept putting this conversation off, because the city has sort of kept pushing the can down the road, we don't have very much time to go and pass this. We have about 13, 14 months to get something passed and to start having dollars coming in the door before that deficit hits. [00:31:04] Shannon Cheng: All right, so time is of the essence here. And it sounds like although Mayor Harrell didn't put anything in his proposals to address this, at least Council seems like they're gonna be on it in some fashion. So we'll see what comes of that. Okay, so that's the revenue side of the budget. And I think that's helpful for people to understand, 'cause I think it's much easier to talk about what you want to spend money on rather than where that money is gonna come from. I mean, I know I'm like that in my own life. So maybe we need to talk about what are we gonna spend all this money that we're bringing in on. And earlier in the show, talked about a rough breakdown of the general fund - it sounds like a huge portion of that goes towards public safety, which includes the Fire Department and the Police Department. So is the reason why sometimes it feels like there's so much focus on the police budget because they're kind of the biggest chunk of the budget, so that if you were trying to look for places where we could make some savings, it would be there? [00:32:05] BJ Last: I'd say absolutely. Not only are they the biggest chunk - no other department eats up as big a portion of the general fund as SPD does. So not only that, but they also get absurdly special treatment that no other department gets, where a lot of basic budget practices even just get entirely thrown out the window because it's for SPD. Ghost cops are a great example of this. Ghost cops are positions SPD gets funded for, even though they have no plan, intention, or ability to fill these roles. So these are not people that SPD even thinks they can plan - they have said they aren't going in the plan, there's no desire to, but they still get funding for them year after year. There are like 213 of these now currently sitting around and it works out to be - about $31 million of SPD's budget right now is slush fund on this. And we talked about the upcoming deficit in 2025. So a $250 million roughly - $30 million on these guys - you can see that this is a large percentage of the deficit sitting right there in these ghost positions that councilmembers just don't want to touch. And to give a sort of example of how no one else gets treated this way - where they get to just sort of hold on to this positional authority when they have no ability to fill it. Last year, the city abrogated 24 911-dispatcher positions, which - abrogation means they remove positional authority to it. No one probably heard about this 'cause there wasn't a big kerfuffle because it's normal. Council and the mayor and everyone's like - Well, you guys have said you can't hire these guys for the next two years for the duration of the biennium, so we're just gonna remove positional authority to it. If staffing plans change, we can re-add it. We can also add this back into the 2025 biennium if staffing levels have picked up. And in fact, they actually already are adding back about three of them in the supplemental of - in 2024 now in the budget process because their hiring has picked up. So just using 911 dispatch as an example - the ghost cops, the excess positional authority - no other department gets that. Every other department it is what your staffing plan is - the number of people you actually expect to hire - that is the number of positions you get, and that's the number of positions you get funded for. SPD gets this massive slush fund that they get to go and use on whatever the heck they want. And there was also even a technology one that we saw in the 2022 budget. Truleo - it's a technology - it swears it's like AI, natural language processing of body camera footage. SPD specifically asked for additional money for this program as part of the 2022 budget. Council explicitly did not give them funding for this. They said - We are not funding this program. Then the City found out at the start of this year that SPD actually went ahead and bought Truleo anyway. So they ended up canceling the contract, but it ended up as a thing of - usually if a department goes to a company and says, We need additional money for this project - if they don't get that money and then they find a way to fund that project anyway, it raises a lot of questions. Like, why did you say you needed additional money for this if you could already cover it with your additional budget? And hey, all those other items that you said you needed additional money for, that we gave you additional money for - how many of them did you really need additional money for versus you were just attempting to pad out your budget? So that's one of the reasons why it gets a lot of attention. Not only is it just the biggest percentage of the general fund by a lot, but the absurd special treatment that they get. [00:35:29] Shannon Cheng: So SPD is 26% of the general fund? [00:35:33] BJ Last: SPD itself is 24-26%. That does not include the police pension department - that is a separate pension in there. It does not include the Office of Inspector General and the CPC, the Community Police Commission, even though they are also both part of that. So when you start adding all of those, it goes up even over a quarter. And then when you add in the city attorney's office, municipal courts, indigent defense, jail services - what we're spending on carceral - it's a third of the general fund all ends up sitting there. [00:36:05] Shannon Cheng: Wow, okay. Yeah, I see here - just the Seattle Police Department alone, not all those other things you added on - they're sitting at just under $400 million. So what I'm understanding is these ghost cops are haunting, I guess, the Seattle Police Department budget. [00:36:23] BJ Last: These ghost cop positions - they do haunt the general budget. Amy talked about how we're defunding JumpStart. So it's about $85 million last year, $85 million this year, $85 million next year - that's getting transferred from JumpStart to the general fund. So again, transferred from Green New Deal, affordable housing to the general fund. Because SPD gets a quarter of the general fund, that means that $21 million a year roughly is literally going from affordable housing to SPD and its ghost cops. [00:36:54] Shannon Cheng: Oh man. Okay. So, and then they're taking it, and as you said, spending it on things that they were explicitly told not to spend it on or who knows what else, right? We try to dig in and get more transparency into what's going on, but that can be difficult. And just what BJ was saying about budgeting practices and that SPD is not subject to those at times - so I looked at the King County biennial budget for the same time period from 2023 to 2024. And they have line items across all of their appropriation units, including the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, that's called a vacancy rate adjustment. And this is exactly what BJ is describing - it's capturing salary savings from them not having been able to hire and being able to put that back into the general budget so that they can use it for other things that there's a need for. And then in addition to that, last biennium for King County, they had an additional line item specifically only for the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult Juvenile Detention called Capture Additional Vacancy Savings. And here, I'll just read the line item - it says it's to increase expected savings due to vacancies to account for current unprecedented vacancy level. And, you know, it allows the Sheriff's Office and DAJD to request additional appropriation to reverse it if the vacancy rate reverses and that we're able to magically start hiring a ton of people. I mean, we see that there's kind of a nationwide hiring shortage across every kind of profession, but in police and corrections officers as well. So this is not abnormal, and there was not a giant fight in the King County budget when this happened. Just to give you a sense of the magnitude - just from the original base vacancy rate adjustment, it was $5.3 million from the Sheriff's Office. And that additional vacancy savings was $5.7 million. So this is meaningful money that can be used in other places and not just locked up in the - Oh, well, maybe law enforcement will get to use it. Or maybe when they get close to the end of the spending period, they'll just spend it on something that we didn't all agree that we wanted. [00:39:03] Amy Sundberg: I will say as well that SPD has a very optimistic hiring plan and they never hit it - at least for the last several years that I've been following it, they don't hit it. And this year they actually - the department shrank again. They have a negative total when you add in hires minus attrition. So it's still shrinking in spite of these hiring bonuses that we have no evidence actually works. But these ghost cop positions aren't even part of that. They're ones that even SPD says - We definitely aren't gonna hire that this year. It's not taking away from the hiring plan that SPD wants and thinks they can hire. It's additional positions beyond that. And to be clear, it's a couple hundred additional positions. It's not like four or five. [00:39:50] Shannon Cheng: Okay, thanks. 'Cause I feel like people conflate that a lot - this talk of supporting SPD and public safety and fully funding their hiring plan, which it sounds like that's what has been happening, but then you have this conversation about abrogating these positions or ghost cops. And so you're saying that those are two separate things? [00:40:10] BJ Last: Absolutely. SPD - they always put out incredibly optimistic hiring plans, even by their own terms. So their hiring plan for next year is still that they will end up with - I think it's a record number of hires, like more than they've ever had - hiring 125 cops, I think it is. And with the number of cops leaving slowing down. And they're like - Cool, our full hiring plan for next year is roughly 1,130 cops. And they're currently getting funded for like 1,344 cops, something like that - it's a difference of 213 positions between what they've said they can hire and what they actually plan on trying to hire - between that and what they're actually funded for. [00:40:47] Shannon Cheng: What are the issues in the hiring pipeline? Why is there a limit to the number of officers that they would actually be able to hire? [00:40:54] Amy Sundberg: I mean, there's a lot of factors. Primarily, there aren't enough applicants to begin with - not enough people want to become police officers at SPD. That's an issue. But as well, I just also - the hiring process takes time because they have to go through a series of testing and vetting. And then if they aren't lateral hires - if they're new recruits, then they have to go through the academy. And even once they're done with academy, they go through more training on the job, so they're not really full officers at that point yet. So it just - there's a long ramp to hiring new officers. Lateral officers - SPD has a great interest in hiring them because they've already been a police officer somewhere else. So they can kind of get plugged in more easily, directly into SPD. But they've been having a really difficult time finding lateral hires. So far in 2023 - I forget - it was four, five, or six total lateral hires for the entire year. And they had expected to be able to hire many more. And when asked about it, Chief Diaz said that the candidates simply weren't good enough for them to hire more than that. But somehow magically, they expect the candidates to get better next year if you look at who they expect to hire next year, which I think is interesting. [00:42:09] BJ Last: And I'd also say, Amy, none of that is unique to Seattle at all. It was already touched on - this is not just Seattle Police Department is having trouble hiring, this is police departments everywhere. Fewer people want to become cops. And just like Seattle, it really, really wants lateral hires because it's much shorter. I think the timeline from a new recruit is like 18 months before they are counted as a employable officer, or whatever their term is. The lateral is much shorter. So not only does Seattle want them, every other department wants them. Thing is just - people do not want to be cops as much. We know one of the things that isn't a barrier to hiring at all is pay. The average SPD officer made over $155,000 in 2022, based on the City's wage data. So they are making - the city pays an absolute ton for SPD on the individual officer level. There're the hiring bonuses that have been around that don't do anything. So it's - for these lateral hires, it's $30K that they're getting offered, it's $7,500 for a new recruit. So the city has already tried throwing just buckets and buckets of money to see if that would somehow turn into more people wanting to be cops in Seattle. And it has absolutely positively not worked. And that really needs to be acknowledged - not throwing money at this one - that's not going to change things here. It's not unique to Seattle, it's across everything. And it's also one of the reasons why other cities have moved to actually non-police responses to things. Because we look back - tons and tons of studies - SPD did its own study in 2019 that showed, I think it was 56% of all 911 calls are non-criminal. There was the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Study that came out in 2021 - showed 80% of all the calls SPD is currently doing don't match anything in the criminal code, and 49% of those calls could immediately go to the community. So one of the reasons other cities are going into non-police responses is because it's what cops actually do - is they respond to non-criminal stuff, that's where they spend all their time. So why on earth are we throwing all of this money at people to show up, and escalate non-criminal situations, and traumatize people? And Seattle has really dragged its heels on that. After having talked about non-police response for years, multiple studies coming out about how little of SPD's calls are actually anything that counts as criminal, how much could go to community - just this last month, they finally launched a dual dispatch, which is SPD responding to stuff. So years later, the city has just refused to move on this item. [00:44:43] Amy Sundberg: I will also add, since we're in the middle of election season - I keep hearing from candidates that what they want to do to fix public safety in Seattle is hire 500 new cops. And I'll just say, your opinion doesn't matter - regardless of your opinion of whether we should hire more cops, whether you want less cops - we are not gonna hire 500 new cops in Seattle anytime soon. It is literally impossible. It is just not gonna happen. So when I hear candidates say that - I mean, it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, it's not a real solution because there are not 500 new cops for us to hire. And also there's, as BJ said, there's the 18 month ramp up to even get someone trained up to become a police officer. So this is just not reality. [00:45:32] Shannon Cheng: Okay, well, speaking of a mismatch between reality and intended outcomes, I keep hearing about this technology called ShotSpotter. I feel like we had a giant debate over it last year, it sounds like it's reared its ugly head again this year. Can you break down what this fight over ShotSpotter is and why it's important? [00:45:54] BJ Last: Sure, so ShotSpotter at a basic level - well, first off, so the company is now called SoundThinking. They did a rebrand because - yeah, the reputation that ShotSpotter has. It's an acoustic gunshot detection service is what it describes itself as - and it is people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to recordings of loud noises. And then saying whether or not they think that loud noise was a gunshot. That is what ShotSpotter boils down to. Like they swear there's a super fancy AI algorithm, but whatever that AI decides to flag - it goes to people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to a noise, and saying whether or not they think it was a gunshot. And they have a large financial interest in actually saying everything was a gunshot. Because of how the contracts are written - that there's no guarantees that they won't send a lot of false alerts. The only guarantee that is in there is anything where the police actually find that there was evidence of a gunshot - for 90% of those, ShotSpotter will have given an alert. So it's pretty much if they say that something wasn't a gunshot, and it turns out it was, that then could potentially hurt their contract. If they call every single loud noise a gunshot, that has zero impact on them at all. So people listening to loud noises with an incentive to go and say everything's a gunshot. And you are right - we had this fight just last year, when the city went and asked for it. And what this ask was - was they asked for additional funding, specifically for ShotSpotter, which council declined to give them. They're asking for it again. Of that additional money specifically for ShotSpotter - this additional money piece actually though, has no impact on whether or not the city actually purchases ShotSpotter. In order to purchase a subscription to ShotSpotter - because it's a subscriptions purchase, so it becomes an annual expense every single year - SPD has to go through a Surveillance Impact Report, which is they have to meet with the community, put together what would be a lot of - what would be the impacts of this technology, what does it do, get community feedback, and then council also has to go and approve that. SPD has been able to do this any single day that it's wanted to. It could have started this process. When they first asked for it last year, they could have started this process then. In any of the time between last year's budget and now, they could have started this process. So they have not done that. So they're asking for money - again, for something that they've taken no steps to actually get anywhere close to being able to legally purchase. [00:48:17] Amy Sundberg: I think too - I have a lot to say about ShotSpotter - I've spent way too much of the last several weeks of my life thinking about ShotSpotter. And to be honest, I just - I find it personally painful that we're having this discussion again this year. Because not only is ShotSpotter ineffective, so it's a waste of money - which is bad enough. I mean, we obviously do not have money to waste. But it is actively harmful, to be clear. There are many, many studies that show this. It increases the number of pat-downs, searches, and enforcement actions. It justifies the over-policing of Black, Indigenous, and people of color neighborhoods that they are primarily living in. It leads to unnecessary contact between the police and vulnerable populations. And it also leads to false arrests. There have even been some cases where they've shown that possibly some of the "evidence" - I put that in air quotes - "evidence" has been tampered with in various ways. I mean, this is actively harmful. It is not just a waste of money. And then also, this year is being sold as part of a crime prevention pilot. And let me be clear - gun violence is a huge problem. It's a huge problem in Seattle. It's a huge problem in King County. Frankly, it's a huge problem across the entire country. And I don't want to minimize the impacts of that in any way, but there is no evidence that shows that ShotSpotter decreases gun violence. So people who are desperate, who want a solution to that problem, are being sold ShotSpotter as the solution, but it's not true. And that's what I find so painful, right? Is that there's people who desperately need a solution to this problem, and instead of actually giving them one that might have a chance of working, they're given ShotSpotter as a false hope instead - which I find repugnant, frankly. [00:50:13] BJ Last: Oh yeah - it's incredibly predatory what they do, Amy. They prey on communities that are struggling with issues of gun violence - which is a massive issue, as you said, that really has huge impacts - and they sell them something that just makes things worse. You mentioned on some of the - what happens with some of these alerts - Adam Toledo was one of the most famous examples of this. So Adam Toledo was a 13-year-old that the Chicago police killed because they were responding to a ShotSpotter alert. And they chased after a 13-year-old, and ended up shooting him in an alley when his hands were empty - when there was nothing in his hands. So this is the real harm that does come from this. And again, it is preying off of communities that have been disinvested in and that are dealing with real problems of gun violence and being like - Oh, hey, here's something we swear will make it better. And that goes and makes it worse. [00:51:01] Amy Sundberg: I will also say - we had this fight last year, we're having it again. There've been a few new wrinkles that have been introduced this year that I think are important to address. One of them is that this year, they have proposed that along with the ShotSpotter acoustic gunshot technology, that they include CCTV cameras. And what Senior Deputy Mayor Burgess said during one of these budget meetings was that the combination of these two technologies leads to higher accuracy and also better admissibility in court. However, these claims have not been backed up. We did find a study that shows that, in fact, the combination of these two technologies does not improve accuracy. And Councilmember Herbold asked Tim Burgess for his evidence - What makes you think this? A month after she asked, she says she finally received his answer - which was six reports on CCTV alone with no ShotSpotter technology included so does not, in fact, give any evidence that it makes ShotSpotter better. And one kind of manual suggesting that maybe you could combine these two technologies with no study attached. So the only study we have found says, in fact, it does not improve the accuracy. So I think that's really important to note. There seems to be a certain lack of regard from certain quarters for actually looking at the evidence - that I find sad, frankly. And another wrinkle that I'll mention is that BJ talked about the Surveillance Ordinance - the report that they would have to do in order to implement ShotSpotter. In the original proposal from the mayor's office, they asked to do one report - so each report, you have to do a racial equity analysis as part of that report - and they asked to only do one report. But this is mobile technology, so you can pick up the camera and the ShotSpotter tech and you can move it to a different neighborhood. So they would only be doing their racial equity analysis in the original neighborhoods that it was going to be placed, and then they could pick it up and move it to any other neighborhood without having to do another racial equity analysis, which I think is deeply problematic because different neighborhoods are different. And a lot of the neighborhoods that they were talking about originally using this technology on are primarily white. And my concern would be - what if they picked it up and moved it to a community that wasn't primarily white, but didn't have to do a racial impact report on that. That is deeply troubling. And I will say Councilmember Mosqueda, in her balancing package, addressed this problem and said - No, you should do a racial equity impact for each time you move it. So hopefully we won't buy ShotSpotter at all, but hopefully that change will stay if we do - because I think you can't do one impact report for a neighborhood, and then move it somewhere completely different and expect that report to have any validity. [00:54:09] Shannon Cheng: So ShotSpotter doesn't address the problem it's claiming to try to solve. In fact, it sounds like it might be making things worse. And so they're asking this year for about $1.8 million, but what do we know from other cities - once you buy a pilot, this $1.8 million this year, what happens after that? [00:54:28] BJ Last: It's a subscription service. So even if you wanted to maintain the same amount or the same coverage area, you are spending that every single year. So this is, would be an ongoing expense. And that's also assuming the ShotSpotter doesn't change its rates. And then if you decided to expand the footprint of where it is, that's gonna add what you're spending every single year. So it is very much just an ongoing expense into a budget that as we said - hey, is already facing a substantial general fund deficit for something that does not address a serious problem. [00:55:00] Amy Sundberg: And the company SoundThinking - I mean, their business model is to persuade cities to expand. So it would not be surprising to me if we were to start this pilot - if in a few years we were spending more like $10 million on ShotSpotter, that would not shock me. [00:55:16] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so it's - this year, we're trying to decide whether to dip a toe into this ShotSpotter technology, but it could lead to larger expenditures in future years if this initial pilot gets funded further. [00:55:34] BJ Last: Absolutely. And also the ShotSpotter company SoundThinking - they do a lot of other surveillance items. They recently bought PredPol, which is nominally predictive policing, that has all the absolute racial bias issues that you probably imagine the moment that a company said that they can sell you predictive policing. So odds are it would not even be staying at just ShotSpotter - of microphones listening for loud noises - that SoundThinking would be trying to then expand to all of their other horrible, dystopian, incredibly biased technology. [00:56:05] Shannon Cheng: Yay. [00:56:07] Amy Sundberg: It's really concerning, right? I think a lot of people want to hold up technology as this panacea - where it will fix everything. And that is not always the case. And in this case, I would argue it is not at all the case. And there are actually things that we could be investing in that might address the issue much more effectively. [00:56:28] BJ Last: Yeah, like the things that are proven to work on this are low tech items - they're violence interruption programs, resourcing communities, things like that that are actually shown to reduce gun violence. [00:56:39] Amy Sundberg: Even physical changes in the environment have been shown to have a significant effect - like adding more lighting, for example. [00:56:47] Shannon Cheng: So those are some of the big fights over public safety, which - they're really important. Unfortunately, I also feel like they often overshadow some of the other big fights that might be going on - just there's a lot of rhetoric right now about public safety, especially with the ongoing election. So what are some of the other big budget fights that you're seeing in this year's deliberations? [00:57:05] BJ Last: Well, I'd say a lot of those fights are actually also public safety items. Like there are fights on School Safety Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement, SSTPI fund - so that's been getting cut. That is safe routes for kids to walk and bike to school - Vision Zero stuff is also getting cut. We're fighting really to stop that. And so far, at least 22 pedestrians have been killed while walking, biking, or rolling. So that is absolutely a public safety item, I would say. Same with - there are currently amendments to undo the cuts to food safety. The proposed budget cut about $950,000 from food security, so that was 650K roughly for food banks and 300K for food access. I would very much say that food access is also very much a public safety item. I think there was even a French musical, Les Mis - didn't that have a lot to do with an entire revolution because people couldn't afford bread and were hungry? [00:57:58] Amy Sundberg: There also is a fight about funding behavioral health services at Tiny House villages. Right now, that funding is a lot less than it was in 2023 for 2024. And the reason why that's important is because having this funding allows Tiny House villages to house people with higher acuity needs. But if they don't have those services available, then those people can't live there. So, I mean, that's a huge issue. And there are a couple amendments to address that - one of them would take the ShotSpotter money and use it instead to pay for that, which I think is a great use of that money. And there also are fights about pay wages for human service workers - to make sure that all human service workers are getting inflationary increase and a 2% raise on top of that, a true 2% raise on top of that. There have been various little fiddly things regarding that - some of those workers were not covered because they're technically paid through King County or with federal money. But they're still doing the job every day, they still deserve that full 2% raise. So there are amendments that are working to address that shortfall to make sure that those folks get paid a fair wage. [00:59:08] BJ Last: Yeah, and on the 2% raise for human service providers, there's a pay equity study that the University of Washington released - I think it was February this year - that found human service workers in Seattle are underpaid by 37%. So 2% is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we, a city-funded study by UW found that they are currently underfunded by. There was even a resolution passed that wants to increase their wages by 7% by 2025, so this is a small item just trying to move inline with that resolution and to also make progress towards that study. 'Cause again - underpaid by 37% is huge and that impacts people's ability to actually provide services. One other item I'll

More than a month after the tragic stabbing death of 51-year-old Parwiz Assar in Northern California, arrests have finally been made in a case that involved incriminating evidence, surveillance video, and a Selena Gomez song as crucial pieces of evidence. Hayward Police, who have been diligently investigating the case, announced significant developments in the murder investigation.    On October 8, 2022, Hayward Police responded to a distressing report of an assault with a deadly weapon on the street and discovered Parwiz Assar suffering from stab wounds outside his home. Tragically, Assar was declared dead by medical personnel at the scene. The case took a complex turn as investigators began to uncover evidence that led them beyond the borders of California.    Authorities traced the evidence to Seattle, where they arrested 21-year-old Samim Azizi. He is being held without bail at the King County Jail, awaiting extradition to California. In Hayward, about two weeks after Azizi's arrest, Assar's wife, 35-year-old Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim, was taken into custody and is now held without bail at the Santa Rita County Jail.    The unfolding narrative behind this crime is one of marital problems and an alleged extramarital affair. Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had been married for approximately 12 years, but their relationship had become strained over time. Police reported that Mohammad-Ibrahim and Samim Azizi had met around December 2022 and subsequently became romantically involved. Authorities suspect that the two had plotted to kill Assar so that Mohammad-Ibrahim could end her marriage, be with Azizi, gain full custody of her children, and control family assets.    The investigation unearthed a multitude of evidence implicating the suspects, including surveillance video, internet searches, and an alleged text message from Azizi to Mohammad-Ibrahim indicating the selection of a "strong" knife for the attack.    On the fateful night of the assault, Assar's Ring doorbell camera captured footage of a masked assailant leaping from a bush to attack him as he approached his front door. Hours after the attack, a friend of Assar's informed the police that Assar had expressed fears that his wife was planning to harm him, prompting concerns for his safety.    The investigation also revealed a chilling detail: on the very day Parwiz Assar was killed, a post on his wife's Instagram account included the Selena Gomez song "Single Soon," raising unsettling questions about the timing and intent behind the message.    According to the police, Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had young children, who are currently in the care of other family members.    This case was successfully resolved through a collaborative effort involving multiple agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Renton Police Department, the Washington State Crime Lab, and the Washington State Department of Corrections, working alongside the Hayward Police Department.    Hayward, located approximately 30 miles southeast of San Francisco, has been gripped by this tragic incident, and Acting Chief Bryan Matthews expressed appreciation for the investigative work that led to the arrests. "Our thoughts are with the family and loved ones of Mr. Assar as they continue to grieve during this difficult time," Chief Matthews stated.    The arrests bring a glimmer of closure to a case that has captured the community's attention and raised questions about the complexity of human relationships and the role of technology in modern crime investigations. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

More than a month after the tragic stabbing death of 51-year-old Parwiz Assar in Northern California, arrests have finally been made in a case that involved incriminating evidence, surveillance video, and a Selena Gomez song as crucial pieces of evidence. Hayward Police, who have been diligently investigating the case, announced significant developments in the murder investigation.    On October 8, 2022, Hayward Police responded to a distressing report of an assault with a deadly weapon on the street and discovered Parwiz Assar suffering from stab wounds outside his home. Tragically, Assar was declared dead by medical personnel at the scene. The case took a complex turn as investigators began to uncover evidence that led them beyond the borders of California.    Authorities traced the evidence to Seattle, where they arrested 21-year-old Samim Azizi. He is being held without bail at the King County Jail, awaiting extradition to California. In Hayward, about two weeks after Azizi's arrest, Assar's wife, 35-year-old Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim, was taken into custody and is now held without bail at the Santa Rita County Jail.    The unfolding narrative behind this crime is one of marital problems and an alleged extramarital affair. Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had been married for approximately 12 years, but their relationship had become strained over time. Police reported that Mohammad-Ibrahim and Samim Azizi had met around December 2022 and subsequently became romantically involved. Authorities suspect that the two had plotted to kill Assar so that Mohammad-Ibrahim could end her marriage, be with Azizi, gain full custody of her children, and control family assets.    The investigation unearthed a multitude of evidence implicating the suspects, including surveillance video, internet searches, and an alleged text message from Azizi to Mohammad-Ibrahim indicating the selection of a "strong" knife for the attack.    On the fateful night of the assault, Assar's Ring doorbell camera captured footage of a masked assailant leaping from a bush to attack him as he approached his front door. Hours after the attack, a friend of Assar's informed the police that Assar had expressed fears that his wife was planning to harm him, prompting concerns for his safety.    The investigation also revealed a chilling detail: on the very day Parwiz Assar was killed, a post on his wife's Instagram account included the Selena Gomez song "Single Soon," raising unsettling questions about the timing and intent behind the message.    According to the police, Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had young children, who are currently in the care of other family members.    This case was successfully resolved through a collaborative effort involving multiple agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Renton Police Department, the Washington State Crime Lab, and the Washington State Department of Corrections, working alongside the Hayward Police Department.    Hayward, located approximately 30 miles southeast of San Francisco, has been gripped by this tragic incident, and Acting Chief Bryan Matthews expressed appreciation for the investigative work that led to the arrests. "Our thoughts are with the family and loved ones of Mr. Assar as they continue to grieve during this difficult time," Chief Matthews stated.    The arrests bring a glimmer of closure to a case that has captured the community's attention and raised questions about the complexity of human relationships and the role of technology in modern crime investigations. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

More than a month after the tragic stabbing death of 51-year-old Parwiz Assar in Northern California, arrests have finally been made in a case that involved incriminating evidence, surveillance video, and a Selena Gomez song as crucial pieces of evidence. Hayward Police, who have been diligently investigating the case, announced significant developments in the murder investigation.    On October 8, 2022, Hayward Police responded to a distressing report of an assault with a deadly weapon on the street and discovered Parwiz Assar suffering from stab wounds outside his home. Tragically, Assar was declared dead by medical personnel at the scene. The case took a complex turn as investigators began to uncover evidence that led them beyond the borders of California.    Authorities traced the evidence to Seattle, where they arrested 21-year-old Samim Azizi. He is being held without bail at the King County Jail, awaiting extradition to California. In Hayward, about two weeks after Azizi's arrest, Assar's wife, 35-year-old Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim, was taken into custody and is now held without bail at the Santa Rita County Jail.    The unfolding narrative behind this crime is one of marital problems and an alleged extramarital affair. Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had been married for approximately 12 years, but their relationship had become strained over time. Police reported that Mohammad-Ibrahim and Samim Azizi had met around December 2022 and subsequently became romantically involved. Authorities suspect that the two had plotted to kill Assar so that Mohammad-Ibrahim could end her marriage, be with Azizi, gain full custody of her children, and control family assets.    The investigation unearthed a multitude of evidence implicating the suspects, including surveillance video, internet searches, and an alleged text message from Azizi to Mohammad-Ibrahim indicating the selection of a "strong" knife for the attack.    On the fateful night of the assault, Assar's Ring doorbell camera captured footage of a masked assailant leaping from a bush to attack him as he approached his front door. Hours after the attack, a friend of Assar's informed the police that Assar had expressed fears that his wife was planning to harm him, prompting concerns for his safety.    The investigation also revealed a chilling detail: on the very day Parwiz Assar was killed, a post on his wife's Instagram account included the Selena Gomez song "Single Soon," raising unsettling questions about the timing and intent behind the message.    According to the police, Parwiz Assar and Razma Mohammad-Ibrahim had young children, who are currently in the care of other family members.    This case was successfully resolved through a collaborative effort involving multiple agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Renton Police Department, the Washington State Crime Lab, and the Washington State Department of Corrections, working alongside the Hayward Police Department.    Hayward, located approximately 30 miles southeast of San Francisco, has been gripped by this tragic incident, and Acting Chief Bryan Matthews expressed appreciation for the investigative work that led to the arrests. "Our thoughts are with the family and loved ones of Mr. Assar as they continue to grieve during this difficult time," Chief Matthews stated.    The arrests bring a glimmer of closure to a case that has captured the community's attention and raised questions about the complexity of human relationships and the role of technology in modern crime investigations. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

On this Tuesday topical show, special guest host Shannon Cheng chats with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget about the City of Seattle budget process. After covering budget basics and where we're at in Seattle's budget process, they cover the ongoing fight over the JumpStart Tax and what's being done (or not done) to address the upcoming $251 million budget deficit in 2025. Next, the trio breaks down the difference between “ghost cops” and the fully-funded SPD hiring plan, as well as why ShotSpotter still isn't a good idea. The show wraps up with a sampling of this year's other budget fights, how people can learn more or get involved, and Amy and BJ's dream budget items! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle, find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg, and find Solidarity Budget at https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/.   Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog.   BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid.   Resources Seattle Solidarity Budget   Notes from the Emerald City   Tools to Understand the Budget | Seattle City Council   “Mosqueda, Council Colleagues Pass JumpStart's COVID Relief Package and Economic Recovery Spending Plan” by Joseph Peha from Seattle City Council Blog   “Seattle's Jumpstart payroll tax raised more than expected. Is the money going where it's most needed?” by Angela King & Katie Campbell from KUOW   Memorandum: General Fund Deficit Historical Analysis from Seattle City Council Central Staff   “Harrell's 2024 Budget Leaves Big Questions on Safety and Looming Shortfall” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Final Report of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup   “Removing Vacant Police Positions in Seattle's Budget Is Good Fiscal Stewardship” by BJ Last for The Stranger   “Police Budget Fizz: Hiring Falls Short, Shotspotter Gains Support, Burgess Misrepresents Jane Jacobs” from PubliCola   “Nearly half of Seattle police calls don't need officers responding, new report says” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times   “Set Money Aside for Illegal Surveillance, or Fund Community Needs Now?” by BJ Last and Camille Baldwin-Bonney for The Stranger   “New UW study says human-services workers are underpaid by 37%” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   City of Seattle Budget Office   Stop ShotSpotter! Webinar - Seattle Solidarity Budget and ACLU of Washington | Nov 8, 2023   Guaranteed Basic Income Panel - Seattle Solidarity Budget | Oct 10, 2023   The People's Budget Seattle | Vote by Nov 12, 2023   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. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everyone! This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I'm here as your special guest host for today. Everyone's been super busy with elections, but another important thing currently happening right now in a lot of our local jurisdictions is that they're having budget deliberations for the coming year. Budgets are super important - we talk a lot about policy on this show, but what really matters in the end is how that policy is implemented and budgets manifest our intent. So Crystal let me take over the show for a day, and I wanted to have some folks on who are closely following the budget here in Seattle. They're two local community organizers with Solidarity Budget. And before we get to meeting them, I just wanted to point out that while we're gonna be focused pretty deeply on the City of Seattle's budget, a lot of what we talk about is applicable to other places. So if you're interested in getting involved in the budget where you live, we can learn something from these experts. So without further ado, I just want to welcome Amy Sundberg and BJ Last. Amy, starting with you, can you tell us a little about yourself and how you got involved with Solidarity Budget? [00:02:00] Amy Sundberg: Yes, hello! It's good to be here. I'm Amy, and I am the publisher and writer of the newsletter Notes from the Emerald City, which is a weekly newsletter that covers issues involving public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system - in our local area - so Seattle and King County mostly, and occasionally the state of Washington. As well, I sometimes cover public safety issues for The Urbanist. And I organize with People Power Washington and Solidarity Budget. Originally, I got my start organizing with People Power Washington and we would uplift the demands of Solidarity Budget. And eventually I connected with the folks at Solidarity Budget and started working with them as well, so that's how I initially got involved. [00:02:45] Shannon Cheng: What about you, BJ? [00:02:46] BJ Last: Hi, thanks. Great to be here. BJ Last - don't do anything as cool as Amy on a regular basis. I've lots of years as a budget analyst, former small business owner, was a professional baker - did pop-ups, but then COVID, so that kind of went by the wayside. I actually first got involved with Solidarity Budget over SPD overtime. SPD has a massive history of overspending on overtime. In 2020, there was a resolution the City passed mid-year saying if SPD overspends on its overtime, we won't give them more money for it. Lo and behold, SPD did. At the end of the year, council was like - Okay, fine, we'll give you more money, but we swear we're gonna take it from you next year to do an offset. And wanted that fight to be like - No, we need to actually try to get that money from them next year to have any kind of budget accountability. And spoiler, that sadly never happened. [00:03:34] Shannon Cheng: I agree with you that Amy is cool and also that the SPD overtime issues are very frustrating. For folks who don't know, could you give a little background on what Solidarity Budget is, and how it came to be, and how you all work together? [00:03:48] BJ Last: Sure thing. So Solidarity Budget came up out of - actually Mayor Jenny Durkan. Groups caught that Mayor Durkan was promising a lot of different groups the exact same pot of money and then being like - Y'all fight amongst yourselves to do this. And groups came together and was like - We're tired of actually just always being pitted against each other and forced to fight each other for scraps in the City budget, while all the funding goes to things that no one was wanting, like while all of the funding goes into SPD. SPD alone is still a quarter of the budget, getting everything carceral - it's about a third of the general fund. So it was that desire of - No, we don't want to be pitted against each other. And just rejecting this framework of - we have to fight against each other for scraps. So coming together as groups to be like - what are our big priorities and saying - Look, we are advocating for all of these things. [00:04:38] Amy Sundberg: I would say in addition, we wanted to make sure that when we're talking about the budget every year, that those most marginalized are centered in that conversation. And often they aren't, right? So it's important to have a coalition who has that front of mind when advocating. [00:04:54] Shannon Cheng: That's super smart. Our experience has been - it can be hard to get heard by electeds, just - if you're not the people in power, sometimes it just feels when you send your email and make your phone call, your voice might not be heard. And so trying to come together and forming a coalition so that you can have a larger voice seems like it would make a lot of sense if you want to push the lever on budget-related issues. Okay, so let's jump into some background and some budget basics before getting deep down into the weeds. Did you want to give, Amy, a sense of what the scale of budgets are at different jurisdictions and then what we're talking about here in Seattle? [00:05:31] Amy Sundberg: Sure. So there are many different government budgets. The biggest one, of course, is the national budget for the United States, which is around $4.4 trillion. So obviously a huge pot of money. Most of that money comes from personal income tax that we all pay every year and also corporate income tax, et cetera, et cetera. Then we have the state budget, which is about $72 billion per year. And then we have the King County budget, which is $6.2 billion per year. So you see, we're kind of getting smaller and smaller as we get into smaller jurisdictions. And then we have the City budget. And city budgets tend to be around $5 to $6 billion per year in total. All of these budgets are made up from various types of taxes and fees, and they each are responsible for funding different services in our communities. [00:06:26] Shannon Cheng: Great. So for the City of Seattle - let's just focus in on that as our example for today's episode. So where does the money for the City of Seattle come from? [00:06:35] Amy Sundberg: If we're talking about - particularly general fund - most of that money would come from property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax, which is a business tax. I think that's about 60% of the funds. And then there are a lot of other very small buckets of money that come in as well to make up the entire amount. [00:06:56] BJ Last: That's a great overview, Amy. And one thing I do want to just mention - so the total Seattle budget is $7.8 billion, but the vast majority of that is stuff that is extremely restricted. For example, we have public utilities. So City Light - that's $1.5 billion - that is all funded by the rates people pay for their electricity. So while that's there in that total number that makes the City's budget look absolutely huge, it's not accessible - the council can't use that to fund things. So the general fund is a much smaller slice of that. It's just about $1.6 billion. And that's the money that the City pretty much has full discretion as to where it decides to go and spend that. [00:07:37] Shannon Cheng: So if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying Seattle's budget is pretty big, but a large part of it is already appropriated to specific things. So when it comes to these priorities that when people - they're looking around at their city or their neighborhood, and they want things - it's gonna have to come out of this thing you call the general fund. Is that correct? [00:07:57] Amy Sundberg: Yes, that's correct. So most of what we're advocating for every year is general fund dollars. [00:08:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, and so you are saying, BJ, that the general fund is about $1.6 billion. So what types of things are currently getting funded out of the general fund? [00:08:14] BJ Last: Yeah, that's correct. So it's $1.6 billion. It's - very broadly defined, Public Safety is 47% of it. And that is SPD, also includes the Office of the Inspector General, the CPC, the police pension - those are all four different departments that are in there, that are all cops. The Fire Department and CARE/CSCC, which is the 911 dispatch - which is currently CSCC, may be getting rebranded CARE soon. So that's 47%. The next biggest bucket is Administration and that's 22%. And Administration is kind of a massive catch-all that includes a lot of things - so major expenditures in there are for indigent defense and the City's contract with the King County Jail. So when SPD goes and arrests someone and puts them in there, the City is effectively leasing part of the jail from King County - and that's to pay part of it. And it also includes things like Judgment and Claims Funds, which is for when people are suing the City - that comes out of there, that's housed in that Admin section. And unsurprisingly, that one's also been increasing a lot lately due to lawsuits coming from 2020, which we know what those were. And then the other thing that is anything really is Education & Human Services, and that's about 15% of the general fund. So those three things of Public Safety, Administration, Education & Human Services account for 80% of the general fund. [00:09:39] Shannon Cheng: Wow, so what's left in that 20% that's remaining? [00:09:43] Amy Sundberg: Oh gosh, it's a lot of small things. Libraries, for example, will get funded out of that. A lot of our Transportation actually gets funded through specific levies, so it wouldn't come from general fund. And I think that's true of Parks & Rec as well. But there might be some little bits of money that go to Transportation and Parks & Rec - they have varied funding sources, basically. [00:10:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, great. So that's the general fund, the discretionary portion of the City of Seattle's budget. So what's happening right now with the process? [00:10:14] Amy Sundberg: When we talk about budget season in Seattle, it's generally just a two-month period in the fall. But really, budget goes on for much of the year - because before the fall, the City departments are having to analyze their budgets and turn in reports to the mayor. And then the Mayor's Office is developing a proposed budget - that's the budget that gets announced at the end of September. At that point, the City Council is able to come in and make their changes that they might wanna see in that proposed budget. So that's where we are right now. First, they review the proposed budget to make sure they understand what's in there and what isn't in there. And then the Budget Chair, who this year is Councilmember Mosqueda, puts together a balancing package - that's a package where she thinks that there is consent amongst the councilmembers, that everyone agrees that these are changes that should be made for the most part. And then each councilmember is given the opportunity to suggest amendments to that balancing package. And they need to get two other councilmembers to sponsor that in order to get those amendments considered. So that's where we are right now - we've just heard the amendments that are being considered. And eventually what will happen is that those amendments will be voted on by the Budget Committee, which is all of the councilmembers to be clear. [00:11:35] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so Mayor Harrell sent over his proposal end of September and we're about a month into the Council's involvement. And this is the budget for next year? [00:11:45] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, for 2024. [00:11:46] BJ Last: So Seattle operates on a biennium budget basis. So last year they set the budget for 2023 and 2024. So this year they're currently doing adjustments to that 2024 budget. And then next year it'll be back to doing the full biennium, where we'll be looking at 2025 and 2026. [00:12:04] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so this is just finishing up last year's work through the end of the year, and just adjusting based on the realities of how much money is coming in and new needs for expenditures. [00:12:15] Amy Sundberg: Theoretically that is the case. Seattle is a little bit less strict about that than some other municipalities. I would say King County is more of a true biennial budget, whereas Seattle's kind of a biennial budget. And I think actually there's been some push to make it more like King County, to make it more of a true biennium. So we'll see what happens with that. [00:12:36] Shannon Cheng: Okay, interesting. Another thing I keep hearing about all the time is this fight over the JumpStart Tax. And I think it'd be good to just lay out very clearly - what is that fight all about? [00:12:47] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the JumpStart payroll tax passed in the summer of 2020. And then the council passed a spending plan for it in 2021 to put into statute what exactly the JumpStart Tax is supposed to go to pay for. And just so we're clear on what that spend plan is - 62% of JumpStart funds are supposed to go to affordable housing, 9% to Green New Deal, 9% to Equitable Development Initiative, and 15% to small business. What has happened though - basically, because this was going on in the middle of the pandemic - obviously there was a lot more needs, the City budget was a little messier than maybe normally. So they allowed some of these JumpStart Tax dollars to be spent as a kind of a slush fund for the general fund so that we wouldn't have to have an austerity budget. And the idea was that over time this would transition and eventually all of the JumpStart Tax funds would go to those percentages that I mentioned a moment ago. However, what has ended up happening is that every year - regardless of what mayor we have - every year the mayor will take some of the JumpStart dollars and move it over for general fund purposes, instead of those specific Green New Deal and affordable housing purposes. Every year Council kind of tries to claw back those JumpStart funds to put them into the main purposes they were meant for. Now we're still having some budget issues, so there has been - even for this year - some money that Council agreed could be used from JumpStart funds to fund general fund priorities, especially because JumpStart funds ended up being larger than originally anticipated. So the compromise that was struck was that those extra dollars that we weren't originally expecting can be used to kind of help prop up the general fund. But what ends up happening is sometimes more money beyond that gets pulled from JumpStart into the general fund. And of course, because affordable housing in particular is a large percentage of where that money is supposed to go and is such a priority in the city right now, given our housing crisis, this becomes a big fight every year. [00:15:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, yeah - that's helpful. So I think I saw - in 2021, the JumpStart Tax generated $234 million. And so that was one of those years where the City and the Council felt that some of that needed to go towards other things than that spend plan that you referenced. And so about 37% of it ended up going to the general fund. And then that leaves a much smaller slice left for addressing those issues that you listed - housing, small business support, Green New Deal, equitable development - which, if people stop and think about - looking around, what are the biggest issues that the City's facing right now? I mean, that's what these are trying to address - the housing crisis, small businesses struggling after the pandemic, needing to do something about climate change in a meaningful way, and then also trying to spread our resources in a more equitable way across residents of the city. And so - to me then - thinking about JumpStart Tax, it's sort of a mini version of a whole budget. Because we had purported values that we stated out when we passed this legislation - saying this is what we want to spend this money on. And then, as with many things, it's the reality of the implementation that lets us see where our priorities truly are. And it sounds like - in 2020, we said very strongly - We need to meaningfully address these issues that we've been in a state of crisis for for a long time, and they've just been getting worse. And people are pointing that out - you see that. What I find really interesting is that the original people who've opposed the JumpStart Tax - so that would be the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association - are these the same people who are now pushing to take the money away from JumpStart's original purposes and redirect it towards other things? [00:16:53] BJ Last: Honestly, yes. They're a lot of the people pushing that they want to - I'll use the phrase - "liberate" JumpStart funds so that it can be used as effectively just more general fund backfill. They also haven't entirely given up on fighting JumpStart. As part of the Revenue Stabilization Task Force that was meeting this year, the representatives from the Metro Chamber of Commerce, she made comments of - Hey, we think we should actually pause JumpStart for a year or two - supposedly to help businesses on recovery. So they are still fighting on JumpStart a little. The opponents of JumpStart have much more moved to - they just want it to be more general fund. [00:17:32] Amy Sundberg: And I do think it's important to state also that when we talk about wanting to allow businesses to recover, JumpStart Tax only applies to very large businesses with very high payroll and very highly paid employees. It's not hitting small businesses - that's not how it was set up. [00:17:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, previous to JumpStart Tax, there was an attempt to pass the Amazon head tax and that did pass, but then eventually got repealed because of a lot of protest. And I believe the JumpStart Tax came out of a coalition that got built after that failed attempt, which included small business groups - because 15% of the JumpStart revenue is supposed to go towards small business support. Which everybody likes to say - small business is super important to the health and vibrancy of the Seattle economy. But are we willing to put our money where our mouth is on that? I just find it pretty insidious the way that they're approaching this because they oppose the tax to begin with, they're still opposing it now, they wanna pause it. But when they ask for the money to go back to the general fund, it seems like it's going back to a lot of their own interests, such as downtown activation. So not only are they taking the money back for themselves, they're also weakening the implementation of what this tax was originally said to do. People probably heard about this tax when they announced it - there was all sorts of glowing praise of this is gonna address meaningfully these problems that everybody cares about. And yet now, by weakening it and taking money away, we can't spend as much of that money on it. And so obviously, when you look at the results of what the JumpStart Tax has done, it will look like it's less. And so I just really wanna call that out. I also wanna call out that the council that passed the JumpStart Tax in July of 2020 is pretty much the same council we currently have other than Councilmember Nelson who replaced Councilmember González in 2021. And JumpStart Tax passed 7-2. The only two councilmembers who did not vote for it were Councilmembers Juarez and Pedersen. How have they been reacting to all this JumpStart scuffling? [00:19:33] Amy Sundberg: They definitely have been less supportive of increasing the JumpStart Tax in any way - that has been noticeable. [00:19:40] BJ Last: Yeah, they have also been very much on the wanting to just throw the spending plan out the window. Actually, it was Councilmember Pedersen who's the first one that I heard use the expression of "liberate" JumpStart funds - create additional flexibility and disregard that. There are also subtler attempts to pretend that the JumpStart spend plan is very unclear, and so potentially needs to be revisited due to that - even though it's actually an extremely clear spend plan. People just keep trying to violate it - it's not that the plan isn't clear, people just keep asking for stuff that goes outside of that spend plan. [00:20:13] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so then the councilmembers who did vote for it - so those would be Councilmembers Herbold, Morales, Sawant, Strauss, Lewis, and then obviously Councilmember Mosqueda, who spearheaded the effort. Are they staying strong behind the values that they voted for on the JumpStart Tax, or has that kind of squished up since then? [00:20:31] Amy Sundberg: I would say - I mean, you know - it's hard to say what is in their hearts, but I would say it's a mix. I think some of them have stayed pretty strong, and I think others of them have, you know, less so. [00:20:45] Shannon Cheng: Okay, fair enough. I guess I'm just concerned 'cause it sounds like this JumpStart Tax issue will continue to carry on, and it is possible that we will lose its biggest champion on the city council next year. So I just want everybody listening to understand what this fight is about and why it's so important. To me, it kind of comes down to differences in opinion over what is gonna float all the boats in this city, right? I mean, business wants us to believe that if we just pour all the money into business and their interests, that that will just generally help everybody. Whereas what JumpStart was trying to do, I believe, is trying to build from the ground up by providing people housing, trying to spread the resources in a more equitable fashion, tackling climate change, providing good jobs that come out of tackling climate change. And so I just really think this is a fight over shifting decision-making about how we spend our resources from being concentrated with a few powerful interests, and letting more people have a say and access to success and opportunities to do well in this city. [00:21:48] Amy Sundberg: I would say Councilmember Mosqueda in particular has been a stalwart advocate of JumpStart. And as the Budget Chair, she has been in good position every year to counter the attempts to try to use JumpStart as more and more of a City slush fund. So if we lose her on Council at the end of this year, that certainly will make it more concerning going forward in terms of what will happen with JumpStart. I'll also say there is this spend plan. It is in statute currently. That statute could be changed, so it's not like it's protected forever. [00:22:21] Shannon Cheng: All right, so everyone - it's Election Day. Get out and vote - try to think about who's gonna be our next champion for the JumpStart Tax. So moving on, we also keep hearing all this news about an upcoming budget shortfall in 2025. What's happening with that? [00:22:39] Amy Sundberg: So the City of Seattle is facing a massive budget deficit starting in 2025. It is now estimated to be around $251 million deficit, which has gone up based on the mayor's proposed budget. So basically, the mayor's proposed budget this year has made the problem worse - potentially - in upcoming years. $251 million is a lot of money. And so the question is, what are we going to do to address that? There are two main ways to do that. You can make cuts to the budget - spend less money. Or you can pass new progressive revenue that will help fund the budget. We are not allowed by law to have a not balanced budget, so that is not an option - it's not on the table. Or of course you can do a combination of cuts and new progressive revenue. So those are kind of the two levers that councilmembers have to play with. And what is relevant in this budget season right now is speaking about new progressive revenue, because if we want to pass new progressive revenue for the City of Seattle, we would need to plan ahead a little bit. Because it will take some time to implement any new progressive revenue that we might pass - there's a ramp up to getting it done. So if we wanted to have that revenue to rely on for 2025, we would really ideally want to pass things now before the end of the year. [00:24:03] BJ Last: What I'd add on to what Amy mentioned is how we actually ended up getting to this upcoming deficit. Over the last two decades roughly, Seattle's population has grown at a really robust clip. We have all seen that. We have not seen the same growth in the general fund revenues that come in. Property tax increases are limited to - I believe it's at most 1% a year for the city - because sales tax also does not increase. So while we are seeing this really big increase in population, we have not seen the same with our general fund. It has really not moved that much. So it isn't the narrative of - Oh, the city has added a bunch of new pet projects or whatever, and that's where it's come from. It's come from largely - the city has gotten bigger and the general fund growth has not kept up with that. 85% of that upcoming deficit projected is all due to just open labor contracts. The Coalition of City Unions - their contracts are open. SPOG - their contract is also open. Paying Coalition of City Unions, paying the City workers - the people that like literally keep the lights on, fix the roads - of actually going and paying them is where this is coming from. [00:25:06] Amy Sundberg: And especially because inflation rates have been so high the last couple of years, right? So that's - they need a much larger raise than they would need if inflation was not high. [00:25:15] BJ Last: Also on the inflation part - thank you, that's a great call out, Amy - growth of the general fund has not kept up with inflation, especially just these last two years. I think there've even been other years where it hasn't happened, but these last two years in particular, we have not seen the general fund grow at the same rate. So things have gotten more expensive for the city that the general fund has to get spent on, but the dollars coming in the door haven't kept up with that. [00:25:35] Shannon Cheng: Is anything being done about that? Did the mayor propose anything about progressive revenue, or thinking about this upcoming problem? [00:25:42] Amy Sundberg: The mayor did not propose anything having to do with new progressive revenue in fact, which is a decision that he has been critiqued for in the local media. And there certainly has been a fair amount of rhetoric about just tightening our belts, right? But to be clear, $251 million - that's a lot of cuts that would drive us straight into an austerity budget, one would think. So that is where the mayor's office has landed, but there have been a lot of conversations about potential new progressive revenue that started with the task force that BJ mentioned earlier, which was brought together to look at various possibilities of what could be good new revenue sources. And certainly there were people that sat on that task force that had a priority of finding good new progressive sources of revenue in particular, as opposed to regressive taxes that will hurt people who have less more. And they did find some reasonable options that would not require a change in state law, and so could potentially be implemented in time to address the 2025 budget shortfall. So I would say that there are three main possibilities at play right now that are being discussed. One of those is a capital gains tax, so we had a capital gains tax at the state level pass - so far it has survived any legal challenges that it has faced. So it would be possible for the City to institute a tax above that. It would be a fairly small amount, probably 1-2% capital gains tax. Councilmember Pedersen originally was the councilmember who suggested this, and he also suggested that we remove a certain water fee. So it'll be interesting to hear a more robust analysis of that water fee to find out - is that truly a regressive tax? Or with various rebates, et cetera, that are available for people - is it not that regressive a tax? Because if we were to take away that water fee, it would be revenue neutral, so it wouldn't actually assist us with the upcoming deficit. Not to say it's still not worthwhile to talk about, even if that's true, because we want to get rid of more regressive taxes and institute more progressive taxes. So either way, that's a good conversation to have - but it's unclear to me more of the details of that water tax, how regressive it is. So that is an important thing to discover. The other two options have to do with the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about. One of them would be just to increase that JumpStart Tax across - it has a tiered structure right now, so across the tiers to just increase it. Councilmember Sawant has already proposed very, very modest increases in that JumpStart Tax in two of her amendments for the 2024 budget to fund specific priorities. So increasing the JumpStart Tax just full stop is one option. Another really intriguing option that has been discussed is something called a CEO pay ratio tax. This would require corporations that pay their top executives exorbitant amounts to pay an extra tax, or fee, or surcharge. So basically what we could do is use the JumpStart Tax as a vehicle by adding an extra layer to it. So there would be an extra tax that would only apply to corporations that exceed a certain CEO pay ratio. And what I have heard about this tax - again, so it would be fairly easy to implement because you don't have to change state law, you would just add an additional layer to an already existent tax. And what I've heard is that it would collect a significant amount of funds, but I don't have any actual numbers on that. So it will be really interesting to hear an analysis of how much money that could potentially actually bring in. And what Councilmember Mosqueda has announced is that there will be an extra Budget Committee meeting after the main 2024 budget is passed to discuss some of these possibilities at more depth. So they will be discussed earlier in November, kind of as a briefing, and then the councilmembers will meet after the budget is passed to potentially vote on some of these possibilities, if they're not already passed in the 2024 budget. [00:30:09] BJ Last: One thing I wanted to mention - so the Revenue Stabilization Group looked at about 20 different taxes. They did a great write-up that finally made it out in August after having been delayed a few times. The three taxes Amy mentioned - one of the reasons that they're at the top three is how quickly they can get implemented. So, you know, we're currently sitting and recording this - it's November, the budget deficit starts on January 1st, 2025. There is very limited time to go and get an ordinance passed and actually then to have that go into effect - since a new tax doesn't go into effect the day that it is passed - and to make sure that it would survive any legal challenges. So there is even like a broader list of things, but because we have kept putting this conversation off, because the city has sort of kept pushing the can down the road, we don't have very much time to go and pass this. We have about 13, 14 months to get something passed and to start having dollars coming in the door before that deficit hits. [00:31:04] Shannon Cheng: All right, so time is of the essence here. And it sounds like although Mayor Harrell didn't put anything in his proposals to address this, at least Council seems like they're gonna be on it in some fashion. So we'll see what comes of that. Okay, so that's the revenue side of the budget. And I think that's helpful for people to understand, 'cause I think it's much easier to talk about what you want to spend money on rather than where that money is gonna come from. I mean, I know I'm like that in my own life. So maybe we need to talk about what are we gonna spend all this money that we're bringing in on. And earlier in the show, talked about a rough breakdown of the general fund - it sounds like a huge portion of that goes towards public safety, which includes the Fire Department and the Police Department. So is the reason why sometimes it feels like there's so much focus on the police budget because they're kind of the biggest chunk of the budget, so that if you were trying to look for places where we could make some savings, it would be there? [00:32:05] BJ Last: I'd say absolutely. Not only are they the biggest chunk - no other department eats up as big a portion of the general fund as SPD does. So not only that, but they also get absurdly special treatment that no other department gets, where a lot of basic budget practices even just get entirely thrown out the window because it's for SPD. Ghost cops are a great example of this. Ghost cops are positions SPD gets funded for, even though they have no plan, intention, or ability to fill these roles. So these are not people that SPD even thinks they can plan - they have said they aren't going in the plan, there's no desire to, but they still get funding for them year after year. There are like 213 of these now currently sitting around and it works out to be - about $31 million of SPD's budget right now is slush fund on this. And we talked about the upcoming deficit in 2025. So a $250 million roughly - $30 million on these guys - you can see that this is a large percentage of the deficit sitting right there in these ghost positions that councilmembers just don't want to touch. And to give a sort of example of how no one else gets treated this way - where they get to just sort of hold on to this positional authority when they have no ability to fill it. Last year, the city abrogated 24 911-dispatcher positions, which - abrogation means they remove positional authority to it. No one probably heard about this 'cause there wasn't a big kerfuffle because it's normal. Council and the mayor and everyone's like - Well, you guys have said you can't hire these guys for the next two years for the duration of the biennium, so we're just gonna remove positional authority to it. If staffing plans change, we can re-add it. We can also add this back into the 2025 biennium if staffing levels have picked up. And in fact, they actually already are adding back about three of them in the supplemental of - in 2024 now in the budget process because their hiring has picked up. So just using 911 dispatch as an example - the ghost cops, the excess positional authority - no other department gets that. Every other department it is what your staffing plan is - the number of people you actually expect to hire - that is the number of positions you get, and that's the number of positions you get funded for. SPD gets this massive slush fund that they get to go and use on whatever the heck they want. And there was also even a technology one that we saw in the 2022 budget. Truleo - it's a technology - it swears it's like AI, natural language processing of body camera footage. SPD specifically asked for additional money for this program as part of the 2022 budget. Council explicitly did not give them funding for this. They said - We are not funding this program. Then the City found out at the start of this year that SPD actually went ahead and bought Truleo anyway. So they ended up canceling the contract, but it ended up as a thing of - usually if a department goes to a company and says, We need additional money for this project - if they don't get that money and then they find a way to fund that project anyway, it raises a lot of questions. Like, why did you say you needed additional money for this if you could already cover it with your additional budget? And hey, all those other items that you said you needed additional money for, that we gave you additional money for - how many of them did you really need additional money for versus you were just attempting to pad out your budget? So that's one of the reasons why it gets a lot of attention. Not only is it just the biggest percentage of the general fund by a lot, but the absurd special treatment that they get. [00:35:29] Shannon Cheng: So SPD is 26% of the general fund? [00:35:33] BJ Last: SPD itself is 24-26%. That does not include the police pension department - that is a separate pension in there. It does not include the Office of Inspector General and the CPC, the Community Police Commission, even though they are also both part of that. So when you start adding all of those, it goes up even over a quarter. And then when you add in the city attorney's office, municipal courts, indigent defense, jail services - what we're spending on carceral - it's a third of the general fund all ends up sitting there. [00:36:05] Shannon Cheng: Wow, okay. Yeah, I see here - just the Seattle Police Department alone, not all those other things you added on - they're sitting at just under $400 million. So what I'm understanding is these ghost cops are haunting, I guess, the Seattle Police Department budget. [00:36:23] BJ Last: These ghost cop positions - they do haunt the general budget. Amy talked about how we're defunding JumpStart. So it's about $85 million last year, $85 million this year, $85 million next year - that's getting transferred from JumpStart to the general fund. So again, transferred from Green New Deal, affordable housing to the general fund. Because SPD gets a quarter of the general fund, that means that $21 million a year roughly is literally going from affordable housing to SPD and its ghost cops. [00:36:54] Shannon Cheng: Oh man. Okay. So, and then they're taking it, and as you said, spending it on things that they were explicitly told not to spend it on or who knows what else, right? We try to dig in and get more transparency into what's going on, but that can be difficult. And just what BJ was saying about budgeting practices and that SPD is not subject to those at times - so I looked at the King County biennial budget for the same time period from 2023 to 2024. And they have line items across all of their appropriation units, including the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, that's called a vacancy rate adjustment. And this is exactly what BJ is describing - it's capturing salary savings from them not having been able to hire and being able to put that back into the general budget so that they can use it for other things that there's a need for. And then in addition to that, last biennium for King County, they had an additional line item specifically only for the Sheriff's Office and the Department of Adult Juvenile Detention called Capture Additional Vacancy Savings. And here, I'll just read the line item - it says it's to increase expected savings due to vacancies to account for current unprecedented vacancy level. And, you know, it allows the Sheriff's Office and DAJD to request additional appropriation to reverse it if the vacancy rate reverses and that we're able to magically start hiring a ton of people. I mean, we see that there's kind of a nationwide hiring shortage across every kind of profession, but in police and corrections officers as well. So this is not abnormal, and there was not a giant fight in the King County budget when this happened. Just to give you a sense of the magnitude - just from the original base vacancy rate adjustment, it was $5.3 million from the Sheriff's Office. And that additional vacancy savings was $5.7 million. So this is meaningful money that can be used in other places and not just locked up in the - Oh, well, maybe law enforcement will get to use it. Or maybe when they get close to the end of the spending period, they'll just spend it on something that we didn't all agree that we wanted. [00:39:03] Amy Sundberg: I will say as well that SPD has a very optimistic hiring plan and they never hit it - at least for the last several years that I've been following it, they don't hit it. And this year they actually - the department shrank again. They have a negative total when you add in hires minus attrition. So it's still shrinking in spite of these hiring bonuses that we have no evidence actually works. But these ghost cop positions aren't even part of that. They're ones that even SPD says - We definitely aren't gonna hire that this year. It's not taking away from the hiring plan that SPD wants and thinks they can hire. It's additional positions beyond that. And to be clear, it's a couple hundred additional positions. It's not like four or five. [00:39:50] Shannon Cheng: Okay, thanks. 'Cause I feel like people conflate that a lot - this talk of supporting SPD and public safety and fully funding their hiring plan, which it sounds like that's what has been happening, but then you have this conversation about abrogating these positions or ghost cops. And so you're saying that those are two separate things? [00:40:10] BJ Last: Absolutely. SPD - they always put out incredibly optimistic hiring plans, even by their own terms. So their hiring plan for next year is still that they will end up with - I think it's a record number of hires, like more than they've ever had - hiring 125 cops, I think it is. And with the number of cops leaving slowing down. And they're like - Cool, our full hiring plan for next year is roughly 1,130 cops. And they're currently getting funded for like 1,344 cops, something like that - it's a difference of 213 positions between what they've said they can hire and what they actually plan on trying to hire - between that and what they're actually funded for. [00:40:47] Shannon Cheng: What are the issues in the hiring pipeline? Why is there a limit to the number of officers that they would actually be able to hire? [00:40:54] Amy Sundberg: I mean, there's a lot of factors. Primarily, there aren't enough applicants to begin with - not enough people want to become police officers at SPD. That's an issue. But as well, I just also - the hiring process takes time because they have to go through a series of testing and vetting. And then if they aren't lateral hires - if they're new recruits, then they have to go through the academy. And even once they're done with academy, they go through more training on the job, so they're not really full officers at that point yet. So it just - there's a long ramp to hiring new officers. Lateral officers - SPD has a great interest in hiring them because they've already been a police officer somewhere else. So they can kind of get plugged in more easily, directly into SPD. But they've been having a really difficult time finding lateral hires. So far in 2023 - I forget - it was four, five, or six total lateral hires for the entire year. And they had expected to be able to hire many more. And when asked about it, Chief Diaz said that the candidates simply weren't good enough for them to hire more than that. But somehow magically, they expect the candidates to get better next year if you look at who they expect to hire next year, which I think is interesting. [00:42:09] BJ Last: And I'd also say, Amy, none of that is unique to Seattle at all. It was already touched on - this is not just Seattle Police Department is having trouble hiring, this is police departments everywhere. Fewer people want to become cops. And just like Seattle, it really, really wants lateral hires because it's much shorter. I think the timeline from a new recruit is like 18 months before they are counted as a employable officer, or whatever their term is. The lateral is much shorter. So not only does Seattle want them, every other department wants them. Thing is just - people do not want to be cops as much. We know one of the things that isn't a barrier to hiring at all is pay. The average SPD officer made over $155,000 in 2022, based on the City's wage data. So they are making - the city pays an absolute ton for SPD on the individual officer level. There're the hiring bonuses that have been around that don't do anything. So it's - for these lateral hires, it's 30K that they're getting offered, it's 7,500 for a new recruit. So the city has already tried throwing just buckets and buckets of money to see if that would somehow turn into more people wanting to be cops in Seattle. And it has absolutely positively not worked. And that really needs to be acknowledged - not throwing money at this one - that's not going to change things here. It's not unique to Seattle, it's across everything. And it's also one of the reasons why other cities have moved to actually non-police responses to things. Because we look back - tons and tons of studies - SPD did its own study in 2019 that showed, I think it was 56% of all 911 calls are non-criminal. There was the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Study that came out in 2021 - showed 80% of all the calls SPD is currently doing don't match anything in the criminal code, and 49% of those calls could immediately go to the community. So one of the reasons other cities are going into non-police responses is because it's what cops actually do - is they respond to non-criminal stuff, that's where they spend all their time. So why on earth are we throwing all of this money at people to show up, and escalate non-criminal situations, and traumatize people? And Seattle has really dragged its heels on that. After having talked about non-police response for years, multiple studies coming out about how little of SPD's calls are actually anything that counts as criminal, how much could go to community - just this last month, they finally launched a dual dispatch, which is SPD responding to stuff. So years later, the city has just refused to move on this item. [00:44:43] Amy Sundberg: I will also add, since we're in the middle of election season - I keep hearing from candidates that what they want to do to fix public safety in Seattle is hire 500 new cops. And I'll just say, your opinion doesn't matter - regardless of your opinion of whether we should hire more cops, whether you want less cops - we are not gonna hire 500 new cops in Seattle anytime soon. It is literally impossible. It is just not gonna happen. So when I hear candidates say that - I mean, it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, it's not a real solution because there are not 500 new cops for us to hire. And also there's, as BJ said, there's the 18 month ramp up to even get someone trained up to become a police officer. So this is just not reality. [00:45:32] Shannon Cheng: Okay, well, speaking of a mismatch between reality and intended outcomes, I keep hearing about this technology called ShotSpotter. I feel like we had a giant debate over it last year, it sounds like it's reared its ugly head again this year. Can you break down what this fight over ShotSpotter is and why it's important? [00:45:54] BJ Last: Sure, so ShotSpotter at a basic level - well, first off, so the company is now called SoundThinking. They did a rebrand because - yeah, the reputation that ShotSpotter has. It's an acoustic gunshot detection service is what it describes itself as - and it is people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to recordings of loud noises. And then saying whether or not they think that loud noise was a gunshot. That is what ShotSpotter boils down to. Like they swear there's a super fancy AI algorithm, but whatever that AI decides to flag - it goes to people sitting in a room hundreds of miles away, listening to a noise, and saying whether or not they think it was a gunshot. And they have a large financial interest in actually saying everything was a gunshot. Because of how the contracts are written - that there's no guarantees that they won't send a lot of false alerts. The only guarantee that is in there is anything where the police actually find that there was evidence of a gunshot - for 90% of those, ShotSpotter will have given an alert. So it's pretty much if they say that something wasn't a gunshot, and it turns out it was, that then could potentially hurt their contract. If they call every single loud noise a gunshot, that has zero impact on them at all. So people listening to loud noises with an incentive to go and say everything's a gunshot. And you are right - we had this fight just last year, when the city went and asked for it. And what this ask was - was they asked for additional funding, specifically for ShotSpotter, which council declined to give them. They're asking for it again. Of that additional money specifically for ShotSpotter - this additional money piece actually though, has no impact on whether or not the city actually purchases ShotSpotter. In order to purchase a subscription to ShotSpotter - because it's a subscriptions purchase, so it becomes an annual expense every single year - SPD has to go through a Surveillance Impact Report, which is they have to meet with the community, put together what would be a lot of - what would be the impacts of this technology, what does it do, get community feedback, and then council also has to go and approve that. SPD has been able to do this any single day that it's wanted to. It could have started this process. When they first asked for it last year, they could have started this process then. In any of the time between last year's budget and now, they could have started this process. So they have not done that. So they're asking for money - again, for something that they've taken no steps to actually get anywhere close to being able to legally purchase. [00:48:17] Amy Sundberg: I think too - I have a lot to say about ShotSpotter - I've spent way too much of the last several weeks of my life thinking about ShotSpotter. And to be honest, I just - I find it personally painful that we're having this discussion again this year. Because not only is ShotSpotter ineffective, so it's a waste of money - which is bad enough. I mean, we obviously do not have money to waste. But it is actively harmful, to be clear. There are many, many studies that show this. It increases the number of pat-downs, searches, and enforcement actions. It justifies the over-policing of Black, Indigenous, and people of color neighborhoods that they are primarily living in. It leads to unnecessary contact between the police and vulnerable populations. And it also leads to false arrests. There have even been some cases where they've shown that possibly some of the "evidence" - I put that in air quotes - "evidence" has been tampered with in various ways. I mean, this is actively harmful. It is not just a waste of money. And then also, this year is being sold as part of a crime prevention pilot. And let me be clear - gun violence is a huge problem. It's a huge problem in Seattle. It's a huge problem in King County. Frankly, it's a huge problem across the entire country. And I don't want to minimize the impacts of that in any way, but there is no evidence that shows that ShotSpotter decreases gun violence. So people who are desperate, who want a solution to that problem, are being sold ShotSpotter as the solution, but it's not true. And that's what I find so painful, right? Is that there's people who desperately need a solution to this problem, and instead of actually giving them one that might have a chance of working, they're given ShotSpotter as a false hope instead - which I find repugnant, frankly. [00:50:13] BJ Last: Oh yeah - it's incredibly predatory what they do, Amy. They prey on communities that are struggling with issues of gun violence - which is a massive issue, as you said, that really has huge impacts - and they sell them something that just makes things worse. You mentioned on some of the - what happens with some of these alerts - Adam Toledo was one of the most famous examples of this. So Adam Toledo was a 13-year-old that the Chicago police killed because they were responding to a ShotSpotter alert. And they chased after a 13-year-old, and ended up shooting him in an alley when his hands were empty - when there was nothing in his hands. So this is the real harm that does come from this. And again, it is preying off of communities that have been disinvested in and that are dealing with real problems of gun violence and being like - Oh, hey, here's something we swear will make it better. And that goes and makes it worse. [00:51:01] Amy Sundberg: I will also say - we had this fight last year, we're having it again. There've been a few new wrinkles that have been introduced this year that I think are important to address. One of them is that this year, they have proposed that along with the ShotSpotter acoustic gunshot technology, that they include CCTV cameras. And what Senior Deputy Mayor Burgess said during one of these budget meetings was that the combination of these two technologies leads to higher accuracy and also better admissibility in court. However, these claims have not been backed up. We did find a study that shows that, in fact, the combination of these two technologies does not improve accuracy. And Councilmember Herbold asked Tim Burgess for his evidence - What makes you think this? A month after she asked, she says she finally received his answer - which was six reports on CCTV alone with no ShotSpotter technology included so does not, in fact, give any evidence that it makes ShotSpotter better. And one kind of manual suggesting that maybe you could combine these two technologies with no study attached. So the only study we have found says, in fact, it does not improve the accuracy. So I think that's really important to note. There seems to be a certain lack of regard from certain quarters for actually looking at the evidence - that I find sad, frankly. And another wrinkle that I'll mention is that BJ talked about the Surveillance Ordinance - the report that they would have to do in order to implement ShotSpotter. In the original proposal from the mayor's office, they asked to do one report - so each report, you have to do a racial equity analysis as part of that report - and they asked to only do one report. But this is mobile technology, so you can pick up the camera and the ShotSpotter tech and you can move it to a different neighborhood. So they would only be doing their racial equity analysis in the original neighborhoods that it was going to be placed, and then they could pick it up and move it to any other neighborhood without having to do another racial equity analysis, which I think is deeply problematic because different neighborhoods are different. And a lot of the neighborhoods that they were talking about originally using this technology on are primarily white. And my concern would be - what if they picked it up and moved it to a community that wasn't primarily white, but didn't have to do a racial impact report on that. That is deeply troubling. And I will say Councilmember Mosqueda, in her balancing package, addressed this problem and said - No, you should do a racial equity impact for each time you move it. So hopefully we won't buy ShotSpotter at all, but hopefully that change will stay if we do - because I think you can't do one impact report for a neighborhood, and then move it somewhere completely different and expect that report to have any validity. [00:54:09] Shannon Cheng: So ShotSpotter doesn't address the problem it's claiming to try to solve. In fact, it sounds like it might be making things worse. And so they're asking this year for about $1.8 million, but what do we know from other cities - once you buy a pilot, this $1.8 million this year, what happens after that? [00:54:28] BJ Last: It's a subscription service. So even if you wanted to maintain the same amount or the same coverage area, you are spending that every single year. So this is, would be an ongoing expense. And that's also assuming the ShotSpotter doesn't change its rates. And then if you decided to expand the footprint of where it is, that's gonna add what you're spending every single year. So it is very much just an ongoing expense into a budget that as we said - hey, is already facing a substantial general fund deficit for something that does not address a serious problem. [00:55:00] Amy Sundberg: And the company SoundThinking - I mean, their business model is to persuade cities to expand. So it would not be surprising to me if we were to start this pilot - if in a few years we were spending more like $10 million on ShotSpotter, that would not shock me. [00:55:16] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so it's - this year, we're trying to decide whether to dip a toe into this ShotSpotter technology, but it could lead to larger expenditures in future years if this initial pilot gets funded further. [00:55:34] BJ Last: Absolutely. And also the ShotSpotter company SoundThinking - they do a lot of other surveillance items. They recently bought PredPol, which is nominally predictive policing, that has all the absolute racial bias issues that you probably imagine the moment that a company said that they can sell you predictive policing. So odds are it would not even be staying at just ShotSpotter - of microphones listening for loud noises - that SoundThinking would be trying to then expand to all of their other horrible, dystopian, incredibly biased technology. [00:56:05] Shannon Cheng: Yay. [00:56:07] Amy Sundberg: It's really concerning, right? I think a lot of people want to hold up technology as this panacea - where it will fix everything. And that is not always the case. And in this case, I would argue it is not at all the case. And there are actually things that we could be investing in that might address the issue much more effectively. [00:56:28] BJ Last: Yeah, like the things that are proven to work on this are low tech items - they're violence interruption programs, resourcing communities, things like that that are actually shown to reduce gun violence. [00:56:39] Amy Sundberg: Even physical changes in the environment have been shown to have a significant effect - like adding more lighting, for example. [00:56:47] Shannon Cheng: So those are some of the big fights over public safety, which - they're really important. Unfortunately, I also feel like they often overshadow some of the other big fights that might be going on - just there's a lot of rhetoric right now about public safety, especially with the ongoing election. So what are some of the other big budget fights that you're seeing in this year's deliberations? [00:57:05] BJ Last: Well, I'd say a lot of those fights are actually also public safety items. Like there are fights on School Safety Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement, SSTPI fund - so that's been getting cut. That is safe routes for kids to walk and bike to school - Vision Zero stuff is also getting cut. We're fighting really to stop that. And so far, at least 22 pedestrians have been killed while walking, biking, or rolling. So that is absolutely a public safety item, I would say. Same with - there are currently amendments to undo the cuts to food safety. The proposed budget cut about $950,000 from food security, so that was 650K roughly for food banks and 300K for food access. I would very much say that food access is also very much a public safety item. I think there was even a French musical, Les Mis - didn't that have a lot to do with an entire revolution because people couldn't afford bread and were hungry? [00:57:58] Amy Sundberg: There also is a fight about funding behavioral health services at Tiny House villages. Right now, that funding is a lot less than it was in 2023 for 2024. And the reason why that's important is because having this funding allows Tiny House villages to house people with higher acuity needs. But if they don't have those services available, then those people can't live there. So, I mean, that's a huge issue. And there are a couple amendments to address that - one of them would take the ShotSpotter money and use it instead to pay for that, which I think is a great use of that money. And there also are fights about pay wages for human service workers - to make sure that all human service workers are getting inflationary increase and a 2% raise on top of that, a true 2% raise on top of that. There have been various little fiddly things regarding that - some of those workers were not covered because they're technically paid through King County or with federal money. But they're still doing the job every day, they still deserve that full 2% raise. So there are amendments that are working to address that shortfall to make sure that those folks get paid a fair wage. [00:59:08] BJ Last: Yeah, and on the 2% raise for human service providers, there's a pay equity study that the University of Washington released - I think it was February this year - that found human service workers in Seattle are underpaid by 37%. So 2% is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we, a city-funded study by UW found that they are currently underfunded by. There was even a resolution passed that wants to increase their wages by 7% by 2025, so this is a small item just trying to move inline with that resolution and to also make progress towards that study. 'Cause again - underpaid by 37% is huge and that impacts people's ability to actually provide services. One other item I'll throw out - there was also a cut in the budget to ADA accessibility. The reason that the City specifically funds this

3pm - Former 17 year King County Jail guard indicted, along with four others, for scheme to bring meth and fentanyl into the jail // Aurora’s unwanted nightlife has residents at their wits end // Group of 10 masked teens rob Ballard gas station // Kent police chief finally admits that GANGS are a huge part of the problem with youth crime in the city // To create safety, King County needs more than jails - Dow Constantine // The new Beatles Single has dropped! // Former host of the nationally syndicated ‘Breakfast with the Beatles’ radio show, voice over actor and “forever Beatles freak” Mike West joins us to dissect the new song // The Washington Post calls the song ‘fine, but not good enough’ // Mike West tells his Paul Mccartney story

On this Election 2023 re-air, Crystal chats with Sarah Reyneveld about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the experience she brings as a public sector attorney and community advocate, and her thoughts on addressing frontline worker wages and workforce issues, the need for upstream alternatives in the criminal legal system and substance use crisis, how to improve policy implementation, climate change and air quality, and budget revenue and transparency. 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 Sarah Reyneveld at @SarahReyneveld.   Resources Campaign Website - Sarah Reyneveld   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Hello, I'm so excited to be welcoming to the program today King County Council candidate, Sarah Reyneveld. Hello. [00:01:01] Sarah Reyneveld: Hello, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me today - I'm excited about the conversation. [00:01:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I guess just starting out - we have seen you run for State Legislature before. I'm wondering why you're choosing to run for the County now, and what do you hope to accomplish in that position? [00:01:18] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, I think that King County Council and the King County is really at a critical point in time, and I'm excited to bring my lived experience as a working parent, a Seattle Public School parent, a transit rider, a union organizer - I helped organize my union of Assistant Attorney Generals - and also my experience as a public sector attorney who has fought for workers and our environment, and as a community advocate working with communities across King County to really make transformative change for workers, working families, and our environment on the King County Council. So for some background - in 2016, I became King County Councilmember Kohl-Welles' appointment to the King County Women's Advisory Board where I had the opportunity to work with communities throughout King County and the King County Council to help advocate for and secure investments in affordable housing, in behavioral health, childcare, and services to support survivors of gender-based violence. I started this work and became the Chair of the King County Women's Advisory Board before the pandemic - and I had two young kids at the time - and we had struggled like so many parents with access to affordable childcare, and the board at that time decided to take up that issue. So we worked on recommendations to expand childcare access for working parents and were able to work together with communities across King County, and the Executive, and King County Council to help reinstate a childcare subsidy, to expand access to childcare for working families, and establish a wage provider boost to help increase pay for childcare providers who are disproportionately women and BIPOC women and immigrants. And then the pandemic hit and I continued to do this work and it really laid bare - staggering inequities and injustices in King County that disproportionately impacted women and our communities of color and immigrants and other marginalized communities, who are more likely to be on the forefront and were experiencing disproportionately - unemployment and financial loss and illness. So as I continue to work on these issues, I saw what an important role King County played in not just responding to the pandemic and now the shadow pandemic, but in really providing public health, and behavioral health, and public transit, and helping with food security and housing. So I'm running for King County Council because I've been doing this work with community and I think the status quo is no longer good enough. We need bold and transformative action to really meet the urgency of this moment. We have a really unique opportunity to create a more equitable economy and a sustainable future for all workers and working families in King County. And I think that King County can and must do more - and my priorities are to create more truly affordable housing to help better meet the behavioral health needs of our neighbors in crisis, to really tackle the climate crisis and protect our environment for future generations, to provide accessible and frequent public transit for all, and to really look at what we can do to reimagine our public safety and criminal legal system. So I'm excited about the opportunity. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: I see. Now you covered a lot there. In there, you mentioned caring for workers, addressing housing. One thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living. Do you think 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? [00:05:10] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, absolutely. I absolutely think that our nonprofits have a duty to pay more in terms of adequately funding - not just contracts - but ensuring that those contracts lead to an equitable living wage and union jobs. And that includes cost of living adjustments and other supports for workers. So right now we have a really high turnover rate for frontline workers and particularly those workers that the County contracts with - I've heard 40-60% turnover rate. And I think we need to address the underlying issue of why those workers are turning over. And the underlying issue - one of them is pay equity and not ensuring that we are paying, particularly our frontline workers, adequately or providing them with the supports that they need. So it's about equitable pay, it's about cost of living adjustments, and it's about ensuring that those workers have access to affordable housing and transit in King County as well - so they can really afford to live where they work. And so I see this issue as very intersectional and something that King County can do more to address. And I would just say, generally, I think we as a society tend to lift up certain sorts of workers - the CEOs of companies, for example. And those people that are really doing the real work of caring for our community - of building our housing, of connecting us through transit, of providing behavioral health services - we don't invest equitably or sufficiently in those workers. And so starting with contracting is critically important, but we need to do more to ensure that we're investing in living wage jobs, and workforce housing, and bonuses, and ensuring that these workers have the supports that they need. And that is part of my vision for building back better and creating a more equitable economy that really centers workers and working families in King County. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, would you have voted to approve the transfer of inmates to the SCORE jail to alleviate a lot of the issues plaguing the King County Jail, including overcrowding, lack of water, inadequate healthcare, illnesses, understaffing? Would you have voted in the same way that the King County Council did? [00:07:31] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's a great question. I want to start with just the conditions at the King County Jail. So the six deaths in 2022 in the downtown jail and kind of the subsequent ACLU lawsuit, I think, show that King County is failing too many criminally involved individuals, particularly our Black and Brown community members and those with chronic behavioral health and substance use issues. I am really concerned about what is happening in terms of inhumane conditions at the jail that include excessive use of solitary confinement, and lack of transportation to medical appointments and court appointments, and delays with mental health and other medical appointments. And I think King County, which is the oversight body of the King County Jail, needs to do more to address these concerns and ensure safety. And these really poor conditions at the jail didn't happen overnight. They are partially caused by lack of adequate staffing - that's been an issue for decades and was exacerbated since COVID. And also issues with an antiquated, really obsolete building. And lack of access to medical care and treatment, as I was stating. So on the King County Council, if elected, I want to work with disproportionately impacted communities and fellow King County Councilmembers to urgently address these issues. I think we need to invest more in restorative justice. And when the King County Council took that vote in terms of transferring those incarcerated folks to SCORE, I think they noted that we need to do more in terms of investing in restorative justice and upstream alternatives to really reimagine our criminal legal system. So first I think we need to prevent and reduce incarceration through investing in upstream - investments in youth and vulnerable adults. And that means doing more to expand effective diversion programs, such as the Law Assisted Diversion Program and Co-LEAD, which has been really effective in diverting folks out of the criminal legal system and out of the King County Jail to begin with. I think we also need to move towards actualizing King County Executive's vision and so many activists' vision of really closing the downtown jail and reimagining and reducing the size of the King County facilities. So in terms of the SCORE vote, I don't think either option were good options. The King County Council arrived at that vote because there had not been enough, really, work done on restorative justice and on the underlying issues around staffing and overcrowding at the jail. And I think keeping vulnerable incarcerated people in a downtown jail that had significant understaffing and overcrowding issues and a lack of access to medicine, or transferring incarcerated people to a facility that had potentially access-to-justice issues is not - neither one of those are good options. And so that's why I want to roll up my sleeves and ensure that we're really investing sufficiently in diversion programs and alternatives - to invest in folks to prevent them from becoming incarcerated in the first place and also move towards reimagining our system. And I will say that I don't think King County Council can address this issue alone. In 2022, there were over, I think, 100 people in King County Jail that were deemed to be incompetent to stand trial in King County that were awaiting a treatment bed. So if we work with our state partners to really fund mental health and ensure treatment for vulnerable populations like this, then we won't have to make these sort of decisions. [00:11:00] Crystal Fincher: So am I hearing that you would not vote - disagreeing with this vote? If in the future a vote were to come up to extend or expand this SCORE transfer or transfer to other jails, does that mean you're a No vote on that? [00:11:13] Sarah Reyneveld: I think that we need to, like I said, invest in alternatives and upstream alternatives to the criminal legal system. So like Councilmember Zahilay and Councilmember Kohl-Welles said - the transfer to SCORE was really not addressing the root cause of the issue. We need to be investing in upstream alternatives and staffing and ensuring that folks within our system are safe. [00:11:36] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now you talked about substance use disorder being so key in treating upstream issues to really address the root causes of what is leading people to criminal behavior. We're dealing with a conundrum. The governor just called a special session following our State Supreme Court invalidating personal substance possession as a crime. Our Legislature took action a couple of years ago to recriminalize it - that has a sunset provision. They were not able to decide on any statewide policy before the session ended, so they're going to be taking that up in a special session. There are conversations about - should drug use be criminalized at all? If it should, is it a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony? Where do you stand? Where should personal possession of substances be dealt with? How would you handle that? [00:12:27] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think this is an issue that the Legislature has been grappling with and it's really an important issue. And I think we need to be moving away from criminalization of drug possession. Specifically, we moved away from criminalization of drug possession for marijuana - we need to do the same thing with psychedelics and other sorts of drugs that have medicinal and other positive effects. I think when it comes to addressing our fentanyl and heroin crisis, I think that if I were a legislator, I'd probably move in the direction of ensuring that we're looking at the lesser of any sort of crime - which would be a misdemeanor - and looking at pathways to treatment for that use. And I think we have to think about how we can connect folks that are in crisis because of substance use disorder with services. And so to me, it's about what more can King County do - because I'm not sitting in the place of a legislator - to ensure that we're investing in upstream solutions and treatment. And so I think helping to implement the King County Crisis Care Center Levy and ensuring that folks that are in - particularly a substance use crisis, whether - we know that we have a fentanyl crisis. I have worked on litigation to sue Purdue Pharma and understand just the addictive effects of those drugs. And we need to make sure that there's - those folks are connected to Medicaid-assisted treatment on demand, that they're connected to services. And so looking at what more we can do to scale up the crisis centers in an equitable way and preserve and restore beds that are primarily aimed at treating the underlying causes - I think it's critically important. And so one of my priorities, if elected to the King County Council, will be to look at how we're implementing these crisis care centers, how I'm working potentially with the Legislature for additional treatment beds for substance use disorder. I have, as so many people have had, someone in my life that has experienced a substance use disorder issue. And I think it's so hard to navigate the system to even find detox or substance use treatment for someone like me that knows how to navigate systems, much less someone that could be either at-risk at being involved in the criminal legal system or becoming unhoused or dealing with a substance use crisis. And so finding ways in which we can ensure that those that are affected are obtaining treatment, I think is critically important. [00:15:07] Crystal Fincher: You raised a number of important issues there and you touched on helping to get the Crisis Care Centers Levy - which passed - implemented. [00:15:16] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes. [00:15:17] Crystal Fincher: There have been some criticisms and challenges with implementation of programs - at all levels of government, really, but including with the County - and issues of staffing that may not have been foreseen, or challenges run into, communication issues. Do you think there's an opportunity to improve implementation of policy and programs overall? And how do we need to do that? What needs to change in order for that to happen? [00:15:42] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent point. And I absolutely think there are opportunities to improve policy implementation at the County. One of the things that I really appreciate about King County's work and that I wanna bring as a lens to my work is that I do believe that the best public policy is made - I think Councilmember Zahilay says this in his views and paraphrasing him, but - by those that are closest to the injustice. And so we really need to invest in community-based solution to a lot of our largest challenges in King County. And so I appreciate that on all issues of County government and all levels of County government, whether it be addressing the gun violence crisis or the behavioral health crisis or childcare, we're really investing in community-based solutions. So I think that's critically important, but I think we also have to have a way to measure outcomes in terms of what is the County doing that's working and what is the County doing that's not working. And if we have, for example, a health through housing facility that we have stood up, but it's not being adequately staffed and we're not adequately utilizing it, and really ensuring that vulnerable populations can access housing and those services - we need to look at what more we can do to ensure that that is being used appropriately and we're really maximizing opportunities to make good use of public dollars. So I think we absolutely need to be working with communities and listening to communities and centering their voices. And then I think King County, as a body, needs to work with those communities to make sure that the investments that were being made are working on the community level and that we're really scaling up things that work. And I, as someone who's taught at the Evans School of Public Affairs and has been a policy wonk for years, am really interested in working with community and my fellow councilmembers in doing that work. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: So on almost every measure, we're behind our 2030 climate goals. You've talked about addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of that on people being one of your priorities. We've experienced the impacts from wildfires, heat and cold, floods, et cetera. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:17:59] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, thank you for that excellent question. As an Assistant Attorney General that works to protect our environment and public health, this is an issue that is critically important to me because of the urgency of action and the need to really address this challenge - centering communities in a just transition. So first, I think we need to electrify transportation and invest deeply in transit. We know that to meet our carbon reduction goals, we have to get people out of cars and into transit. And yet we have seen that Metro Transit service has languished since the pandemic and ridership has fallen by half. And those transit delays - I'm a transit rider to work, I take my little boy to daycare downtown with me - and they're disproportionately affecting transit riders, which are working families, BIPOC communities, low income communities, youth, seniors, and others that rely on transit. And it's a transit justice issue. So I have already been doing some of this work, but if elected to the King County Council, I want to continue this work by working with a coalition of transit riders and groups like the Transit Riders Union and Seattle Subway and The Urbanist and others to pass a county-wide transit revenue package to fund a King County Transportation Benefit District, which would supplant the city one and really help us restore an increased Metro Transit service to deliver faster, more frequent, reliable, and zero-emission service that connects all our community members. I think the measure should also ensure that transit is free to those who are cost-burdened. Right now, one of our impediments to increasing transit service and getting people out of cars is the shortage of transit operators and mechanics. And part of this funding package, or looking at other funding sources, has to be to address that issue of recruiting and retaining Metro bus drivers. And that has to include a living wage and additional incentives and supports, including safety supports, to build the workforce of Metro operators. Now, I just spoke to Metro operators at ATU last week, and they told me they're facing significant workplace safety and pay and other challenges that are really contributing to job stress and attrition. So we have to address that underlying issue if we're gonna get people out of cars and into transit. I also think we need to do more to decarbonize our built environment, which is probably the largest carbon emission in King County, through the adoption and strengthening of commercial building codes that will require communities to reduce energy use and also center communities in initiatives such as the Climate Equity Capital Pool to electrify their homes, for electric appliances and retrofits and solar panels. I think there's a lot of opportunities that we can leverage on the federal level to use grants and incentives and rebates to really update the building codes - and achieve these energy efficiencies and decarbonize our environment and our built environment - while bringing workers along. And I think we need to look at passing stronger provisions and incentives to transition off natural gas in a way that brings people and workers along and hastens this just transition to a clean energy economy - because we know that natural gas use in commercial and residential buildings accounts for a really large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. I would also say that we need to do more to sustainably manage our forests and our working lands to ensure climate-friendly forest management and farming to mitigate climate change impacts and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and look at how we can promote carbon storage in soils and increase the use of green space. I would also say, probably lastly, a large percentage of the carbon emissions in King County result from our food system. So I wanna lead in ensuring that all communities have opportunities to become food producers, to access urban and rural farmland, and that we're really centering disproportionately impacted communities and empowering them to become farmers - particularly in food deserts and ensuring that tribes have access to their traditional food sources and cultural resources. And I've talked a lot to labor about this, and I would say that I believe that we can work towards a just transition to a clean energy economy that really centers workers and equitable pathways to green jobs and apprenticeships, but it's gonna take us building a coalition. And I'm committed to really rolling up my sleeves and working with our labor partners and folks that are disproportionately impacted and our community members to build that just transition towards a clean energy economy and a sustainable community that addresses our climate crisis. [00:23:01] Crystal Fincher: You talked about needing to address the staffing issues in our public transportation department, certainly an issue in Metro that is urgently in need of addressing. We've seen in several other departments - with sheriffs, certainly with municipal police departments in the County - that they're giving retention bonuses, hiring bonuses to help attract people. And what we've seen is - although they are on record saying that that isn't really moving the needle and may not, there are a lot of people in other departments saying that would absolutely move the needle here. Do you support retention bonuses and hiring bonus and some of the things that we've seen for folks working in public safety for other workers? [00:23:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. I think we really need to listen to workers, and my platform is all about lifting up and centering and listening to workers. And to me, hiring bonuses are not gonna address the root cause of the issue. And the root cause of the issue is really living wages and supports for drivers. But if hiring bonuses will help certain segments of workers - I did talk to, for example, an ATU bus operator that said that they had hiring bonuses in Pierce County and that they had not yet received any sort of retention or hiring bonus. And so if that's something that's going to help workers feel valued, I think that we do have to look at that as an option. However, it doesn't really address the root cause. And that is we need to support our frontline workers and give them a living wage. So we need to increase base pay for workers. We need to give them benefits - adequate benefits - flexibility, and the working conditions that they deserve. And for some frontline workers, that's gonna mean more investment in safety measures or hazard pay. And for other frontline workers, that may include a bonus. But I think we need to listen to workers, we need to center workers, and we really need to give them living wages, benefits, and the working conditions they deserve. I think you are absolutely right to say that the workforce issue is huge in King County, and we have to do more to address it. When I talk to workers - everyone from grocery store workers to our bus operators, to behavioral health workers - they're really struggling to make a living wage to afford to live in King County, and save for retirement, and raise their kids. And they're really the sheroes and heroes of, I think, responding to the pandemic or the shadow pandemic, but also just of taking care of our communities. And they're really bearing the brunt of our crises - our unhoused crisis, the opioid crisis, the behavioral health crisis. So we at King County have to do better to support them, and that includes living wages, benefits, and working conditions. And I am interested and very committed to doing that work to center workers. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and you're completely correct that they are bearing the brunt of that. Another issue that kind of delves both into addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of it and public health is air and clean air within buildings. And this has been increasingly talked about - especially as we've learned more about airborne pathogens, and as we've dealt more with wildfire smoke, and how much we've learned about how pollutants and pollution impact health, impact life expectancy. There are areas in Seattle that have life expectancies years shorter than other areas in the same city. Does the County have a responsibility to provide clean and safe air within its buildings and to try and incentivize that throughout other privately owned buildings and businesses in the County? [00:26:45] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I absolutely think the County has a responsibility - working with our state regulators as well as our federal regulators and policymakers - to ensure that everyone has access to clean air. I see this as an environmental justice issue - you pointed out that disproportionately - communities that live in areas with higher rates of pollution and that are more impacted, disproportionately impacted by climate change are experiencing poor air quality. And I think we have seen through the effects of climate change and really rampant wildfires and other issues, that these are disproportionately impacting our frontline communities and communities that are already overburdened. So I think that one thing that we can do at the King County level is really urgently lead on addressing the climate crisis. And our air quality is just gonna get worse as the climate crisis and the impacts increase. And so I think we need someone that's gonna really roll up their sleeves and provide strong leadership to really address these underlying issues around air and water pollution and to address the climate crisis. And so I wanna do that work with disproportionately impacted communities, and part of that work is really getting people out of cars and into transit. So really think having a strong vision for what that looks like and how to center frontline communities is really critically important. [00:28:18] Crystal Fincher: Looking at the state of this race, you're in a competitive race this time - you were last time, too - but this time you're part of a competitive race. What do your endorsements say about you, and what are you most proud of? [00:28:33] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think I am - just to get back to my roots - I am a public sector attorney, I am a working parent, I am a community advocate, and I have lived in the 4th Council District for 25 years, and really have dedicated my 15-year public service career to advancing progressive policy, legal, and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges. And I have worked in community to drive progressive policies forward, and I think my endorsements reflect the work that I've done in community. I have endorsements from five members of the King County Council, including Councilmember Kohl-Welles and Councilmember Zahilay, who I've worked with directly around securing access to more childcare, to addressing gender-based violence, to doing more for affordable housing. And I think my endorsements really speak to the depth of work and the way that I have worked to elevate community voices in community and doing that work. I would say that one of the endorsements I'm most proud of is Councilmember Kohl-Welles' endorsement because she's been a mentor to me and I have worked with her on a number of issues to improve the lives of women in disproportionately impacted communities in King County. And I'm also proud of the endorsement from my boss, A.G. Bob Ferguson. I have dedicated my career to being on the frontlines, to helping enforce workers' rights to fair wages to equal pay, to protect our environment. And I've done this work in the Attorney General's office and the fact that I have the support of my boss as I'm running for King County Council, just like he ran for King County Council, and that he's been helping me out on the campaign trail. And ensuring that I'm running a strong grassroots campaign really means the world to me. [00:30:20] Crystal Fincher: Now, we've also talked about how important it is to enact a lot of policy, to take care of people - obviously, we need to address staffing. All of the things that we've talked about today - a lot of them require revenue. We just ran a big levy because we needed the revenue. The list of things that everyone says is necessary, evidently costs more than we have in the budget, so new revenue is needed. What progressive revenue options exist at the County level today, and will you pursue any of them? [00:30:50] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, so I have a long history of advocating for progressive revenue, including the capital gains tax as a citizen advocate and board member of Washington's Paramount Duty. And so I have fought with, alongside a coalition of folks that are really pushing for progressive revenue reform at the state level. I still think there's so much more we can do and look forward to being a strong partner in that work. King County is projected to face revenue shortfalls and has constrained revenue sources. I do wanna fight against austerity budgets and look really critically at how we can obtain authority from the Legislature to pass truly progressive revenue sources that center working people. I think we also need to look at potentially lifting the 1% property tax lid if we can provide exemptions for homeowners and fixed income seniors. But I think the kind of frustrating thing about the County is it is revenue-constrained and that we need to work hard both on the County Council and in partnership with communities to figure out what more we can do to obtain authority to pass truly progressive revenue sources, whether or not that's taxing business or looking at more progressive revenue sources other than property tax and sales tax and some of these use fees. So I'm dedicated to doing that work in partnership with community and I'm really looking forward to that. [00:32:26] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. And with the budget, King County does incremental budgeting making it difficult for the public to understand - making it difficult for some people in government to understand, but especially the public - to understand how King County funds are allocated in the base budget. What can be done to make the budget easier for the public to understand and influence? [00:32:47] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. We need more transparency in the budget process and we need more participation from community at the County level in the budget process. I have testified, for example, funding for the mental health counselors under MIDD. I have testified for affordable housing. I've testified for more childcare funding. And sometimes it's difficult, as the budget comes over from the Executive, to know what's different about the budget, right? And so I find generally that through this work as a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board and as a citizen advocate that King County budgets are not as accessible, for example, as legislative budgets. And more needs to be done to ensure that they're more transparent and accessible, and also that we're ensuring that the public is engaged in the budgeting process and understands it. So I think one of the things that we can do, and Councilmember Zahilay has done such a great job of this, is just explaining the King County budget process - how the budget comes over from the Executive, what the budget looks like, and how to understand the budget. I think another thing we could do is helping to really center folks that historically have not had a seat at the table in the budget process and have been excluded from power structures in developing policy and budgetary proposals - so that those folks are actually involved in the collaboration process through working groups and meetings and collaboration so that we're moving more towards participatory budget models, where constituents are not just involved in testifying, but really involved and actively involved every step of the process and ultimately in the decisions that impact them. So I'm really interested in working with all communities, and particularly frontline communities that are disproportionately impacted by these issues, and to really look to see what we can do towards more participatory budgeting. But first, of course, we have to make that process more transparent. [00:34:49] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we said before, you have at least one opponent now - the filing deadline isn't for a few weeks, couple weeks, few weeks here. So as you're talking to people who are considering who they're gonna vote for in this race, why should they vote for you over your opponents? [00:35:08] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you. I'm running because I wanna continue the work that I've done with community and elevate community voices here in the 4th Council District and beyond to advance bold and transformative action for workers, for working families, and our environment on the King County Council. And as I said before, I think we're in a critical moment of time, and I am really committed to working with our most impacted communities to ensure that we are building back better and really creating equitable economic recovery that centers workers and working families and leads to a more sustainable future. Like many in our district, I'm a working parent, I'm a public school parent, transit rider, community organizer, and I have really dedicated my career to advancing progressive legal policy and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges - and I think we've really gotten results. As a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board, I have worked in partnership with community and the King County Council to secure investments in affordable housing, behavioral health, childcare, and services for survivors of gender-based violence. And I really wanna build on that track record. And I think I have the skills to do so - to really center community voices and to advance really bold, progressive solutions. I think there's three things that I would highlight to voters about why they should choose me in a competitive race. One is community - I'm running for the community and have demonstrated a history of leadership in my community, which is really reflected in our campaign's range of endorsements from elected officials to community leaders and labor. And I have lived experience as a mom and union member and transit rider that is not only reflective of my district, but I feel can be valuable on the King County Council. And lastly, I have a demonstrated history of leadership in my community working to build coalitions to deliver on progressive policies for workers and working families. And I think I've demonstrated that I'm unafraid to grapple with and do the real work of really advancing transformative solutions that are necessary at this critical moment in time. And I really look forward to the conversation on the campaign and hopefully to working with my community to ensure equitable economic recovery that really centers workers and working families and creates a more sustainable future for all. [00:37:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:37:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you so much for having me. [00:37:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this 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.

On this Election 2023 re-air, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. 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 Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Andrew Lewis about his campaign for Seattle City Council District 7. Listen and learn more about Andrew and his thoughts on: [01:02] - Why he is running [03:31] - Response to critics calling him ‘fickle' [07:03] - Lightning round! [12:33] - Lightning round follow-up: Endorsements, SPOG contract questions, waterfront, reallocating encampment funds [17:05] - Homelessness response: Is there room for improvement? [20:13] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [23:39] - City budget shortfall: Progressive revenue options? [26:03] - Climate change, bike and pedestrian safety [31:36] - Public Safety: Alternative response 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 Andrew Lewis at @LewisforSeattle.   Andrew Lewis Councilmember Lewis is a born and raised Seattleite and a proud graduate of Seattle Public Schools. He holds a BA in history and political science from the University of Washington, a masters degree from the London School of Economics, and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to serving on the City Council, he served the people of Seattle as an assistant city attorney. He lives in West Queen Anne with his wife Laura, an assistant attorney general, their daughter Vivian Grace, and two rescue cats, Scoop and Maggie.   Resources Campaign Website - Andrew Lewis   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very happy today to be welcoming Seattle City Councilmember Andrew Lewis to the show. Welcome. [00:01:01] Andrew Lewis: Hey, great to be here. [00:01:02] Crystal Fincher: Well, lots of people have been familiar with you for quite some time. You are an incumbent running for re-election here on the Seattle City Council. I guess the first question is just - Why are you running, especially when so many other of your colleagues have chosen not to? [00:01:18] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, well, it's really great to be here to talk about the campaign 'cause I really do think Seattle is positioned to be one of the definitive cities of this century in terms of our potential - our potential for climate resiliency, our potential to overcome a lot of the challenges we face around housing insecurity and emerging challenges in public safety - and I wanna be a part of that. And finish a lot of the work that we've set in motion in the first term, and really bring a lot of that work to its full conclusion. We've worked, in my office, to put in place a big capital plan to redo a lot of our community centers in the city to be climate resiliency hubs - that is gonna be an increasingly necessary piece of infrastructure for shelter during extreme weather events like heat and smoke surges. We have worked to put in place a pilot for a dual dispatch alternative 911 response that is gonna be hitting the road in October, and that the Harrell administration and my office have shared ambition to see scaled to a bigger civilian department that has the capacity to respond in a public health-centered way to a lot of emergencies in our community. So if the first four years was about setting the stage to get these investments locked in and get a commitment and funding locked in, the next four years is really about implementation and really seeing that fully realized. We also have a lot of big, exciting things that are coming on the horizon in the next term - including major revisions to Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, which has huge implications for housing affordability, for climate. We have the Move Seattle levy which will be renewed in 2024 as well. So really, really big policy lifts that I really have strong opinions on and wanna see realize their full potential for a multimodal city with dense and abundant housing. So those are some of my priorities and I'm sure we'll dive into those more over the course of the interview. [00:03:30] Crystal Fincher: We will. Now, one criticism leveled against you is that you're fickle - that may be putting it pretty bluntly. But one, The Stranger said - in their endorsement of you to be clear, they are absolutely recommending you - they said you "could really use a stronger spine" and The Seattle Times said, "Seattle voters have every reason to feel whiplash these past four years. Perhaps no other councilmember has veered from one position to the next as often and as dramatically as Andrew Lewis. Do you agree with that criticism and how do you respond to it? [00:04:04] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, I actually don't agree with that criticism - that probably won't surprise anybody here. But I think that a lot of it comes down to the fact that we unfortunately have a media environment where there isn't much recognition or respect for nuance - absent the Hacks & Wonks podcast, of course, where nuance is the currency of the realm. But if you look at some of those instances where we, as policy makers, are forced into a very polarizing environment where the options that were dealt are these two polar options and there's not really much interest from actors in the media that have a strong agenda and like - look, obviously I'm supported by The Stranger, I appreciate their support, I'm glad that I have their endorsement - and they wouldn't contest that they have an agenda. I'm sure The Seattle Times editorial board would not contest that they have an agenda either. And I do think that polarizing actors can get frustrated when the dichotomy that they're pitching people gets flipped on its head because people that are in the middle - that are being forced to pick false choices from two things that are dealt - want to flip the table over on those false choices and try to figure out a way to bring community together and come up with a better policy. And I think that we see, with the result of the Fentanyl Work Group that Mayor Harrell put together with support from my office, that we are getting a better proposal with a broader base of support from the work - that we have spent over the summer digging into how to best respond to the fentanyl crisis, rather than just reactively passing a policy that was set up really with no clear, well-thought-out implementation plan in June. And I can't really sit here and say that it's bad policy to take a little bit longer and ask real probing questions instead of just pick between two choices that are put in front of us. And honestly, I think a lot of the problems in our politics come from accepting those kinds of false choices. So, look - if I'm reelected, I'm certainly going to continue to try to figure out how to make the best policy outcomes we can. And sometimes that might mean rejecting divisive policies. And if people want to call that being fickle, that's what they can do. But I think that the people of Seattle want to see solutions to their problems and not just figuring out how the red team or blue team can win in a given moment. [00:06:49] Crystal Fincher: I appreciate your beautiful rhetorical flourish on "nuance is the currency of the realm" here on Hacks & Wonks. You have a podcast also where nuance is also covered there. Now, we're going to depart from our normal kind of candidate interview script - I guess, that we've had over the past several years and switch it up a little bit before we get back to the regular script - and do a bit of a lightning round, which we've done in live events and in forums, debates, but haven't so much in these interviews. But I think it can be useful to level set and to help give people just a base understanding of who we are before we get back into long-form questions where we get to discuss things without the, I guess, limitation of kind of the super short soundbite type of thing that other forums are limited to. So starting out - these are yes or no questions, and we'll make our way through them, is - Did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:07:52] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:07:53] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:07:57] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:07:58] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:08:03] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:04] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell for Mayor? [00:08:08] Andrew Lewis: I voted for Lorena González. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for City Attorney? [00:08:16] Andrew Lewis: When I don't publicly endorse a candidate that I have to work with, I don't publicly state - so I'm gonna decline to answer. [00:08:24] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. And did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell? [00:08:27] Andrew Lewis: I voted for Leesa Manion. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent your residence? [00:08:33] Andrew Lewis: I own. [00:08:35] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and are you a landlord? [00:08:37] Andrew Lewis: I am not. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in your district? [00:08:47] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:48] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:08:54] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:09:03] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:04] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:09:08] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:09] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:09:13] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:09:14] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:09:19] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:09:25] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:09:36] Andrew Lewis: No, but I'm happy to expand on that later. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Will do. Do you support abrogating or removing funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:09:49] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:09:54] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:09:59] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:00] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, OPA, and the Office of Inspector General, OIG, subpoena power? [00:10:11] Andrew Lewis: I'm on LRPC, so I can't comment on active bargaining, unfortunately - but I can expand on that later. [00:10:17] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:10:23] Andrew Lewis: Same answer, unfortunately. [00:10:25] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on all of the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:10:33] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:34] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:10:39] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:40] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the City's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:10:44] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:45] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:10:52] Andrew Lewis: I could, yes. [00:10:53] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly-built waterfront? [00:10:58] Andrew Lewis: Yes, but that's something I want to expand on, too. [00:11:02] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you believe return-to-work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:11:09] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:10] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:11:12] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:13] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:11:15] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Look at you, Andrew Lewis. Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial delivery car traffic? [00:11:24] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:11:25] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:31] Andrew Lewis: Repeat that one more time, sorry. [00:11:33] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:39] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:40] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:11:46] Andrew Lewis: Yes, absolutely. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:11:50] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:51] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:11:59] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:59] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked a picket line? [00:12:02] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:12:02] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:12:04] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:12:05] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:12:07] Andrew Lewis: So we pay the union wage. I don't know if he is formally - my campaign manager's formally joined, but of course I'd be all for it. So, yes. [00:12:20] Crystal Fincher: And that was the next question. If your staff wants to unionize, would you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:12:25] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, totally. [00:12:26] Crystal Fincher: Well, look, Andrew Lewis - you concluded our first in-interview lightning round here on Hacks & Wonks. I guess following up on that, there were a couple of issues where you wanted to follow up on that - so I'll give you a little bit of time to clarify. [00:12:41] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would say, like in how I do endorsements - there were some questions about endorsements. If I publicly endorse - publicly endorsed Lorena, publicly endorsed Leesa Manion - I will say in the future who I voted for. If there's a municipal office where I have to work with that person, like council colleagues or other municipal officials - if I don't publicly endorse, I don't state 'cause I have to work with those people. So, I mean, people can maybe infer based on some of my other statements and actions, but it's just a hard and fast rule I have that I inherited from my friend, Nick Licata. So I will just say, put that out there. On the waterfront - well, actually, first, LRPC - there's some questions regarding bargaining. At the Seattle City Council, there's a body called Labor Relations Policy Committee - it's five City councilmembers. Our deliberations are private 'cause bargaining is private - for good reason. We oversee the bargaining process for all unions that have contracts with the City, including the Seattle Police Officers Guild, and we weigh in in that body on approving bargaining parameters. So sitting on that body - it's just best practice to not specifically talk about hard and fast positions on the bargaining process. And I know that's frustrating to a lot of my friends in labor for the coalition bargaining that's happening right now. But by virtue of serving on LRPC, I have to be really, really careful about what I say to avoid unfair labor practice allegations and other things like that, regrettably. On the waterfront, which is another question that came up. I think the waterfront's gonna be great and have a lot of really cool new things - the Overlook Walk, the Aquarium expansion, obviously going to be a big new investment. So on the whole, it's a beneficial addition, and I think yes is the best answer to that question. There are ways it could be dramatically improved - I don't think anyone out there is denying that. A couple of months ago, when we were discussing the designation of Dzidzilalich - the renaming of Elliott to Dzidzilalich Way - I asked the Office of the Waterfront staff how much leeway we have to make improvements to increasingly remove the amount of footprint that's on the waterfront that is reserved for cars - which is the biggest deficiency, in my opinion, of the waterfront. And everything essentially north of the ferry terminal is city right-of-way and not state right-of-way - where we have an increased amount of leeway to make changes. So I'm optimistic that over time, we can continue to work and shape the waterfront to reflect the kind of urban space that I think a lot of us in the community wanna see. It's tough that so much of the shape of the waterfront was kind of locked in over a decade ago before I was on the council to really have a say in how to shape those conversations. But just clarification there on the waterfront. On the question regarding money that goes towards removing and remediating encampment locations - I mean, that's an ongoing - that maybe is the subject of further questions, actually, in the interview, but I don't think it's necessarily a situation where we're in a position to completely get rid of the money that we've set aside for the Unified Care Team - with the current state of how the rest of our contract with the regional authority is set up, we do need the ability in case of emergencies or obstructions or other exigent problems to be able to remediate an encampment location. But I think that we should be doing it with compassion and discretion and not - yeah, and that our focus needs to stay on having a Housing First approach to resolving the crisis of homelessness that we're facing. [00:17:05] Crystal Fincher: How do you think that compassion and discretion has been going so far? Has the City met that mark, or is there room for improvement? [00:17:14] Andrew Lewis: I think there's always room for improvement and I think that all of us admit that that's the case. We - for the first time, we're tracking why people might decline offers of shelter. In the Durkan administration, we never did that. It's something that's been a long council priority to like, if someone declined shelter, we should ask them why. In the Durkan administration, there was no interest - there was just sort of a philosophy of like, Well, no, if they say no, then why would we ask them? And it's like - well, if you want to increase the rate of people accepting offers, you should be asking people. And under the Harrell administration, we have started asking. And the Harrell administration has been very responsive to feedback in updating and changing a lot of our outreach practices that, in the Durkan administration, we weren't getting any traction as a council in that kind of responsiveness. And what we've learned through that process is the dominant shelter preference are tiny house villages. And if you have more tiny house villages, you're gonna significantly reduce the amount of encampments in the city. There has been a 42% decrease in encampments over the course of the past year or so, through our work with the Unified Care Team. And that reflects a reduction in the amount of displacement, because there is an emphasis on increasing the amount of shelter placements from the outreach that we do to encampments. We have increased the amount of enhanced shelter in tiny house villages, though not as much as I would like to see. So I think the focus needs to be on continuing to scale up those enhanced shelter options that - we do have a consensus from the Harrell administration on wanting to do. The historic challenge has been resistance from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to tiny house villages, but I think the new leadership team there has a different view of the utility of them. So my hope is that we can continue down that path in centering things that work. The best model that we've done in recent years is the JustCARE model, which used a hoteling-supported placement system. But we can do the same work with tiny house villages, and that might be more attainable than leasing or acquiring additional hotels in the current climate. So that's what we need to continue to work on - in my estimation. If you want fewer encampments and you want to provide people with a place to go, I think it all really comes down to having more tiny homes. [00:20:06] Crystal Fincher: And I think it's fair to say you've been the council's leading proponent of tiny homes during your time serving. I do wanna talk about the upcoming anticipated revenue shortfall in the City of Seattle. It's projected to have a revenue shortfall of several million dollars beginning in 2025. Because the City's mandated to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the upcoming deficit are either to raise revenue or to cut services. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its constituents? [00:20:44] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, it's estimated to be around - $200 million is the deficit that we're anticipating for the next biennium. So we have the entire year of 2024 to plan around a variety of different strategies to mitigate the impact of that looming deficit. I think that there's a couple of things that can be brought to bear. Obviously, there's some revenue options that were queued up by a recent task force that was convened by Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Mosqueda. It's not likely that any of those revenue sources in and of themselves would be enough to completely close the gap. So there would have to be - if there is a strategy pursued to pursue new revenue, there would have to also be some level of efficiencies and reforms that are found. I think that there is some utility in having the City really take a hard and fast look at some of the things that we do and figuring out if we can do them better. I think there's a broad consensus, for example, that things like design review are tedious, subjective, not really helping to advance a lot of our current policy challenges around getting things built in the city. All of these processes come with associated costs. I think that there are ways to look at the 45 offices and departments that we have at the city and look for some opportunities for consolidations of certain roles. I think there's a credible argument to be made that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, the Office of Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, the Department of Neighborhoods could theoretically all be merged into one department and there's probably economy of scale savings that we could realize from those kinds of efficiencies and consolidations. So I think that we need to think creatively in looking at all of the different options to get there. I don't think we can take revenue off the table and we can't take looking at some ways to more efficiently and effectively deliver existing services. Or get out of certain lines of business entirely - like I just indicated, design review, but there's other things in the permitting and land use world that we could probably streamline as part of the Comprehensive Plan. And I think there's a lot of interest in those kinds of actions - to have a more, to be able to build housing quicker, to be able to build things faster, and to reduce the associated costs with the process that slows a lot of that housing construction down. [00:23:39] Crystal Fincher: I think everybody would welcome streamlining of that process, and I've also seen indications that there is broad interest in doing that. So we talked about the streamlining - are you considering any progressive revenue options? [00:23:54] Andrew Lewis: Well, yeah - I mean, look, I co-sponsored the JumpStart Tax - gosh, like three years ago now, I guess, is when we did that. It seems more recent. So I'm not averse to new progressive revenue. I have proposed in the past a capital gains tax, which is one of the things that was recommended in the report. But I wanna take a good hard look first at ways that we can really show our work in 2024 - trying to figure out how we can really make the case that there's ways to find some additional ways to save money in the deficit before we are rolling out and committing to new revenue. People forget - partly 'cause I think there's a lot of people that don't wanna give the council credit for things - but people forget that in the last biennium, we found $60 million worth of savings that we rolled into the budget. So it's not like we aren't able to go through this work and find ways that we can save money. I mean, the county has been doing similar budgeting practices by necessity for over a decade because they have to. I mean, the county's in a position where they have the same budget pressures that we're facing - they can't raise progressive revenue, so they have found ways to be more efficient and effective. And I don't think that we at the City face the same pressures, but I think that there's a lot of ability to realize similar efficiencies. Also because we have dynamic and new needs - the Social Housing Initiative is a dynamic and new need - that's not something that we've had before that we've had to figure out how to resource. So finding ways to redistribute and reallocate funding from other parts of the budget, I think, is something that should be a focus of our work in 2024. [00:26:02] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - which is an important milestone to hitting the 2040, 2050 climate goals - as we are experiencing the impacts of climate change right now, many of which are devastating from extreme heat and cold, to wildfires and floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:26:31] Andrew Lewis: So in my first term - really proud of prime sponsoring legislation mandating that new commercial construction needs to essentially be non-emitting. Like you can't build a new commercial building in Seattle and heat it with natural gas - you have to get heat pumps. Councilmember Strauss sponsored a similar bill for residential construction doing the same thing. So that's new buildings. I want us to work on figuring out ways to adapt existing buildings, to convert to electric heat pumps instead of using natural gas. One of our biggest contributing factors in our climate accounting, our carbon accounting, is the heating of large buildings. And that's something that we can really take on, and I think that we - in the Comp Plan next year and through other sort of incentives and mandates - can get there to speed that transition up and have that part of the carbon accounting really go down. We need to continue to work on the biggest plurality of our climate challenge, which is our transportation system in the City of Seattle. I used to think it was as simple as the process of building out light rail - I don't think that anymore. I mean, obviously that's gonna be essential and having that grade-separated fixed rail transit is critical and we have to be completely committed to speeding it up, getting it done right, and delivering it. But other things like emphasizing 15-minute city planning in the Comp Plan and figuring out ways to follow the lead of other cities that have made a lot of stunning progress in the COVID era around the subsidy and expansion of e-bikes. I think that e-bikes have a lot of potential to be a significant component. I don't think they're a silver bullet for our transportation climate problems, but I think that they are like a leg of the stool. I think that e-bikes can be a significant way to make biking, as a transportation alternative, more accessible and getting more people to take on that kind of commuting habit to reduce their dependency on single occupancy vehicles. That means we need to - in the Move Seattle levy and just through other budget priorities, through our transportation budgets - really make sure that protected and safe bike infrastructure is something that we're really investing in. So that people feel like they're - not just that it is a comfortable and convenient alternative to use an e-bike, but that you know you can do it safely and in a way that you are going to feel and actually be protected by the infrastructure you use to get around the city. Really proud, in my first term, to have sponsored the first increase in a decade of the commercial parking tax, which is a tax on private commercial parking lots - to create the first-ever dedicated funding for Vision Zero infrastructure improvements. So building on that is something we really need to do to meet our climate goals. I'm proud to be the only candidate in this race in the primary who mentioned climate change in my voter guide statement. I think - in 2023, it's kind of stunning that you can have six candidates running in the Seattle City Council race and only one of the six even mentions climate change as something that we need to be doing. But here we are. So that'll continue to be a priority. Last thing I'll throw out there - really proud of the work I did with 350 Seattle and a coalition of environmental organizations to make significant investments in our community centers, through the renewal of the Metropolitan Park District, to be heating and cooling centers in extreme weather events and also to decarbonize those community centers as part of the process. This is all - it needs to be everything - we need to be mitigating, we need to be investing in climate resiliency, and we need to be aggressively working to reduce our overall climate footprint. And we can really be the city that I think leads the country in being an urban example of how you can be part of the solution on climate. [00:31:09] Crystal Fincher: Now, I just want to give my full-throated support to the e-bike subsidy and to helping to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure. It's so important, and especially e-bikes - showing that more than even regular bikes - to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and as you put it, certainly a leg of the stool that's going to meaningfully address carbon emissions and pollution in our city. I want to talk about public safety and particularly alternative response. Other jurisdictions - not just around the country, but in our own region and county - have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises, experiencing homelessness, a variety of issues that may not be best addressed by a police officer in an armed capacity. Which used to be a pretty common - and in some places still is - commonly talked about by even law enforcement officers, that they cannot address and solve everything. But it seems like Seattle has been falling behind on alternative response, behavioral health responses. Where do you stand on those solutions, and what are your thoughts on the civilian-led versus co-response models? And how do we move forward quickly to help improve public safety in the city? [00:32:32] Andrew Lewis: All right, well, I'm gonna give a long answer, 'cause I feel very strongly about this. And appreciate the question. And honestly, Crystal, I appreciate - as an avid listener to your podcast - the way that this topic is discussed extensively with the guests that you have on, because it is not in our broader media and I think this is one of the first parts of the problem. In our broader legacy media, this really isn't discussed as something that's important. You know, like there's only passing reference to it in the editorializing from The Times, definitely none of our local TV news discuss it. And I'll just plant that as a flag - that I think that that is part of the reason it's been hard to get momentum for it - is it is not given much bandwidth, time, respect, or analysis by a lot of legacy media voices, and that diminishes the momentum for it. But just to maybe go way back - I think I got ahead of myself on that part - there's lots of great models nationally for how you can send alternative civilian responses for public health-based calls for service. Eugene, Oregon has a longstanding program called CAHOOTS, Crisis Assistance Helping Out in the Streets. That program's been in operation for 30 years - sends mental health clinicians without the assistance of police to respond to calls for crisis in the community. And they've never had any serious injury or death associated for their staff of responding to those calls. Denver, which is probably a more analogous city - for our purposes as a major city - has a program called STAR, Support Team Assisted Response. Almost exactly the same as Eugene's CAHOOTS program - mental health clinicians and EMTs, civilians, provider-based. They've had no significant challenge, and a Stanford study actually recently saw that there's been an attributable, nearly one-third decrease in street disorder in the place where they've been in operation - which is incredibly impressive - and they've only been in operation for three years. Albuquerque has a similar program. So we really are a late adopter to this work. I will say that the council in June of 2020 really put down - a stake in the ground for having this kind of a service as a really, really big priority. I was a big leader in that, former Councilmember Lorena González was a big advocate of that, my colleague Councilmember Herbold has been a huge, steadfast advocate of this kind of service. And for whatever reason, and I don't really - people can speculate, but I never really got a good reason why - it was not a huge priority for the Durkan administration. And the Durkan administration just really was not interested in lending capacity, bandwidth, or support to developing this kind of a program. And we lost a lot of time as a result of that - to be quite candid. The Harrell administration coming in - and I'm gonna say this - I think the Harrell administration on this issue has been great. We have lots of impediments in the City of Seattle and Washington State, mostly related to the fact that arguably this work needs to be bargained. And I don't wanna get into the bargaining too much, but that's been a big impediment. But the Harrell administration has worked in good faith with Councilmember Herbold and I to develop this work along - and admittedly it's complicated work, and it's taken a lot longer than any of us would like it to. But the Harrell administration has gotten us to a point where we're gonna have a pilot in October. And I give immense credit to them for making this a priority in the first year and a half of their administration. And this dual dispatch pilot that's gonna be hitting the road in October is gonna bear a lot of similarity - in practice, I think - to a similar dual dispatch program in the City of Kirkland, which is called RCR, Regional Crisis Response. Actually, if the podcast is looking for a great guest to talk to about that - highly recommend Councilmember Neal Black, who's the one in Kirkland who turned me on to the fact that they have that service. I was not aware of it - did a ride-along with it- [00:37:22] Crystal Fincher: We actually did a show on that. [00:37:24] Andrew Lewis: With Neal? [00:37:25] Crystal Fincher: Not with Neal - with Mayor Herbig and the executive director of the RCR program. [00:37:30] Andrew Lewis: Oh, that's right - no, you did. Sorry, sorry. Yes, of course - oh my God, sorry. Yes, I listened to that. Old friends with Nigel Herbig, so yeah - I was texting him about it when that launched a couple of months ago. Sorry, I totally spaced on that. [00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: How dare you not know every episode of Hacks & Wonks, Councilmember Lewis? [laughing] [00:37:48] Andrew Lewis: I know - scandal, scandalous. But in any event, I do think our dual dispatch will bear a lot of similarity to that program. And it sets a good foundation because the team - you know, it's a dual dispatch team. And just really quickly, 'cause there's a lot of confusion in community about this. A co-responder system is where you have like a mental health clinician and a police officer in the same unit, the same vehicle, and they respond at the same time in the same vehicle. A dual dispatch program is where the units are separate - like you have a mental health clinician, EMT, in one vehicle and you have police in another. And both of them are dispatched at the same time, but they can sort of work together and like screen off in the field as necessary based on the needs of the call. And in practice, my understanding is that leads, in lots of cases, to the officer, you know, clearing the call and moving on to something only they can do - in the overwhelming majority of situations where the mental health clinician is able to take on the call on their own. So dual dispatch has the potential to continue to evolve into something that is a fully independent 911 response like CAHOOTS and STAR - because with the right training and doctrine, that fully independent unit can have incrementally, you know, more responsibility and more autonomy as we implement the program. So, you know, it's been a while, but I appreciate the Harrell administration's prioritization of this. I appreciate that we're building the program out in the new 911 Communication Center Department, and that we have a new civilian director who's very, very committed to this work - and, you know, I look forward to this pilot being the first step. But in these cities - like in Denver and Albuquerque, those pilots grew very, very quickly into big, mature systems. So my hope is that we can have a similar experience here - we're just getting that service. The best advertising for the service, Crystal, is gonna be getting it out there so people can interact with it, people - and people tangibly know. Like one of the pushbacks I get a lot as an advocate for alternative 911 response is that people don't really have a great conception of like what that means, and they're sort of vulnerable to counterarguments about like - you know, people are gonna kill the alternative responders, or like things that just aren't problems in these other jurisdictions. And I think by getting it out there, it'll make it easier for advocates - like myself, like Councilmember Herbold - to be able to say, Look, this is what we're talking about, we need more of this. And I think that once it's out there, I think that it's gonna catch a lot more attention and public support. [00:40:38] Crystal Fincher: Well, I certainly hope so - and there have been, I believe, some fits and starts in Seattle previously, whether it's the JustCARE model or others - but sincerely hope that we can get meaningful alternative response, comprehensive response up and running here in the City of Seattle. And thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today about your candidacy and your time during your first term - much appreciated. [00:41:04] Andrew Lewis: Thank you so much. [00:41:05] Crystal Fincher: 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 Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Pete Hanning about his campaign for Seattle City Council District 6. Listen and learn more about Pete and his thoughts on: [01:05] - Why he is running [01:49] - Lightning round! [09:15] - What is an accomplishment of his that impacts District 6 [10:54] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [14:39] - Public Safety: Alternative response [18:43] - Victim support [23:20] - Public Safety: Police accountability [25:52] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [27:15] - Climate change [29:42] - Bike and pedestrian safety [31:24] - Transit reliability [32:49] - Addressing public drug use [38:30] - Small business support [40:47] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [43:22] - Difference between him and opponent 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 Pete Hanning at @pmhanning.   Pete Hanning As a lifelong Seattle resident, this city has helped shape who I am.  For the last 35 years, I have been a leader in the nightlife/hospitality industry. I owned the Red Door in Fremont for twenty years. My experience as a small business owner has honed my ability to solve problems and provide service to others. I've been civically engaged throughout my career, with a focus on improving public safety and supporting small businesses. I've served on many boards, including the Fremont Neighborhood Council, the North Precinct Advisory Council, the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, the Seattle Restaurant Alliance, and the Washington Restaurant/Hospitality Association. I helped form the Seattle Restaurant Alliance and the Seattle Nightlife & Music Association.  I am currently Executive Director for the Fremont Chamber of Commerce. I believe the small businesses increase the quality of life of our community and form a key part of the fabric of our shared neighborhoods. I will always champion these small businesses and businesses throughout Seattle.  We are in a pivotal time as a city and I am running because we need a more pragmatic, problem-solving approach to shape our shared future. I live in Fremont with my wife and two cats.   Resources Campaign Website - Pete Hanning   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, today I am pleased to be joined by a candidate for Seattle City Council District 6, Pete Hanning. Welcome, Pete. [00:01:01] Pete Hanning: Thank you very much for having me - I'm happy to be here. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So starting out, why did you decide to run? [00:01:10] Pete Hanning: Well, I've been in Seattle now 52 of my 54 years, and I have loved my community for that entire time - and I find the most amount of satisfaction when I am of service to my community. I have always found that my community has given back even more when I am fully engaged. I come out of 35 years in the hospitality industry, so being of service comes naturally in that way. And then currently I'm the executive director of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, so I am helping our small businesses in that community on a daily basis. [00:01:48] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. Well, this year we are doing our candidate interviews a little bit different and including a lightning round. So there are some quick yes or no, or quick answer questions here before we get back to our regular type of questions. So starting out - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:02:10] Pete Hanning: I did. [00:02:11] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy? [00:02:15] Pete Hanning: I did. [00:02:15] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:02:20] Pete Hanning: I did. [00:02:21] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:02:26] Pete Hanning: I voted for and supported Bruce Harrell. [00:02:28] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:02:35] Pete Hanning: Well, I have a long relationship with Pete Holmes, so I was supportive of Pete Holmes. But he didn't make it into the general and I endorsed Ann - or I supported and voted for Ann Davison. [00:02:47] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:02:54] Pete Hanning: I voted for Leesa Manion. [00:02:56] Crystal Fincher: And in 2022, did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:03:03] Pete Hanning: My smile does not mean that - who I voted for. I voted for Patty Murray. [00:03:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:03:10] Pete Hanning: I have owned the home we live in since 2003. [00:03:14] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:03:17] Pete Hanning: Yes, my family - my mom lives in and rents property along Westlake - commercial property. [00:03:25] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:03:35] Pete Hanning: Maybe. [00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Are there instances where you support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:03:40] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:03:41] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:03:47] Pete Hanning: Maybe. [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:03:54] Pete Hanning: No. [00:03:55] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:03:59] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:04:00] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:03] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:04:04] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:10] Pete Hanning: Yes, I like the co-responder program - I believe that we would need, in a lot of instances, law enforcement in second position. [00:04:22] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:04:27] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:04:28] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:04:36] Pete Hanning: No. [00:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:04:46] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:04:47] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:04:54] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:05:01] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:05:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG, or Seattle Police Officers Guild, contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:05:14] Pete Hanning: I'd have to see exactly what the contract looks like, but I am concerned that we are trying to fight a no-sums game where we need to have some compromise. And I think we have a priority to get that contract signed soon. [00:05:29] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:05:39] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:05:40] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:05:52] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:05:53] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:06:00] Pete Hanning: In certain situations, yes. [00:06:01] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:06:11] Pete Hanning: I'm running for city council, not school board. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: But in your capacity as a city councilmember, would - if a vote came to it - vote to support? [00:06:21] Pete Hanning: I would think so, but I would have to read it - exactly how it is written. [00:06:27] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:06:32] Pete Hanning: 100%. [00:06:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:06:39] Pete Hanning: No. [00:06:40] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:06:45] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:06:46] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:06:49] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:06:58] Pete Hanning: I think they're a good step, and I don't think it's only for economic reasons why they should be implemented. I think there are societal reasons and cultural reasons why they're really important. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:07:12] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:15] Pete Hanning: Oh, yes. [00:07:16] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:20] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:30] Pete Hanning: It depends on what those measures are taken - to speed it up. I mean, District 6 is the only district currently that doesn't have a light rail station within the city, so we are woefully behind all the other districts. So I would definitely love to see it happen, but we don't - at what cost? [00:07:52] Crystal Fincher: Well, District 1 is probably in the same boat as you are there also. [00:07:57] Pete Hanning: Well, District 1 does - just to - because with the new district, they get all those SODO stations. [00:08:02] Crystal Fincher: Oh, redistricted - they did, they did. You are correct. [00:08:06] Pete Hanning: I know that. I'm a nerd about that kind of stuff. [00:08:11] Crystal Fincher: A wonk on Hacks & Wonks. Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:08:20] Pete Hanning: Yes. [00:08:21] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:08:23] Pete Hanning: No. [00:08:24] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:32] Pete Hanning: Perhaps. [00:08:33] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked a picket line? [00:08:37] Pete Hanning: No, but I've also not crossed picket lines on purpose. [00:08:41] Crystal Fincher: Well, that was the next question, if you've ever crossed a picket line. [00:08:44] Pete Hanning: No. [00:08:44] Crystal Fincher: So that is a no. Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:08:50] Pete Hanning: Currently, I have no staff. I have some consultants and some groups that I'm working with, but - so the answer would be no. [00:08:59] Crystal Fincher: If you did have staff and they wanted to unionize - or in any future endeavors you have - would you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:09:07] Pete Hanning: Oh, for sure. Everyone has the right to collectively bargain. [00:09:11] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the end of the lightning round. Hopefully pretty painless there. [00:09:15] Pete Hanning: For sure. [00:09:15] Crystal Fincher: Well, lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district and what impact it has had on the residents there? [00:09:30] Pete Hanning: Well, I can share with you one of the things that I was instrumental in having formed was the Seattle Restaurant Alliance. Back when I was running The Red Door, we had a wayward chapter of the Washington State Hospitality Association's Seattle chapter - sparsely attended. And so myself and a few other restaurateurs decided to really take a look at ways we could create a more active and vibrant group that represented the hospitality sector. One of the things I was really clear on and fought for - and I'm glad to say that we have - is you do not need to be a paying member of the state association to vote and participate in the Seattle Restaurant Alliance. And so that really encouraged those smaller businesses, that might not have seen themselves in the state umbrella, really have a voice and have an opportunity. And out of that, when we were in the COVID times and we started looking at ways to help protect these small businesses, the Seattle Restaurant Alliance was the major organization that was able to help advocate for the hospitality sector in our community. [00:10:53] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now I wanna talk about the City's budget situation. The City of Seattle is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025, meaning that preparations and plans need to start now. Because the City is mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address this deficit are either raise revenue, cut services, or some combination of that. Which one will be your approach to addressing this budget shortfall as a city councilmember? [00:11:26] Pete Hanning: Most likely Option C, the combination of the two. With a real first - first and foremost, you have to make sure that the resources that you currently have and are using are being spent wisely, and that they - we're getting the amount of services from each dollar as much as we can. And then we have to look at, if we're not able to meet our obligations, then where funding will come from, extra funding will come from. But first and foremost, before we ask for extra money, we have to make sure that the money that we currently are bringing in is spent right - and it's in the right departments, and we're using it to the best of our abilities. And we also, as a municipality, I know we have some very wealthy people in our city, but we have a lot of people who are on fixed incomes or on the lower margins. And so the way our tax structure is in this state, it's very regressive. So I'm very concerned that, as much as we try to be targeted, we really don't have those tools. And I don't think those tools are best used at the municipal level. I really do feel like true fundamental change around our tax structure should happen at the state level. [00:12:43] Crystal Fincher: I agree that we do need fundamental change at the state level, but if that doesn't happen and no guarantees that that happens, what would you advocate for at the city level? [00:12:57] Pete Hanning: Well, I'm really concerned that we continue try to create these false walls around our city around tax structure, where most of the businesses that operate in our city also operate in other local jurisdictions, neighboring cities. And so we create this complexity of varying rates and varying taxes. We also incentivize businesses to leave Seattle in that way. And so I'm not sure that that would be my first approach - is to raise taxes. It would be a last measure. [00:13:37] Crystal Fincher: So in that case, what would you prioritize cutting? [00:13:42] Pete Hanning: I think we have to take a look at the amount of employees that we are currently staffed - in all the departments in our city. And that is a really difficult conversation to have - I recognize that. I do not say that cavalierly or with any malice. First and foremost, our City employees are our greatest resource and we should invest in them. And we should make sure that they are paid a very good wage in which they can live and thrive in this city. But there is also the reality of the amount of resources in which we can extract from our local citizens. And when I'm knocking on doors, I am hearing - a lot of people feel very concerned about A) the amount that they're paying, and B) that they don't see a real actual tangible return. [00:14:38] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Well, I do wanna talk about public safety, particularly starting with alternative response. And while other jurisdictions around the country and in our own region have rolled out alternative response programs - and the Seattle City Council has funded alternative response - Seattle is stalled in the implementation, in what is a widely-supported idea by voters in the city. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian led versus co-response models? [00:15:08] Pete Hanning: I prefer co-response models. I think it's really important that all the agencies are there at the same time - and so that they are getting the same information, so that people are not trying to say one thing to one group and another to another. And I understand that we do not want to have, nor do the police wanna be in first position on a lot of the responses that we get calls for in our city. But for the safety of everyone, having law enforcement in that second position is a good idea for most situations. I do outreach along the Leary corridor here with the Salvation Army and their street-level program - they don't go out without a King County Sheriff - and that's for good reason, it's for the safety of everyone. And so I feel really strongly that we have created this situation where we are saying that the police aren't part of the solution. They don't want more responsibility, they wanna be able to have clear understanding of what their role is in that, but they are part of the solution. [00:16:24] Crystal Fincher: So for other jurisdictions that are similar, like Denver or Austin, who have implemented alternative response programs without a co-responding police officer, are you saying that you don't think that type of model would work here? [00:16:41] Pete Hanning: It may work here, but I think that we would be better off going with the co-responder response. I think we should put our priorities there. [00:16:51] Crystal Fincher: In the situation that SPD is in now, where they're saying that they're having challenges deploying the appropriate amount of police because they say they have a budget shortfall - or a staffing shortfall- [00:17:02] Pete Hanning: It's a staffing shortfall, and which they do. [00:17:04] Crystal Fincher: Correct. And so in that situation, do we still have the staff to deploy to all of that? Would you look at redeploying in any other way, or just maintaining the current status quo? [00:17:15] Pete Hanning: Well, I think that gets back to your question earlier in the lightning round of - are there some roles in which sworn officers that we might see not participate in all the calls? And I do think that we need to have a hard look at what are the main priorities in which we want our police officers to be engaged in. So when I talk about doing outreach to our unhoused neighbors - the situation in our city - those folks need all of our help and all of our kindness. In most encampments, though, there is one or two tents or RVs in which there are people perpetrating crimes upon our unhoused neighbors - specifically in the sale of fentanyl, which is a poison. And we have to be really honest with ourselves. And we need to make sure that we have law enforcement there so that when we see that kind of sale of that poison within our communities, that we put a stop to it - because we have too many people dying on our streets because of it. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Now we will talk about housing and homelessness in just a little bit, but are you viewing homelessness as a public safety issue? [00:18:31] Pete Hanning: Public safety plays in the homelessness crisis for sure. And the unhoused are, by far, our greatest victims. [00:18:43] Crystal Fincher: I do wanna talk about victims, actually. And there's a lot of speaking being done - people say they're speaking on behalf of victims, a lot of victims claim they're being spoken over. But what victims are saying and what data show is that victims overwhelmingly want two things. One, they wanna make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to them again or to anyone else. And they also want better support through and beyond what happened. What can we do to better support victims of crime, or people who have been harmed? [00:19:18] Pete Hanning: We're in a community crisis. And by that, I mean, people are really struggling in finding healthy places in community. And especially those folks who are struggling with mental health or addiction - we have to do more to give them on-roads back into healthy community. And that starts with each one of our individual efforts. When I do outreach, I make sure that people know that I see them. That does not mean that they also don't recognize - and I let them know that I care about them, I see them, here are some resources - and I'm advocating for them to be moved from their current location because it is affecting that business that they are right out in front of. And it is not appropriate for them to be there. I'm honest. And I want people to really know that we have to have an honest conversation about what it means to be in a healthy community. [00:20:26] Crystal Fincher: Well, I guess what I'm really trying to say - if they're, I think you were talking about some, you know, moving people or sweeping people away from where they're at if they're homeless, but I'm more focused on people who have been victims of crime and who have been harmed. The people who we talk about - if someone has had their car broken into, their business broken into, or has been assaulted, or stolen from - yes. [00:20:49] Pete Hanning: Hear gunshots - yeah. [00:20:50] Crystal Fincher: What can you do to better support people who have been through that? [00:20:56] Pete Hanning: Time again, one of the things I'm hearing from the residents who I'm talking with while I'm on the campaign is they want some kind of police presence in the form of what is formerly referred to as beat cops, right - patrol officers in their community. Now, I know enough about policing, that beat cops - they do not reduce the amount of crime in our communities. They don't - we know the statistics, if we go off data. But like - policing is like every other job in America - there is both a tangible science to it and there is an art to it. The CPT program, which we did away with - the Community Police Team Officers - which is kind of a beat cop, if you will. It's officers who are embedded in a community who aren't in a patrol car, who are able to respond the day-after to events, is what we do find is - those communities, their sense of safety increases greatly by that presence of those kind of programs, right? And so, yes, it doesn't show up in the data, but it does show up in our sense of safety. And so, I really think - and that's why earlier when you asked about police officers in our schools - we have to build back a relationship where children don't feel afraid to have police officers in their communities, where they can build that dialogue. Now, how that's done and to make sure that those police officers are reflective of their community and understanding the community that they're serving - for sure, we need to always be on there. But what I'm concerned is, is we are creating these false barriers that actually widen that distance, sever our ability to be in community, to accept all of us in this bigger thing - to really widen the table, to make room at the table, does not mean to remove the law enforcement officers. It just means making more space for others also at that space. So, that's where I think people are really wanting - they're wanting more responsiveness. [00:23:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I - just following on to that, you were talking about wanting community police officers and to bring back that program. Is it wise to bring that back without more accountability work done? Or is there a role for accountability, additional measures? Do you plan to pursue any additional accountability or reconciliation measures on behalf of the police? [00:23:42] Pete Hanning: For sure. But in order to have that conversation, we have to rebuild the relationship with the law enforcement agencies and the police department so that they know that they are seen, that they're valued. And so that it starts with trust. And then you have those difficult conversations. And without that, you really just get everyone crouched, like we currently are, in these really polarized positions. And it's not giving - the community as a whole is frustrated because they're not getting any of the benefits. [00:24:22] Crystal Fincher: Well, based on some of the recent votes, it looks like the community is frustrated at some of the slow pace of some of the accountability measures that have been promised, but haven't come to fruition. Are there any specific policies that you plan to advocate for in the area of accountability? [00:24:38] Pete Hanning: What votes are you speaking towards? [00:24:40] Crystal Fincher: Like the King County public safety vote, where they reorganized the Sheriff's department, implemented public safety reforms on a county-wide vote - that passed, obviously passed county-wide, but certainly in the City of Seattle. Looking at reforms that passed in that, do you have any specific policies that you would advocate for on the city level when it comes to accountability and good governance for the police department? [00:25:09] Pete Hanning: So years ago, I did public testimony at the city council around then that turn's contract, which is now expired. I believe our police officers should be tested for drugs if there is a use of force, because I am fully aware that drug use in society as a whole is a certain percentage. And it would be naive for us to think that our law enforcement aren't also struggling with some of those issues. And we should know when our officers are struggling with signs of addiction and illegal use of drugs. [00:25:52] Crystal Fincher: Now I do wanna talk about homelessness, particularly one thing called out by experts nationally - by people who have been involved in the local response, both in the city and the county level - is that frontline worker wages do not cover the cost of living in Seattle. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for Seattle? And how can that be made more likely with how the City bids for and contracts for services? [00:26:22] Pete Hanning: Yes, everyone deserves a living wage. When we have so many different agencies and nonprofits all dealing in the same space, there is some inherent duplication of certain positions and inefficiencies that I think we have to be honest about. And just because a nonprofit has been doing yeoman's work for decades in our community does not mean that it's necessarily the right nonprofit, moving forward, to be spearheading that work. And so I think we do need to make sure that we are also maximizing and being efficient with how we spend our resources so that we get the best outcome possible. And so those employees actually are getting as much resources of it as they can. [00:27:15] Crystal Fincher: I also wanna talk about climate change. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while we're experiencing devastating impacts ranging from extreme heat and cold, wildfires with smoke, floods, and so on - we are experiencing impacts now. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet those 2030 goals? [00:27:40] Pete Hanning: Climate change - boy, it's a loaded question. My wife has a master's in environmental science - used to do environmental work for decades - so she is the expert in our household for sure. It starts with our own lifestyle choices that we make each and every day. And early on in my adult life, I became clear on a couple of things that I knew that I did and didn't wanna do. I chose not to have any children - first and foremost, a very big reduction in use of resources in our community. My wife and I have one car, and I bike to most of the places that I go to or use transit. We live next to a community garden and then we have 16 raised beds in our own yard and grow hundreds of pounds of produce every year and put it down. I choose and try to only eat animal protein one meal a day because I know both for my own internal personal life, it's better, but also for the environment as a whole. So those are all personal things that we can do. And then we can share that and encourage others to do it. But at the city level, we have to continue to look at ways to encourage people to carpool, to use transit, to walk, to bike. Then we also have to make sure that our freight is done at the most efficient way possible, but also to protect and to incentivize the movement of goods, just like we do transit. Because those - not only is it important to move those goods about and those services about, but those are jobs - and we forget about that. I'm a big proponent of our freight community, because it really does represent the backbone of what Seattle is. [00:29:42] Crystal Fincher: Well, one area that is preventing people from biking and walking is the issue of safety. We're basically having a crisis with the amount of pedestrian and bike deaths in the city of Seattle reaching an all-time high. How would you improve pedestrian and bicycle safety? [00:30:02] Pete Hanning: I would love to see every community have pedestrian boulevards or areas in which they were activated - if not 24/7, on major times - so that we were putting different kinds of activities on our streetways and not just car activity. One way, though, is we also have to do a better piece about educating people. So in the Fremont community, in which I live and work, we're a very big tech corridor. And the amount of people that I see glued to their personal device, not looking up - there is an awareness that has to happen. There's also, there's some stuff that we really just at the city level, we're not gonna be able to affect, but the scale and size of some of the personal vehicles that are being purchased these days and built is really alarming. And so sight lines and just certain safety features just are not put first and foremost. You know, I also - I'm very fortunate - my community has a lot of great bike access to it, and so, and bus routes, but we need to continue to incentivize that behavior. [00:31:24] Crystal Fincher: Now there are definitely mixed opinions on whether we're appropriately incentivizing and protecting transit. But one thing that's absolutely happening is that transit reliability is falling through the floor right now, with - staffing shortages are being cited and various other things. Now, granted Sound Transit is a regional entity, King County Metro is a county entity, but the City does provide for transit service and supplementing that. In your role as a city councilmember, what can you do to help stabilize transit reliability? [00:32:02] Pete Hanning: We need to make sure that riding the bus, and waiting for the bus, and getting off the bus feel safe - first and foremost. It's the number one thing I hear why people aren't going back to the buses. Reliability might be second, but safety is always the first thing I hear. And so really it is making sure that folks can feel safe - to and from, and on our transit system. [00:32:30] Crystal Fincher: How can you make them feel safer? [00:32:32] Pete Hanning: Well, we can pass - we can get in line with the state's law around public use. And we can be a lot more clear on what is expected and accepted in our communities around consumption and the sale of drugs. [00:32:49] Crystal Fincher: Now it is illegal to use drugs in public spaces in Seattle, so in what way- [00:32:56] Pete Hanning: But it's - it's illegal in name and, you know, I mean - most people won't see this, but you and I are on video and you smiled when you said that, recognizing there's a wink and a nudge there, there's a fallacy to it, right? We can go to 12th and Jackson, you can go down along the Leary corridor, you can be along Third Avenue that's being called Fentanyl Way now. I mean, like - I am not trying to mischaracterize other drugs - fentanyl is a poison though. What it is doing to our community is truly a poison that we need to meet head on and directly because all these other issues aren't gonna be solved unless we really do better with that. [00:33:48] Crystal Fincher: And I should just state for the record, my smile or grin was not in reference to that drug there, but so am I hearing - when you say we need to get in line with that, what does that mean or look like? Does it mean that you think that people need to be arrested and that jail is the appropriate response? [00:34:05] Pete Hanning: Oh my god - we need to increase all of the tools in our toolbox and jail should be, and we hope, the last response. But there are those in our community who do need some time to calm themselves and to settle out and to sober up. I don't know if you've done any outreach to these folks who are in the thralls of this poison, but it is really hard to reach them. It is unlike any other drug. And I sold alcohol for over 30 years - I have a long experience of talking to people who are inebriated in one capacity or another, and this is different. And we see it - we see it on our buses, we see it in our bus stops, we see it in our streets, we see it in the front of our businesses, we see the businesses being shoplifted from - I mean, I wish it weren't the case, but it is. [00:35:09] Crystal Fincher: I have done a lot of outreach and worked on this particular issue quite a bit. One thing that data overwhelmingly shows, but also that the majority of people who have been referred to, sought out, forced into incarceration or treatment say is that jail is more destabilizing than stabilizing, and that having better resources - or any available resources in some situations - for substance use disorder treatment is the most appropriate intervention. Do you agree with that, or do you think jail is effective? [00:35:42] Pete Hanning: Oh, I totally agree with that - I would love if we had enough resource. Jail is a poor substitute for those other options. Sometimes it's the only option we have, unfortunately, right now. And the community at-large also is a victim in this, and we have a responsibility to everyone in this. [00:36:09] Crystal Fincher: How do you address the revolving door issue there? Because even if you were to throw the book at them for what the law says, they're back on the street, not that long after. How would you address that? [00:36:22] Pete Hanning: Well, I mean, the way I address all these situations is with compassion and honesty. And, you know, look - today is my 26th month of being sober, personally. And, you know, my journey is my own personal journey to it, but oh my gosh, am I so thankful of my sobriety - because the way I recreationally used for 30-plus years, there's no doubt in my mind that fentanyl would have made it into some substance in which I would have used, right? And that's really scary. And I have the utmost compassion and understanding that it takes numerous attempts for lots of us. It's like the tide - it rolls up the beach, it rolls back. Hopefully the tide - the next time it rolls a little farther up the beach, and at a certain point, you get to that beachhead and you've passed that tide line. And now you're back on stable land, right? And we have to, and there are many ways in which people find their road back. Your path is not my path. I do not wanna limit the amount of opportunities, nor say that anyone isn't able to really make change in their life for the better - for sure they are. But there are also people, Crystal, who have said they didn't get sober until they went to jail. And there is lots of family members who ache for their loved ones who are on the streets in crisis, just to even get into jail so that they know that they're at least somewhat safe - 'cause they're so fearful for their family members. And that's real. And that's not a great solution - maybe it's not a eloquent answer, but it's an honest one. [00:38:24] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. It certainly is something that we are going to have to do a better job contending with overall. I do wanna talk about our economy, and we have a very vibrant local business community. We do have some of the largest corporations in the world headquartered here and nearby, but we have a vibrant small business community, including in your district. What are the top issues facing small businesses here in your district, and what can you do to better support them? [00:38:56] Pete Hanning: I might sound like a broken record, right? I mean, it's public safety. It's no different than what the residents I'm hearing from - you know, in my day job as executive director of the Fremont Chamber, or when I ran The Red Door, you know - if my team didn't feel safe coming to work, if my customers didn't feel safe walking into our door front, if my business was not protected so that the goods and services, so that I could provide them to my guests, like I wasn't able to be successful. And so first and foremost, that is what we have to provide to our small business and our local business economy and community. The other thing, and you and I both brought it up - it plays out in every sector is employment, right? Workforce development, encouraging those who are no longer in the workforce to get back in the workforce. And, you know, we see - you know, when I see folks on the street, on Leary Way, I also would - not only would I love for that human to find some happiness and some relief and be able to join a healthy community again, I'd love to have them back in our economy 'cause we need everyone to be carrying the water right now - whether it's healthcare workers, first responders, maritime community, bus drivers, as you brought up, at Metro, service industry, still even tech - tech is hiring still. It's just certain segments have - you know, they downsize, but not to a great extent. We need to help our businesses find good employees. [00:40:47] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now I wanna talk about a related issue really - and part of finding good employees, part of employees being available to work - is childcare. We can't have a conversation about employment or inflation without talking about childcare. It's the number two cost for a lot of families, behind their mortgage. The number one for some families who have multiple children. And we just received reporting - recently received reporting - that childcare is now more expensive than college on an annual basis. What can you do in your role as a city councilmember to bring relief to residents in your district, dealing with the high cost and low availability of childcare? [00:41:31] Pete Hanning: Yeah. You know, I know former Councilmember Burgess did all that great work around the preschool program - so making sure that's fully funded and that we have good access for it. And I'm glad you call it childcare because I always bristle at the term daycare - because a lot of childcare happens in the evenings and other time periods. I come from nightlife and hospitality. And although what kids should be doing in the evenings is usually, you know, winding down, doing homework, playing, and then going to bed - they still need appropriate and safe care while they're doing that, if their parents are working shifts in the different time slots. And so we do need to really take a look at that segment as a whole. Both it needs more people to join it - we need to make sure that it's a livable wage. And we need to shine a light of what a great career it is as well, right - and you are doing something so important for your community - taking care of our youngest and our oldest should be one of the most respected positions in our community. [00:42:46] Crystal Fincher: To your point, it is also one of the most underpaid. It's minimum wage in a lot of situations. What can be done to help on the workforce side and on just the wage side of that? [00:42:58] Pete Hanning: You know, I'm not sure that the City itself is the proper place to be the main arbiter of that. But I wanna make sure - you know, we do have our minimum wage standard for all jobs in our city. But above and beyond that, I wouldn't see that the City is - that that's their role. [00:43:22] Crystal Fincher: Well, and as we move this conversation to a close today, there's a number of people who are trying to make the decision between you and your opponent. What do you say to people when they're saying that they aren't sure who they're gonna vote for? [00:43:38] Pete Hanning: You know, well, I first encourage them to continue to read up and get the facts. That participation is the most important piece of it, right - if everyone is well-informed and the outcome is what the outcome is, that's a pretty good outcome, right, for our community. And so engagement is the first and most important piece. But I feel like I'm at a place - I know I'm in a place in my life - this is not a career position for me. You know, I'm in my mid-50s. I had a successful career in another industry. I really want to give back to my community and I have some strengths and some skills. I've been on a lot of boards. I've been in counsel, given counsel, taken counsel. I don't personalize things very much. I want to find really pragmatic solutions that we can all compromise on, because I do feel that that is the best way forward and we have some really difficult problems ahead of us - so I bring that experience. And I also bring this understanding of running a business for over 20 years and the importance to that - why those small businesses are important, and what you have to do to make sure that you stay within a budget, and that you can't be all things to all people. You really can't. That is an unfair thing to say. And so I, at least, don't - as today's interview is probably a good indication - I don't shy away from saying what I believe. [00:45:25] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for taking the time today to share who you are, what you do believe, and what your plans are should you be elected to the city council. Thank you so much, Pete Hanning. [00:45:36] Pete Hanning: Crystal, it was a pleasure - thank you very much for having me today. [00:45:39] Crystal Fincher: 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 Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with ChrisTiana ObeySumner about their campaign for Seattle City Council District 5. Listen and learn more about ChrisTiana and their thoughts on: [01:06] - Why they are running [04:49] - Lightning round! [12:20] - What is an accomplishment of theirs that impacts District 5 [16:09] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [21:48] - Public Safety: Alternative response [26:58] - Victim support [35:53] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [39:25] - Climate change [43:28] - Transit reliability [46:58] - Small business support [52:48] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [56:33] - Difference between them and opponent 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 ChrisTiana ObeySumner at @votechristiana.   ChrisTiana ObeySumner ChrisTiana ObeySumner is a Black, queer, non-binary, and multiply disabled person, community organizer and activist. They are CEO and principal consultant of Epiphanies of Equity LLC -- A social equity consulting firm that particularly specializes in social change, intersectionality, antiracism, and disability justice. For two decades, they've dedicated their life and career to amplifying the importance of social equity – defined as the lifelong work of deconstructing inequitable sociological impacts and products such as policies, institutions, cultures, biases, and constructs; and facilitating strategic and embodied pathways towards the construction of equitable processes, accountability structures, and outcomes.    Resources Campaign Website - ChrisTiana ObeySumner   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 to the program candidate for Seattle City Council District 5, ChrisTiana ObeySumner. Welcome! [00:01:02] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Thank you so much for having me - I'm so excited. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm excited to have you. And just starting off, I'm wondering what made you decide to run? [00:01:11] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I get asked this question a lot - you know, it's, the best way I can put it is this. I have been engaged in some sort of civic, politics, social equity since I was a small child. My grandmom was a Black Panther, my family was always very opened and talked a lot about what it meant to be - you know, if not you, who, if not now, when - sort of things. And especially growing up in a family who was chronically unhoused or homeless - a lot of folks who were disabled, a lot of folks who under-resourced - most of my family is in Camden, New Jersey, in Philadelphia area. And so, and for me being autistic as an 80s child, so the ADA did not really help as much. There was always sort of a need and a early exposure to what it meant to advocate, to speak up for yourself, to speak up for others, to really call out inequity when you see it, to get into good trouble. And that has really been the through line of my life and my life's work - I have done that as a youth leader, I've done that for Mad Pride - especially in Louisville, Kentucky. I've done that in terms of homeless and housing unstable youth, especially in colleges - I came here to Seattle in 2010 to go to Seattle University, where I became Commuter Student rep and Non-Traditional Student representative for those reasons. I've worked in direct social services at DESC, Compass Housing Alliance. I did my AmeriCorps at Full Life Care for Harborview. My first work-study job here was in the Office of City Clerk where I learned how to read policy. I started my business, Epiphanies of Equity, in 2018, right after the running for the transparency seat in 2017, where I came second to Kirsten Harris-Talley. And since then has worked with over 250 businesses, governments and organizations across the country - obviously concentrated here - where we have specifically been working for social equity, for policy advocacy, for disability justice. Essentially when humans are human-ing with other humans, we know that certain human things happen - how can we work towards a society where humans are working towards equity? And through all of this work - additional to the co-chair Disability Commission and Renters' Commission - I'm putting all of this resume out here to say, I have approached a lot of the work, especially since being here in Seattle, from a lot of different angles. And especially in the last few years, has really heightened where I've worked with a lot of folks in the city and beyond - this is the next natural step towards that work. And so when the incumbent or the previous councilmember, Councilmember Debora Juarez, announced that she was not going to run, I must've gotten - between Gluttonous Eating Holiday and the 1st of the year - got somewhere between a dozen and a half calls from folks who were just like - So, you heard, right? Open seat, you gonna run? And I really thought about it for a while 'cause I'm a wonk - of the Hacks & Wonks, I'm the wonk part of that - and I just really wanted to go to the policy piece and I decided, you know what, let's give it a shot. So here I am. [00:04:47] Crystal Fincher: And here you are. Well, at this point, we're gonna switch up this interview a little bit and add an additional element that we haven't added before - a lightning round. Just quick answer, yes or no, or quick answer questions to level set a little bit. And then we'll get back to our regularly scheduled full-length answers where we can wonk out about everything. So starting off - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:05:17] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy? [00:05:22] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:05:23] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:05:28] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. And Epiphanies of Equity was one of the folks who also tried to endorse it, as well as the JumpStart Tax. [00:05:37] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:05:44] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Lorena González. [00:05:45] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:05:51] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: NTK. [00:05:53] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:06:03] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I don't remember. I don't recall. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: Okay. [00:06:14] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Sorry. [00:06:15] Crystal Fincher: Did you, in 2022 - no, that's totally fine. In 2022, did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:06:23] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Patty Murray. [00:06:25] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:06:27] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I rent. [00:06:29] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:06:30] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:06:32] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:06:41] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes, it's actually part of my platform. [00:06:44] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:06:49] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No - not at all, in any form. [00:06:52] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:06:57] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:06:58] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:07:05] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I do believe, yes - I'm abolitionist, so I think all the jails should be closed. [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:07:14] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:07:15] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:07:18] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:07:19] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:07:26] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes, if it's civilian-led and it's not further padding SPD budget. [00:07:31] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:07:36] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Absolutely. [00:07:37] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:07:46] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:07:47] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them toward meaningful public safety measures? [00:07:57] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes, if they're unfilled. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:08:04] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:08:11] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. As a violence intervention program - I was, I think in my head I was getting, I have them mixed up the two different things - which, when you're talking about them, which one are you talking- [00:08:24] Crystal Fincher: Like community-led violence or organizational-led violence intervention programs. [00:08:28] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Oh! Yes, yes, yes. [00:08:30] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. [00:08:31] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract, a Seattle Police Officers Guild contract, that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:08:46] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:08:46] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian, or police versus non-police? [00:09:04] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Can you ask the question one more time? [00:09:05] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? Should there be a cap on civilians? [00:09:19] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:09:21] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose - yes. These are confusingly led - we're not - these are not intended to be gotcha questions, so I want to totally make sure you understand. And that one's a little kludgy. [00:09:34] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: There should not be a limit on civilians. So yes, I would oppose something that would have a limit. Yes, okay. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move funding to police safety alternatives? [00:09:48] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:09:56] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Support eliminating in-uniform work by off-duty? [00:09:59] Crystal Fincher: In-uniform off-duty work, like if they were to work in a security capacity elsewhere. Would you support eliminating them doing that in-uniform? [00:10:08] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:10:09] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:10:17] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:10:17] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms and public facilities that match their gender? [00:10:23] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:10:24] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:10:29] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:10:30] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:10:35] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:10:36] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:10:41] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: It's all right. [00:10:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:10:49] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Absolutely not. [00:10:50] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:10:53] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:10:54] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:10:58] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I have a disability that doesn't allow me to ride a two-wheeled bike, but I do have a tricycle that I ride sometimes. [00:11:03] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:11:09] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: No. [00:11:10] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:17] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:11:18] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:11:26] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yeah. [00:11:27] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:11:29] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes, SEIU 1199 Northwest. [00:11:31] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:11:40] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes. [00:11:41] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:11:43] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I have. [00:11:44] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:11:46] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Absolutely not. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Unlike Drew Barrymore, evidently. Is your campaign unionized? Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:11:56] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I have pushed for that because I use a organization that is in the process of unionizing. [00:12:04] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and so assuming they're unionizing, will you voluntarily recognize their efforts? [00:12:10] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yes, yeah, yes. And my business is a co-op as well. [00:12:16] Crystal Fincher: Awesome. Well, that concludes the lightning round - hopefully pretty painless. Now, back to regular questions. So lots of people look to work that you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district, and what impact that has had on your district's residents? [00:12:40] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yeah, so I've lived in District 5 the entire 13 years that I've been here. One of the things that people don't understand about District 5 is it's a lot more diverse than folks believe it is. I think the people who are the loudest seem to be seen as the demographic here - as primarily white, wealthy, middle-class, upper-class, homeowner types, right? But there's a lot of folks here who are people of the global majority, people who are disabled, people who are renters, people who are students. And one of the things that was really great to be able to advocate for was when I was co-chair of the Renters' Commission - at the time with Jessica Westgren, who was my co-chair - the Renters' Commission really advocated and wrote a letter of advocacy to City Council and to other pertinent entities, put out a press release in the news about some different rent stabilization and renter protection pieces that we'd like to see. What was able to come out of that was Councilmember Sawant's office passed the six-month advance notice for any rent increases, which was really significant for me. When I moved here in 2010 as a student, one of our first apartments that me and my mom lived in did have a pretty significant rent increase. I remember it was around the holidays and we only had maybe 30 or 60 days to get out or pay. My mom was on SSDI, I was on SSDI going to school - we did not have that. We were lucky to find another place to live, which eventually did end up getting sold. But there had been several times, either living with my mom or after I got married living with my partner, where if we didn't have that six-month advance notice, that we wouldn't also have had the opportunity to either save money if we could, get assistance if we could. I don't think people understand how quickly and how swiftly being housing unstable or becoming unhoused can really be. It really just takes being in a situation where you are responsible for an extra $200 a month - which means food, which means co-pay, which means transportation. In these cases, I don't know if you call the universe, luck, the ancestors, Buddha, whatever you call it - that was able to help us to find another opportunity for housing, but especially working in direct social services, I knew firsthand that that's not the case all the time. And so, especially as there's increased renters in the city, I think that's really helpful for that. There's other things that come to mind, but I feel like that's one that folks have heard me talk a lot about. [00:16:07] Crystal Fincher: And that is helpful. I wanna talk about the City budget. The City of Seattle is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million, beginning in 2025. Because the City is mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address this coming deficit are either to raise revenue, or cut services, or some combination of both. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its residents? [00:16:35] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: One of the things people hear me say a lot on this campaign trail, which I think I can get into a little bit with this question, is - I say a lot, either getting to the taproot of the issue or finding upstream solutions for effective collective and downstream results, which sounds - I understand it sounds very schmaltzy but let me explain what I mean with this question. There's this both-and situation that's happening with the budget that is really a interconnected effect to some upstream issues. And so there are certain areas of the way that the City gets revenue that are longer-term solutions that we really need to address. For example, we have the most regressive tax structure in the state. Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the country. When we talk about some of the suggestions from the task force that just put out - the opportunities for progressive revenue task force - there are really promising things in there, like say having an income tax - which I know in Seattle, I'm learning, is a dirty word. This is the seventh state I've lived in, this is the first state I've lived in that did not have an income tax. Now I will say living in Louisville, Kentucky, it went a little bit too far, to be honest - I mean, they had a state tax, a city tax, a borough tax, it felt like a tax tax, they had all kinds of taxes - I'm not saying that. But we don't have an income tax at all in the most regressive tax structure in the country that also has one of the widest income disparities - the top 20% of income earners in the city makes 22 times more than the bottom 20% of income earners - there's a difference between $400,000 and about $18,000. So if we have a state constitutional law that says we can only have equality-based taxes and not equity-based taxes, or flat tax, that's not really gonna help have a progressive tax structure now, is it? So there's long-term pieces that folks have asked me before - Well, what, are you just gonna go off to the state and try to advocate to change the constitution? Yes, I will, if it's causing these issues. Now, in the short-term - we can increase the JumpStart Tax to bring in more funding. We can look at, especially parts of the budget that is going towards criminalization and punishment. And I think to explain a little bit about when I talk about reallocation of funds, community and SPD have both said that there are certain things that they're doing that they feel is outside of their purview and what they actually feel is necessary for them to do. We're in agreement there. And a lot of those sort of lightning questions you had around domestic violence, around violence intervention, around social services, even around parking or events - District 5 has a 7-minute response time in SPD. And a lot of it is because they are going all over the place. I listen to the police scanner - I think it's something I got into after the 2020 protest comms, things I used to do - and there's so many, I would say like one in every four calls, that seemed like it was either like someone's in the elevator or someone's screaming down the street, something like that. If we were to take those services that the community feels like SPD is out of their purview, SPD feels like it's out of SPD's purview - and we reallocate those services to community-based services, not necessarily that they would also have SPD come along. First of all, that'd be against the point in a lot of ways. But we have them go to alternative community services - true alternative community services, preferably nonprofits and organizations that are already doing this work on the ground. You see the average cost that it took for SPD to do those services that we would be reallocating, and we reallocate that part of the budget to those new services, especially if there are upstream pieces that could help - like housing. It would be in our best interest - whether it's for our community, for the folks who are impacted, or for taxpayers - to have money that's going towards, say, sweeps, go towards permanent housing. And so I would really, if elected, love to continue to work on how do we implement those seven or nine suggestions from the Progressive Revenue Task Force, and also continue to look at innovative solutions towards balancing this budget in ways that we can take the burden off of just increasing taxes - on the real estate taxes - in a way that's regressive. I think that we want to do, say, like a capital gains tax - I definitely think we need to do that. We want to do vacancy tax, we want to do land value or land banking taxes - I think that's important. I also feel, I feel really strongly - again, I know this is state - but I feel really strongly that as a city councilperson, it's my - any city councilperson's responsibility to advocate for issues that are impacting their community. And having flat rate taxation and regressive taxation is having a devastating impact on the community. [00:21:48] Crystal Fincher: I also want to talk about public safety and particularly alternative response, because we do - as you said before - need a more comprehensive approach to public safety, and that goes beyond policing. While the council and mayor have definitely taken action to increase the police budget, give retention bonuses, and other incentives to retain and hire more police, we're lagging behind other jurisdictions around the country - and even in our own region and county - with alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises and other issues. Seattle has stalled in implementing what is a very widely-supported idea. So where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:22:40] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Major part of my platform - I guess now, because folks ask about it a lot - is that I firmly, firmly believe that we need to transition from hyper-relying on the police and having alternative solutions that is 100% civilian-led. I mean, let's look at it this way, like with the example I gave, right? If SPD is saying they're working out of their purview, it's impacting their response times. It's impacting how much their workforce burden is. It is forcing them to redeploy folks out of places like investigations, causing these huge backlogs in the lab, to street patrol. Why then would we require them to be a co-lead with the alternative solutions? We are trying to remove that hyper-reliance and burden off of them completely - like if it's out of their purview, it's out of their purview, and that's all that on that. Now, like I said, a lot of my family lives in Camden, New Jersey, and they had a huge reduction in their crime right before 2020 George Floyd racial reckoning by completely overhauling to community interventions and alternatives. They have some situations where there is a co-lead model, but those are for situations where there's active threats of harm with weapons involved, right? But if it's more so things, like I said - like intimate partner violence, domestic violence, someone needs social services, mental health services - things that wouldn't require police to be there, which is gonna be very few things. It has led to such a significant change in a place where it used to be considered one of the more dangerous cities in the country. So I think what's really important here is I think when folks hear me talk about this, their first thought is like - Ah, this is a Defund the Police, BLM person. I think that that has definitely been something, looking the way that I do and sort of wanting to talk to what's really gonna get to the taproot of the issue, has been part of what folks have considered in terms of my viability, or like how am I going to be when I'm in office - one of those things, right? But the reason why I went through that whole resume in the beginning was not to toot my own horn, so to speak, it was because it shows that I have successfully and continue to successfully sit in spaces where folks are in conflict, folks are scared, folks are confused, folks do not have a lower risk tolerance that is needed for true transformative social change. And I am able to support and move along progress towards goals, especially goals at the organizational level and even the policy and governmental level. It's not as well known because I'm sort of - I am working with the folks who then go off and do the press conference, as opposed to one doing myself, right? But that is what I bring, that is the toolkit that I have built. And that toolkit has worked time and time and time and time again. In terms of SPD and public safety in a lot of ways, like I said - I look at it like if you go into an organization, you have a team or a department that is working outside of their scope, outside of their purview, they're overburdened, their work is suffering - you're sort of in a space of like, do we give them more money to give them more team to do all the things we're asking of them? Or do we do something else? And what I would always say in this case, if it was in the scenario is - you take all of the tasks that is not core and central and imperative to that team or department, and you reallocate it and create a new team or department. And you reallocate the budget that averages what that team and department does for those services - and then you continue to watch for progress. And I am very confident that if we actually diversify what we do to address all of the different multiple pathways towards this shared goal of community safety, we would be in a way better spot than continuing to throw money at a bunch of overworked, overburdened people working out of scope. [00:26:57] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. I also wanna talk about victims. So many times we're talking about stats and responses and all that, and sometimes we don't focus on people who've been harmed or victimized. And a lot of people speak for victims, but we don't do a good job of listening to people who have been harmed themselves. And usually what they say is that - one, they wanna make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to them or anyone else again. And they want better support. And that support - not just talking about within the system currently - they call police, there's a response. But even if police respond and come and take a report and do their thing, that person is still left - if it's a property crime, without property, with damage, without money, sometimes having to take off work - and it really does impact lives. How do you propose to better support victims or people who have been harmed? [00:27:55] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: I think one of the biggest upstream solutions we really have to address is - if we are to have services and supports that help folks help victims, we need to make sure that they are resourced to be able to do so, and right now they are not. And when we say resourced - not just a budget for the projects, right, or the services, or the interventions, housing, funding, whatever that is, but the people who would actually work in those positions. We know, like for example, in emergency services or shelter services, folks are so woefully underpaid it's a national crisis. But also the resources to be able to have folks in those positions who are being amplified in their voices and leadership because they are part of those most intersectionally impacted. One of the reasons why - I guess another reason why I'm running for office is, you know - if we want to talk about the knowledge of the policy process, how to put bills forward, things like that - I definitely have that. But there is an additional piece of that - the wisdom of lived experience - that can help to understand how these things happen in the actual reality on the ground, beyond a theoretical philosophical perspective. As a social service worker, as also someone who is not just a survivor - I guess we could say survivor of domestic violence - but continue to live it, especially running for office 'cause everything's public, right? There's a lot of different requirements, structures, pathways in place that it just leaves you to wonder that if there were folks who, whether it was directly making those decisions or through advisory councils, that was able to keep to-date the ways that our policies, our systems, and our structures are gummed up on the ground, in the lived experience, in the actual reality - if we could move some of those things so that they could be more helpful. That has been the biggest barrier I've seen for folks being able to get care, or to get resources, to get supports after they've been harmed - whether it's for their property, whether it's for their life, whether it's for their wellbeing, whether it's for their safety - the money isn't there. The staff is overworked and underpaid, and the attrition rate is so high that it's hard to move through the system at all. And then when you do go through the system, some of the requirements that you have to meet or some of the standards put in place in the framework doesn't get to the core root of what you need. A quick example - I guess I can say it for myself 'cause that's a safe thing, right - is when I first moved here to Seattle, there was a person who came here with me, who I had been involved with. When they came here, they were abusive in very many ways - emotionally, physically, psychologically. It was the physical abuse that finally was able to remove them, to get a no contact order - however, they violated it. They finally left the Seattle area around 2013. But especially running for office, we have found him on the website, on the socials, sort of finding me again after all this time. It's interesting because first of all, there really isn't protection order resources or domestic violence resources across state lines. There really aren't spaces to go where - you can't point to someone states away and say that this person is causing harm because it's on the internet. There was a event that the campaign was gonna go to where there was information that led us to believe that there was a credible threat to my safety. And so the campaign went, but I did not go. And I think when you do something like run for office, there are some folks who are like - Well, you signed up for that - but you don't really, right? And I guess I'm sharing my own story because it's the safest. However, I share this story because the dynamics of it is replicated every day, all day. Sometimes it's not because someone is in different state. Sometimes it's because folks have a different cultural background where they're not able to get like services - say, get emergency shelter, emergency motel, or income. You have to make a written statement that's signed that you are experiencing these things. And if it's family, if there's other sort of cultural pieces people may not feel comfortable doing that. So how do we have folks who have that experience be able to support having a framework in place that's going to be centered in intersectionality and inclusiveness? There's some folks who - this is impacting them financially in ways that are not documented because they're having to take more sick days, or because it is making them more sick, it's increasing their chronic health issues, or their productivity goes down at work. So how do we have supports in place where folks can understand those dynamics so folks are not getting verbal warnings from their boss, folks are not having less hours put on their schedule, folks are not having to then take time off of work to go to the hospital because they're having increased health issues. There are some folks who they do have property damage - when the physical altercation that led to this person finally being removed from my space at that time, they used my laptop in the event. And I was going to school - I didn't have money to buy another laptop. The only recourse would be to try to get this person to pay for it through a legal process - I didn't have money to go through that legal process, that person didn't have money to pay for a new laptop. There really wasn't any resources available to help me get another laptop, even though it was part of this event. A lot of that required other qualifications for me to have that I just didn't have at the time, and a lot of which - because this person wasn't physically living in my home, which definitely doesn't stop these sort of things from happening. So when you do have property damage or property loss, and the only option is to go through a legal process - and you may not have money for that, you may not be able to take time off for that, you might not be able to get child or dependent care for that - what do you do? And so these are the sort of pieces where running for city council, running for office, doing this work is coming at this not just because I want to be on the dais or - yes, there's a policy pieces that's really important - it's because there's this lived experience here, either individually or in my community or in the work that I've done, where I really would love to see a governance system where we are bringing in that actual reality, that grounded reality of how intersectionally we experience the outcomes or the bottlenecks or the gaps in our policy, in our investments, and in our understanding and framing of the issues. [00:35:53] Crystal Fincher: So you alluded to it a little bit before, but I wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And one thing called out by experts as a barrier to the homelessness response is frontline worker wages that don't cover the cost of living. 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 the City bids and contracts for services? [00:36:17] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: You know, I think the really sad thing is that our nonprofits - nonprofits are operating in large part through funding from a larger entity, whether it is the City, whether it's usually the federal government - nonprofits need to be able to pay their staff, not just a living wage or a thriving wage, but a Seattle wage, right? The average person working in emergency or directs housing and social services right now is making between $50,000 and $55,000 a year. But a median one-bedroom apartment - if you were gonna have it as be three times your rent, it's about $1,651 a month. And the National Alliance to End Homelessness just put out a report where they suggested that the staffing component of the Homeless Assistance Grant is increased. But they said that it's a national issue and that in order for across the country, even just direct social service workers and homeless emergency shelter workers to be brought up to being able to pay for the average one-bedroom apartment, it would take 4.8 billion, with the B, dollars to do so. And so by nature of being a nonprofit, where is that gonna come from for a nonprofit? I mean, definitely going back to the task force for progressive revenue, we can look at the wage and equity taxes and see where that is. But really for a nonprofit, that's not gonna be really the case. What we really need is to redistribute - when we talk about reallocating funds, we also need to reallocate the funds in a city with such a high wealth disparity. And so I believe that part of the progressive revenue - we really wanna address, say, ensuring that we have even housing and services for folks so that we can end the crisis of who we could physically see outside, we also have to address what's happening in housing instability, economic injustice, labor injustice of folks who are only one paycheck - if that - away from also physically being outside. And as someone who worked in direct social and housing services, I know that I worked with folks and also experienced situations where folks already were outside - they could not afford their rent and are receiving the same services. My quick story for that that I've been saying is that I remember having to get a conflict of interest waiver 'cause I had to take my client to DSHS. But when I looked at their letter, their DSHS caseworker was the same as mine. And so when we're looking at - oh, where's all the money going? If we only have these like, at minimum, 14,000 people outside, why are we using all this money? Well, because it's not just these 14,000 people who are needing these services, it's even the people who are providing the services that need the services. And so we really need to, as a city, actually not just talk about, but actually put to action economic and labor justice for this and other industries. But we also need to make sure that they are unionized and that they're able to collectively bargain for what they need for the future as well. [00:39:25] Crystal Fincher: Now on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while we're experiencing devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, wildfires, smoke, floods, you name it - it's here. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet those 2030 goals? [00:39:46] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: You know, when people ask this question, I always start off with saying - across living in seven states, that I believe I've experienced every type of natural disaster except for a tsunami, a sinkhole, and a typhoon. And yes, it does also include volcano eruptions, hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides - all of those different sort of things - I have been through it. I always said I was just unlucky. As I got older, I realized it's because of climate disaster. We know that the climate disaster is human-made. It's based on consumption. We also know that the human-made climate disaster can be concentrated to a very select few people, who are in an owning class of organizations or businesses, or sort of other sort of production means that is contributing to this - whether it's shipping, whether it's fossil fuels, whether it's even folks who rely on that. The airline industry, I saw that Washington State did just pass a law to start to move towards green aviation fuel for planes, so we're not using all the gas, but even then - really in this Green New Deal, there's a couple of things. Number one, we need to really look at the building efficiency and energy performance pieces. We need to make sure that we are having Green buildings, that we're retrofitting for Green buildings - going back to those resources questions, we need to make sure we have the resources to help folks move towards having more Green buildings because we know that not everyone is going to be a multimillionaire or have a corporation where they can fund that on their own. The second piece is that we really do need to divest - in all ways, in all spaces - from fossil fuels. And not just the fossil fuel organizations themselves, but those who are hyper-reliant on fossil fuels. If there is an organization that is resistant to divesting from fossil fuels, then it is in our best interest to consider alternatives to using those services or patroning them. We also - I would really love to see how we address the deforestation of our urban forest, that is the city that we lived in. We have lost so much of our tree canopy that it is causing not only these sort of high heat zones that are really harming folks, but we also see them happening along the lines of segregation and redlining. There is increased impacts of environmental racism and injustices leading to folks, especially during the wildfire season, having to go to the hospital because of exacerbations of their asthma - that is leading to other chronic health issues, that is only going to lead to public health crises down the line. And there's so much more even from there, right - reducing our reliance on individual transit, which means that we have to really invest in our public transit infrastructure so it's reliable, so that the workers and operators are able to get everything they're asking for in their current collective bargaining and they're able to be paid a Seattle wage, and that we are able to make sure it's accessible to all people. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot - we didn't just get to climate disaster in the last couple years, really - this has started since the industrialization period. We know it's really picked up since the 1970s, but that means that we're going to have to really work double time to make sure that we are able to have a sustainable future for life. And that's not being - I mean that literally - like so that we can actually continue to live as humans on the planet, 'cause that's where we're at. [00:43:26] Crystal Fincher: That is where we're at. Now you talked about transit - right now, we are in a world of hurt when it comes to transit, particularly reliability. Some of that is because of shortages of operators or mechanics, but people are having a harder time finding buses that arrive on time or sometimes arrive at all. Understanding that Sound Transit is a regional organization and King County Metro is a county organization, what can the City do? And in your role as a city councilmember, if you're elected, what can you do to stabilize transit reliability? [00:44:03] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Yeah, it goes back to what I was saying earlier - you know, if elected a city councilperson, it's not just my job to do what I can and legislate within my purview. It is also my job to advocate and amplify what is happening in my district and in my city. And so that is the biggest piece of how we can have the multiple pathways towards shared goals in this case. If it's outside of my purview, that doesn't mean like - Oh well, I guess I can't do anything - but no, I'm supposed to go and advocate and say - Yo, what's going on with the 40 bus because it is taking, is like 20 minutes behind, or what's going on with, you know, the light rail and being able to get there, or what's going on with the E line. And I would continue to do that. I mean, advocating to King County Metro in terms of its accessibility and its affordability and its reliability is something I've already done in multiple ways - and it's on record of what I've done. But I definitely think what's really important here is going a little bit back to the climate justice conversation is - if we really truly want to reduce our reliance on vehicles, especially vehicles that are using gas, and we want folks to use more public transit, that's gonna, first of all, require like Complete Streets and making sure we have a pedestrian focus, if not pedestrians and public transit centered streets. But we also have to make sure the public transit is going to be a competitive option to having a car. And as someone who can't have a car because of my disability, I can only have public transit unless my partner drives me - and he works four tens a week, so most of the time I'm taking transit. You know, there has been situations, especially going east to west in District 5, where if I were to be able to drive a car, get an Uber, I can get there in 15 minutes. If I was to take the bus, I have to take two different transfers and get there in 45 minutes - if that. And so if we're in a situation - it's multifaceted with the infrastructure, where it's going, the operators - how much they're getting paid, their labor standards, are they getting breaks? Are they - do they feel safe? Are they getting medical for sitting all day? And is it affordable? You know, I talk a lot about first mile, last mile as a disabled person - can I get to a bus stop within a mile from my house, if I can walk a mile? Can I get to my destination within a mile from my bus stop, if I can walk that mile? What is the multimodal transportation going to look like? We really need to look at all of these different factors and the city councilmember's job is to advocate and amplify that to whatever level is needed and work together to get those solutions for your community as much as possible. [00:46:58] Crystal Fincher: Now I want to talk about the economy. The City of Seattle has a vibrant business community - some of the largest corporations in the world are headquartered here and nearby, but also just a ton of small businesses - lots of entrepreneurs, micro businesses, especially in the district. What can you do to better support small business in District 5? [00:47:22] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Well, I can tell you as a small business owner, too - it's really hard out here, right? Because there's so many different factors looking at, even just from the perspective that I have, with having staff where I have to make sure I have payroll every month and everything like that, right? The first thing I'll say is we know from the state and the city that we have a significant equity issue with public procurement. I am a business that relies on public procurement in a lot of ways. We need to make sure that we are actually putting the actions in place for public procurement and other equity for business owners. We have the Washington Women and Minority Business Enterprise certification that continues to need funding - to provide the grant funding, the infrastructure and supports needed for those businesses and others - that we can advocate to work for at the city and at the state level. Another thing I think is really important for businesses that have brick and mortar is I absolutely 100% believe in density, increasing housing density, increasing the amount of affordable housing that we have - 'cause we don't wanna just be putting housing in for housing sake and then be charging like $3,000 a month and people can't live there. But making sure we have affordable, accessible housing. One of the things that I've seen and folks have been really concerned about is you have these sort of small businesses that their commercial lease is maybe in the $1,000 a month area. Then they say - Hey, we're gonna build a development, but don't worry, we're gonna have retail space for you once the development is done. And if they can survive however long it takes to build this building - because they have to continue to be in operation - but then when the commercial leases or the retail spaces come online, they're in the $3,000 or $4,000 a month - three to four times increase of how much they're able to pay. And so they can't pay that and so those businesses just go away forever. And this is why folks get upset when they go from having a small coffee shop or a small diner or a small bookstore or a small grocery store in their neighborhood, and then the building goes up and now they have a Trader Joe's or they have a non-unionized Starbucks or they have something like that that shows up - someone who can afford those $3,000 to $4,000 rents. And so we need to also have a right-to-return put in place. We need to make sure that businesses, especially the smaller businesses, are able to have the supports they need if they are displaced, similar to like with renters - if there's a displacement where they will not be able to operate their businesses anymore, that they will be able to help. And I wanna be very clear. When - I think a lot of times in the city, and what's really important about this question for me, is when we talk about businesses in Seattle, I think folks are thinking about the big businesses. They're thinking about the Amazons - heck, they're thinking about the restaurants that have multiple chains, right, and they sell different sort of things - that they're not gonna be as impacted, right? They're impacted, sure - 'cause the pandemic is pandemicking and that's impacting everyone. Especially when we're talking about JumpStart Taxes, right - we're talking about businesses that are making $8 million or more a year. And I'm talking about businesses like myself and other folks in District 5 - I'm talking about like $500,000 a year or less, right? Like I'm not talking about the same people. Even if you're thinking about - if you have staff, if you have a commercial lease, stuff like that - even a million dollars a year, which would be - I think I would just feel like I was sort of like, like the "In the Money" song would start playing if I ever hit a million dollars a year gross sales. But that's not common. When I talk about what is needed for small businesses in this district, I'm talking about those folks, right? I'm talking about the people who might be living in, around, above their business, who is - just like you can live paycheck to paycheck for your rent, living paycheck to paycheck for their business to make payroll, that have services or goods that they provide that the pandemic created this huge gap where they were not able to do that anymore, especially if they're a performer and needing stages to perform or something like that, or gallery space. Especially folks who are at the intersection of being, you know, what they call economically disadvantaged businesses, so they don't make a lot of money. Folks who are non-binary, trans, femme of center folks, folks who are a part of the LGBTQIA+ community, folks who are disabled, folks who are veterans - especially if they do not have the sort of veterans supports and services that you could get otherwise, especially if they, how service connected they are or what length of service they've had, 'cause that can vary. There's a lot of folks who really need help and that's where really understanding what's happening on the ground can come into play when we're making these investments in these policies to make sure that we are centering folks who are the most intersectionally impacted, and that we are not continuing to center folks who are, you know, in a completely different space and continuing that regressiveness in even the investments that we make. [00:52:48] Crystal Fincher: I also wanna talk about a related issue of childcare. It doesn't just affect parents - it affects businesses, it affects everyone in our community because it impacts people's ability to participate in the economy and just make their bills. We recently got reporting and research that shows that now childcare is more expensive than college on an annual basis. It's many people's number one or number two expense who have families. What can you do to lighten the burden of childcare costs and availability for residents in District 5? [00:53:24] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: What we've seen across the country is that when it's subsidized, either through local governance, state governance, federal governance, or through the employer - and really preferably a mixture of both - it can have an astounding effect on affordability. Really, it's one of those multifaceted issues, right - where we also need folks to be able to do, like to work the childcare. They're another industry that's woefully underpaid, as well as our teachers in our education systems. We need to make sure that we have childcare that's multilingual, multicultural, that is going to have disability justice and universal accessibility standards, that we have dependent care that can also support folks who have dependents who are not children - which is not always considered, whether it's elders or whether those are folks who are adults who may or may not be children, but they still require dependent care - that can make it really hard to go to work if you are unsure how they will be able to move throughout their day without some sort of support, without putting them in somewhere like a group home. Especially for adults, I would love to see what it would look like to have clubhouse-style day programs that are moving towards having that disability justice approach, if it's for disability. Or having it be something cool, like maybe free education and learning about trades, so that we can increase the pipeline of folks going into the trades or just certain things like that. But really when it comes down to affordability and second, it comes down to employer cooperation. We need to make sure that if, say, someone does get sick and you need to take care of your family - really, I know it's a federal law, but FMLA is just not very helpful. Again, one of those actual reality experiences, right - the policy, great intention, impact not so much. And so we can't really rely on things like FMLA or even the Paid Sick and Safe Time - which you can go through very, very quickly, depending on what's happening - to help if there's an emergency, if you can't get childcare that day. Childcare in the United States is going for anywhere between $700 if it's subsidized to about $2,500 a month. That's rent. People can barely afford their rent now, let alone a whole other rent. And so we really need to find ways to subsidize this down to as free as possible, so that is just one area that's not concerning for employees. But again, just like I said with housing, we don't just wanna be building housing for housing sake - we wanna make sure it's actually going towards the taproot of the issue. We don't wanna just be having childcare, independent care for the sake of it. We wanna make sure that the people who are in there is going to be able to have the economic and labor justice, and that's gonna actually meet the intersectional, multilingual, multi-ability, multicultural reality of our district and our neighborhoods. And that's what I would be fighting for. [00:56:33] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we close today with this final question, there are a lot of people trying to consider who they should vote for - between you and your opponent. When you talk to voters who are trying to make that decision, what do you tell them? [00:56:48] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: If you look at my opponent, Cathy - Cathy, again, has one of those resumes that's very out in front and I think it leads a lot of folks to wonder like - Why you? Right they're, you know, they're a former circuit court judge, been sort of in that space for a while. But there's also a piece of that where I ask folks to really consider the archetypes of things - you know, what is really the archetype of what makes a good candidate or a viable candidate? A lot of folks are like - Well, are you knocking the doors? You know, are you a homeowner? Do you have the money? Look, here's the point - I'm a renter, I've had to work 40 hours a week doing this because I don't have money to just take off of work. I come from what they call network impoverishment. Folks have been like - Can you ask your family for support? I'm like - I'm the person they come to that gives support, I don't have that. If I don't work, there is no one's house for me to go couch surf at. I'm a transit rider, I am a multiply disabled person, I understand what it means to have to fight for your Medicare, to have to have $200 copays. A lot of those both-and pieces - yes, I rent a single-family house in Greenwood, but the reason why it's affordable is because it's sinking into this ravine in the backyard - and as I look up in the ceilings, there's cracks in the foundation. You know, there's a lot of these different sort of pieces where if we want to talk policy, right - and I go back to helping, being a part of passing the six-months advance notice on rent increases, co-organizing and passing one of the nation's first bans on sub-minimum wage, working with legislators on fighting for lifting the cap on special education, fighting to make sure that youth continue to use the bus for free, finding out what's a taproot issues, fighting for making sure that we have disability justice implemented throughout our cities, that we are actually holding - not just saying a thing, but doing a thing if we really truly care about race and social justice. We want to talk about policy process, how to move that forward, how to work with people, how to make sure you find multiple pathways towards shared goals, the policy theory and the process - I got that. And me and Cathy can go - you know, we can really match that up. What I bring that's different is that wisdom of lived experience - not just for myself, but in all of the folks I've worked with as a consultant, as a commissioner, as a direct social service worker, as a youth leader across seven different states throughout the nearly 40 years of my life. And I truly believe and have seen success in the toolkits that I bring, that when you bring both the knowledge and the wisdom together - where you are both taking into account how the lived experiences of those most intersectionally impacted can be amplified in voices in leadership, into policy, into solutions, into leadership, into investments, to true equity - you will see progress. And if you focus on that, you don't get caught up by the minutiae, you can move forward. I have seen and worked with a lot of different folks, processes, organizations, piece - in this city - where we get caught up in the minutiae. I've been successful before in being able to move things forward in a smaller way, but you make the white paper and you give the recommendations and you look at it and they put it to the side. This being the next natural step of being able to have that voice, that conduit for my community on the dais is one that I really truly hope to bring to this community in a way I haven't before. And I'm always happy to chat with folks, get coffee, have a Zoom meeting and talk about some of the other things that I've done because as you can tell, there's so many stories and so little time. [01:00:27] Crystal Fincher: There are. Well, thank you so much, ChrisTiana ObeySumner, for taking the time to speak with us today about your candidacy for Seattle City Council District 5. Thank you so much. [01:00:39] ChrisTiana ObeySumner: Thank you. [01:00:40] Crystal Fincher: 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.

5pm - Fair point; Seattle can’t effectively enforce its laws until King County Jail sorts out its own problems // Men infiltrate Women’s tech conference by registering as non-binary // NYC Subway system asks riders to please stop clipping their toenails on the trains // We all live or have lived in major cities… What’s the weirdest thing you’ve seen on public transportation? // LETTERS

On this Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Ron Davis about his campaign for Seattle City Council District 4. Listen and learn more about Ron and his thoughts on: [01:04] - Why he is running [02:42] - Lightning round! [08:50] - What is an accomplishment of his that impacts District 4 [10:36] - Climate change [12:51] - Public Safety: Alternative response [14:31] - Victim support [16:18] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [17:21] - Housing and homelessness: Highest priority plans [20:34] - Bike and pedestrian safety [22:20] - Transit reliability [24:10] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [26:10] - Small business support [27:59] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [30:38] - Difference between him and opponent 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 Ron Davis at @seattle4ron.   Ron Davis Ron Davis is a public school dad, law school grad, and tech entrepreneur that has worked for most of his professional life on improving the lives of seniors, workers and patients. He's an active member of the 46th Dems and the Transit Riders Union, where he serves on the progressive revenue committee. He also serves on the boards of Futurewise, Seattle Subway, the University YMCA and the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, working on housing and climate legislation, transit policy, and on delivering social services to kids and their families, and to young adults.   Resources Campaign Website - Ron Davis   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very pleased to be welcoming Seattle City Council District 4 candidate, Ron Davis, to the program. Welcome, Ron. [00:01:01] Ron Davis: Thank you so much for having me, Crystal. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Well, I just am first wondering - why are you running? [00:01:08] Ron Davis: Yeah, that's a great question. So I've been working hard in my community to make it affordable and safe for a long time, and I've reached a point of frustration where I don't feel that the people representing me are doing a good enough job. So sort of backing up into sort of the deeper story - my parents were teenagers when they got pregnant with me - I grew up in the Portland area. And I got very lucky along the way, but some of that was because housing was more affordable then. So while my parents both worked at a diner, my dad was able then to get a job at a factory - minimum wage - but he worked 60, 70, 80 hours a week. It was brutal. And my parents were able to get a toehold in the middle class 'cause they could afford housing and they were actually able to afford to buy a house a few years in. And that became this platform that allowed my sister and I to rise - we both got bachelor's degrees, I got really lucky and ended up at Harvard Law School. And I've landed in this beautiful, comfortable place in Northeast Seattle - where I live in the comforts of the professional class - and I recognize like that was a lot, lot, lot of luck. And it would have been impossible without affordable housing, it would have been impossible without community support. And you just cannot have a journey like mine in Seattle. And that is frustrating to me - Seattle should be a place where people can start a career, raise a family, age in place - and not have to be filthy rich to do it. And so I am fighting to make Seattle a place where people can do those things. And where if people do happen to be unlucky, we come together and we put a floor on how far they fall because it could happen to any of us. [00:02:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely could. Now we're gonna switch up the program from what we normally hear, or frequently heard in our previous past candidate interviews, and we're doing a bit of a lightning round- [00:02:52] Ron Davis: Oh, dear. [00:02:52] Crystal Fincher: -here. So just a brief - mostly yes or no, or short answer questions. But just to help the listeners get a better view of who you are on a wide range of topics before we dive into the detail. So starting off - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:03:11] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:03:12] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veteran, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:03:15] Ron Davis: I did, yes. [00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:03:21] Ron Davis: I did. [00:03:22] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:03:27] Ron Davis: In the general, I voted for Lorena González. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, in the general, did you vote for Ann Davison or Nicole Thomas Kennedy for City Attorney? [00:03:35] Ron Davis: Nicole Thomas Kennedy. [00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:03:43] Ron Davis: Leesa Manion. [00:03:43] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley? [00:03:47] Ron Davis: Patty Murray. [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:03:51] Ron Davis: Currently own - for seven years - rent all before that. [00:03:54] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:03:56] Ron Davis: No. [00:03:56] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:04:04] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:04:05] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:04:11] Ron Davis: As I understand the definition of sweep, it is where you're clearing a homeless encampment and there's nowhere for people to go - like no actual housing. So no, unless there was some imminent public health risk, like during - there were moments in COVID - but as a general rule, no. [00:04:24] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:04:30] Ron Davis: Absolutely, and I did some campaigning for I-135 as well. [00:04:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:04:38] Ron Davis: Yeah. [00:04:39] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:43] Ron Davis: No. [00:04:44] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:48] Ron Davis: I think the schools should decide that, but my instinct is no. I think the students have been pretty clear that's what they don't want - they don't want that. [00:04:55] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow it? [00:04:58] Ron Davis: Ah, I see. No, not currently - I don't have any reason to think I would. [00:05:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:05:09] Ron Davis: Me and two-thirds of Seattle, yep. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:05:15] Ron Davis: Yes, it's egregious how much they're underpaid. [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:05:26] Ron Davis: Yep. [00:05:27] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:05:36] Ron Davis: Yes. I do want to clarify - so when we say unfilled, we think the ones that are unfilled or unfillable in this budget cycle - but then yes. [00:05:43] Crystal Fincher: These are yes or no questions. [00:05:45] Ron Davis: Well, it's yes if it's the ones that are fillable or not. [00:05:49] Crystal Fincher: Perfect. So let's do yes or no - we have plenty of time to get into the nitty gritty and detail of all the other stuff. [00:05:55] Ron Davis: Got it. [00:05:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:06:01] Ron Davis: I do. [00:06:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:06:06] Ron Davis: Yes, I do. [00:06:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:06:16] Ron Davis: I would oppose such a contract, yes. [00:06:18] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:06:29] Ron Davis: Oppose that doesn't remove - sorry, I'm trying to make sure I got the question right. [00:06:33] Crystal Fincher: If they don't remove limitations about how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian- [00:06:39] Ron Davis: Yeah, I would have a problem with that. They've gotta be civilian. [00:06:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:06:51] Ron Davis: Yeah. [00:06:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off duty work by SPD officers? [00:06:59] Ron Davis: I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about, specifically. I'm sorry. [00:07:03] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:07:12] Ron Davis: Yeah. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:07:19] Ron Davis: Yep. [00:07:19] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:07:24] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:07:25] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:07:30] Ron Davis: No. [00:07:30] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:07:34] Ron Davis: No. [00:07:34] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates like the one issued by Amazon are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:07:41] Ron Davis: No. [00:07:42] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:07:44] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:07:45] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:48] Ron Davis: No. [00:07:49] Crystal Fincher: Or the past month? [00:07:50] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:07:51] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:55] Ron Davis: No. [00:07:55] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:08:03] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:08:03] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:08:10] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:08:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:08:14] Ron Davis: Not unless you count the Transit Riders Union - not an actual worker union - no. [00:08:18] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:26] Ron Davis: Yep. [00:08:27] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:08:29] Ron Davis: Yes. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:08:32] Ron Davis: Never. [00:08:32] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:08:36] Ron Davis: We are not. We've encouraged it, but it hasn't happened. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: So if your campaign staff wanted to unionize, would you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:08:44] Ron Davis: Absolutely. [00:08:45] Crystal Fincher: So that's the end of the lightning round - thank you very much for that. Pretty painless, hopefully. Now, lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you've prioritized and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district that's tangible or visible to the people who live there and what impact has it had on them? [00:09:06] Ron Davis: That's a great question. In my district - um, depends on who and who it would be visible to, but I can think of a couple, a couple things that would be significant. One is I'm on the board of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association and one of the areas I'm working on there is transportation - and specifically, transportation and pedestrian safety. So for instance, we had a situation where a number of people were turning out of driveways the wrong direction on a one-way street and it was creating scary conflicts and some residents raised the issue. We raised the issue to SDOT. We've also raised the issue to - I championed us raising the issue to both SDOT and local businesses - we got better signage implemented. We're getting way, way, way less reports of that. Let's see, something that I specifically get credit for. So also we've done - I'm on the board of the YMCA, so I was our biggest fundraiser last year. And we raised thousands and thousands of dollars to get it - to fund scholarships so that young kids could get afterschool care and summer care that was the same care that fully-paying families were getting. And so that was visible, of course, only to those families - we don't identify which families those are because we don't want those kids to experience any sort of identity segregation around that - but that brought a lot of kids into amazing wraparound care. And we also did some work related to that to bringing food into their families. So there's a couple of things I've worked on recently in the district. [00:10:35] Crystal Fincher: Perfect, thank you. Now on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, to wildfires, floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:10:52] Ron Davis: Yeah, so number one is we have to address transportation. So 61% of our emissions come from personal and commercial transport in the city. And so to make progress there, we have to make it so that people don't pay a time and safety and reliability penalty for doing something other than riding a car. So that means everything from a better built-out and disability-accessible sidewalk network - and street crossing network that is safe. Bike lanes that are separate and actually protected, and that form a grid that go from where people are to where they want to be without breaks in them where they're risking their lives. And then of course, frequent, fast, reliable transit. All of those things cost money and they also will cost road space. We are going to actually have to - if we want to make it so that people have a real choice, 'cause right now we're putting a huge thumb on the scale - pushing people into cars. If we want people to have a real choice, we're going to have to make genuine trade-offs in right-of-way. So I think that's the biggest - absolute single best biggest - thing we can do. Obviously we need to electrify everything that remains. To support that, we also need to address our biggest other area of emissions, which is housing and commercial buildings, right? And so denser housing is more climate friendly, has lower emissions. Mass timber construction is much lower climate - I'm sorry - carbon intensive at construction. And that denser housing of course supports the kind of transportation network that I just described, so there's a virtuous circle there. The other piece that goes with that is allowing commercial in all neighborhoods without forcing businesses to build extra parking, right - through mandates. And once you do that, then also a lot more trips can be confined to existing neighborhoods and don't even need to be - the person shouldn't even have to be able to ask, shouldn't even have to ask themselves the question of - Do I need to get on a bus or do I need to get on a car? - when maybe they can go a block away or three blocks away. [00:12:50] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I wanna talk about public safety, particularly while other jurisdictions around the country and several in our region have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises - or with a challenge that isn't quite a legal challenge, but needs some intervention - Seattle is stalled in implementing what is a widely-supported idea. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:13:22] Ron Davis: Okay, great questions. So one is we definitely need non-police response to non-police-appropriate calls. And a huge percentage of those calls could be appropriately handled without a sworn officer present. So I believe SPD did a study of itself and said 12% of calls could be immediately triageable. There was an external body that came in and said it was more like 49%. I have not been close enough to that data to know which one is right, but it's a lot. And it's embarrassing, to be honest, that a city as rich and capable as ours has fallen so far behind in delivering on this - especially when we have this massive behavioral health crisis, when we have a shortage of police officers so their ability to respond to every kind of crisis is diminished. We need to be handing off this workload to people who are better trained for it, because - well, A) because they're better trained for it, B) because a lot of those interactions are where some of our more racially inequitable interactions happen with police, and C) so that we can cut response times - which I think should answer the other part of your question. So I don't think co-response is necessary in most cases. [00:14:30] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, I wanna talk about victims a little bit. There's a lot of people saying they're speaking on behalf of victims, but really speaking over them. And what we actually hear from victims is - is one, they wanna make sure that what happened to them never happens to them or anyone else again. And two, that they want more support and help to recover after what they've just been through. How can we do a better job supporting victims of crime? [00:14:59] Ron Davis: That's a wonderful question. I have thought about certain parts of that - and I'll tell you which parts - and then I think that you've identified a gap in my own thinking, policy-wise. So the part I've thought about is restorative justice programming, where - and I campaigned for Pooja Vaddadi on this because I was very much interested in, now Judge Vaddadi's, championing restorative justice programming - which ultimately bring, when people come into the justice system, makes part of their restoration program not only focused on rehabilitating them and bringing them back to community. But also trying to make whole or right what they - whatever damage they've done - with care to protect victims from having to relive trauma. So I've thought a lot about it from that standpoint, and I've thought a lot about it in our social safety net. What I haven't thought a lot about is direct victim, direct sort of post-victimization programming. So I don't have a great answer, other than to say that you make a really interesting point - which is we love to talk about victims as sort of in the political chess, but too often we're not actually paying attention to them and their needs. And so I would definitely support spending money to make sure that we are taking care of people who've been victimized, 'cause trauma has lasting effects. [00:16:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely does. I wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And one thing called out by experts as a barrier to reducing homelessness is that the frontline workers - their wages don't cover the cost of living, leading to shortages and challenges there. 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 for contracts and services? [00:16:45] Ron Davis: Yeah, I do. I do think they have that responsibility and often they're constrained by funding, but often the funder of last resort is us. And so because our contracts - through things like public development agreements, labor harmony agreements, things we do with other contractors - more often for-profit contractors, we can set the terms on which we engage. I think we need to be setting terms that require higher pay. Now, that being said, we can't get something for nothing. And so we can't just say you have to pay more and then not actually provide the funds in those contracts. So we're gonna have to put our money where our mouth is, or our treasure where our heart is - as the scripture says. [00:17:21] Crystal Fincher: What are your highest priority plans to address homelessness? [00:17:26] Ron Davis: Yeah, so I think the data is pretty clear that what causes homelessness to vary by city is housing related, right? So although there are individual causes that push people into homelessness - like mental health, behavioral health issues, or other tragedies in people's lives - the thing that makes homelessness happen in a city is the lack of affordable housing. And so for me, my big focuses there are a mix of supply, subsidies, and stabilization policies. So on the supply side, that means a broad zoning reform - at least tripling the zoning envelope around the city, making sure that no neighborhood is exempt - and creating sort of livable, walkable communities where there's plenty of space to build. And it also means permitting reform, right? So moving to a single-track permitting process - right now we have this dual-track process that's really Byzantine and takes two to three years and it should be more like six weeks to six months - and potentially actually putting a time limit on that and allowing for a builder's remedy. On the subsidy side - even if we get permitting right and zoning right, we start to bend the curve on housing costs and make it so middle-class families can afford to live here again - it's still gonna be tough because this is America and it's an unequal society. And people wanna live in Seattle, so land is expensive. And so we are not gonna be able to meet the needs of all of the market, which means we also need to pay money in - so this is the subsidy side. So aggressive investments in affordable housing, in social housing which is mixed-income, investing in permanent supportive housing for people with chronic behavioral issues, direct subsidies or vouchers for people that appear that they just need a hand up and can get back into the market - you can generally segment the homeless population this way pretty effectively. And then on the stabilization side, displacement often pushes people into homelessness or further down the economic ladder. And so thinking about everything from - I would like to implement now an anti-rent gouging excise tax. I think it would get tied up in court, but I think it actually would be constitutional. It would be a way of sort of backing into something like a milder form of rent control without maybe running afoul of State constitution. I'm fine with the trigger law as well. I would also be interested in something called right-to-return legislation, which basically says - Hey, this is a high displacement risk neighborhood and so if you build here, people need to be able to return at the same price to the equivalent and be compensated in the meantime - which means some of those projects aren't gonna pencil out and it means more housing will get built in richer, lower displacement risk neighborhoods. That's okay. Or it means if people do have temporary displacement that they're gonna land well. I also think just direct aid to folks who appear to be at risk of homelessness - we found in, during the pandemic, is pretty good at - it's one of those pay a dollar in, save seven dollars later and keep people out of actually being on the street. [00:20:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. [00:20:18] Ron Davis: Oh, I should say tiny homes - that's my other, I forgot one other thing, sorry - tiny homes. I also think we need, I do think we need to get, it's a - think of it as like kind of a tourniquet, right? It's not a long-term solution, but it can protect people and kind of stop the bleeding for folks who are on the street right now and have nowhere to go. [00:20:33] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now it comes to transit and transportation, we have a long way to go to address our current pedestrian and bicycle safety crisis. We are seeing injuries and deaths at record rates and community demanding change. How would you improve pedestrian and bicycle safety? [00:20:53] Ron Davis: Yeah, great question. So, this is one of those things where my money is where my mouth is - just like on the last one, I didn't say I worked on statewide legislation to pass the missing middle housing bill. Here, you know, I'm on the board of Seattle Subway, I previously was on the citizen oversight panel at Sound Transit, I'm involved with Neighborhood Greenways, and working on Lid I-5. I - to me, the only safe street is a street is - that is engineered to be safe. And to be - a street that is engineered to be safe has some of the following features. One is it doesn't have long open stretches or really clear visual lines - long, clear visual lines. Two, it doesn't have really wide lanes or series of lanes. Three, it doesn't have wide crossings. So, some of it is just starting to actually engineer our streets because - in a way that slow people down, because we know that when people do - when there are conflicts and there are collisions and people are going slow - first, there's less likely to be a collision. And second, it's much less likely to be nearly so harmful. I mean, it's killing 30 people a year and injuring countless more. Other things that have been proven to be effective - bike lanes have been proven to just reduce overall harm on a road while not significantly impairing total vehicle throughput, raised crosswalks, better signalization, no right turn on red, as you mentioned earlier. I think we need to put more imperative language in our Complete Streets ordinance so that every time we're touching a road, we are moving it toward genuine safe - making it genuinely safe and complete. [00:22:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm also wondering - we are dealing with transit reliability challenges now with a lot of routes being missed and seeing ghost buses, whether from lack of staffing or because there's just not the funding to continue in some places. What can the City do - recognizing that Sound Transit is a regional entity, King County Metro is a county entity - but what can you do in your capacity as a city councilmember to stabilize transit reliability? [00:22:51] Ron Davis: There's a few things we can do. So one is we could increase funding - direct supplementary funding - from the general fund, we could increase funding through the transit levy - both. And we do, through the transit levy, buy additional hours from Metro so we have those relationships - we can do that. But I would say - just sort of backing out - there's a few gaps that I think are fundamental. So one is - something I loved about the Crisis Care Center levy is that it also included money for building up a workforce with more living wages, with training, with wraparound services to get people actually into that workforce and retain them. I think we need to be doing that for our transit workers and actually making that a career that's viable for more people. Of course, I also think that has to be paired with more affordable housing around here as well. Second, I think, of course, direct funding to make sure that there's enough buses - again, that we have frequency is high, but you mentioned reliability. I think another big piece of reliability is traffic. Much, much, much of our transit - other than a good chunk of Link - mixes with traffic. And so the cheapest, easiest, fastest way to improve that is red paint. So while Bus Rapid Transit is awesome and I love it, it's expensive - the first thing we can do is take our busiest transit routes and convert them to transit-only lanes and make sure that buses get places fast and reliably. And then you've tackled a huge part of the frequent, fast, reliable trio problem. [00:24:10] Crystal Fincher: Now, another challenge that Seattle residents are dealing with is the extremely high cost and sometimes low availability of childcare. And that has so many impacts on our larger economy - even for people that don't have kids, this affects our community. But for those who do, the average cost of childcare is now greater than the cost of college, which is just eye-popping. [00:24:36] Ron Davis: Unbelievable. [00:24:37] Crystal Fincher: How do you propose to help this problem and to help families with this challenge? [00:24:43] Ron Davis: Yeah, I think there's small things we can do, and then there's kind of one larger thing that we can do. So I think on the small side, just building capacity - we did see some success during the pandemic with funds that were set aside to say, make small remodels in an in-home childcare setting that would get a bathroom on the first floor that would allow doubling of the number of children available - things like that, that went a long way. So I think there's some smart things we could do there. I think there's smart things we could do in retooling some spaces downtown, which I think would actually bring more office workers downtown. And certainly exempting childcare from floor area ratio - basically it's free square footage, right, for audience members who aren't that nerdy, although most of your audience, I'm guessing, is a little bit nerdy and probably does know what that is - and allowing it, legalizing it at every neighborhood. I think the longer term, though - at some point, we're gonna have to more seriously fund a direct stream here that ensures that the workers are paid wages that make it viable - make it a viable career. And that the capacity is there, and that the affordability is there. And so for me, I imagine - I think that if I'm not mistaken, I think that economists say an affordable childcare is like no more than 7% of your gross income, I can't remember the exact number - but whatever that is, I think we should be capping it and subsidizing it accordingly. [00:26:08] Crystal Fincher: A lot of good ideas there. I wanna talk about the broader economy a little bit. Seattle has a very, very diverse business community, as does District 4. We have some of the largest companies in the world here, as well as a really diverse and vibrant small business community. And I wanna talk about small businesses who are facing a lot of challenges - I guess from your perspective, what are the biggest challenges that they are facing, and how can you help? [00:26:35] Ron Davis: Yeah, I think the two biggest are the sort of public safety behavioral health crisis that's happening on their doors - 'cause at least when I think of small business, archetypically I'm thinking of our little retail businesses. Although as a former small business owner, I guess there's multiple types, and that was not what I did. But, and then the other is real estate costs, right? It's very, very expensive to run a shop. So if it's expensive, and you're dealing with behavioral health issues at your door, and there's no civilian response you can call, you're really in a world of hurt. And so obviously everything we talked about earlier with public safety is how I would address the public safety issues, as well as I think we should be investing a lot more just generally in drug treatment and supplementing, even supplementing the Crisis Care Center levy in Seattle. But on the real estate side, Andrew Lewis recently proposed some legislation that is sort of the equivalent of a kind of a soft rent control for small businesses. And I'm interested in that, I like that. I haven't studied it closely enough to know exactly like how much, what do I think, what are the right situations? But especially for some of our like historic districts where a lot of those small minority and immigrant owned businesses tend to get started - like the Ave in Seattle - like I think we absolutely need to not have all of those turn into just open air malls like they have everywhere else. And I also think people need to be able to get started here and be successful. [00:27:58] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, big issue looming over the City of Seattle is the projected revenue shortfall of $224 million - that's what it's currently projected to be starting in 2025. Because the City's mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the deficit are pretty binary - either raise revenue or cut services. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its constituents? [00:28:28] Ron Davis: Great question. So one is, I wrote an article a while back that said - it was called "Seattle Needs Money" - and it was related to this exact topic. And it was, my argument was - Hey, this is a shortfall. We're losing a lot of revenue because of things like the real estate excise tax slowing down and we're gonna have to gut essential services or we're gonna have to raise money. And so the best choice of those is to raise money. And by the way, our taxes are really regressive - they fall a lot, much more on working class people, middle class people, poor people than they do on wealthy folks. And so our taxes need to be more progressive - as in they need to take more from people who have more - to rebalance our tax code a little bit. How would I do that? Some of my favorite options right now that I'm interested in and would probably just vote yes on now would be A) we could increase JumpStart - we could increase its scope and we could increase its magnitude a little bit. I think it should run from more like 1-4%, not 0.7-2.1% or whatever it is - I think you're still very much in the safe zone where you're not killing the golden goose or anything like that. Alex Pedersen has proposed a 3% top-off to the 7% tax on extreme capital gains - I think that's also a reasonable idea, I wouldn't do his funny switch with water bills, but it could be a significant - that'd be at least another $30 million. Between those two, you'd start to see a substantial difference. I think a vacancy tax is fine - it's not gonna raise a ton of money. I'm also interested in - I have spoken with some constitutional scholars to make sure this would be cool - but I am very interested in a 1% income tax with a $700 rebate, which would be free or actually a check if you make $70,000 or less, and above that would start to bite at 1% of your income. So it would be de facto progressive, but statutorily it would be written in flat. So between those, you could cover the entire gap and you would have money left over for things like fentanyl treatment, and affordable housing, and standing up a behavioral health crisis response, and offering people transportation choices - which in contrast, my opponent says she wants to do all those things, but wants to cut $200 million, right? You can't just do magic. [00:30:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I do enjoy hearing concrete ideas - much appreciated for that. Now, as we wrap up today, there are a lot of people trying to make the choice between you and your opponent who you just brought up - trying to determine why they should vote for you versus your opponent. What do you tell voters? [00:30:54] Ron Davis: Yeah, I mean, usually, obviously I'm talking to them and understanding their values and what it is that's important to them, so it kind of depends on the issue. But I would say, like - at a high level, you know, I think we should raise money to deal with our deficit. My opponent Maritza Rivera thinks we should cut $200 million from the general fund, which will impact things like affordable housing, and drug treatment, and civilian responses, and pothole filling, and transit. I think that our city's tax code needs to be more progressive, she does not want to make it more progressive. I'm really focused on housing and homelessness as well as public safety, I think she's kind of only focused on public safety. My public safety plan doesn't ignore what SPD says is possible when it comes to hiring more officers, hers says that we can hire 12 times as much as they say is possible. So I think one of us is much more grounded in reality and aligned with our values, and I think the other is not. One last thing is our histories too are something that are worth looking at, right? I have a history of touching things, and having them go well, and having the people around me say - Hey, this was a really, really good experience. And 26 of 40 of her employees wrote a letter to the mayor not long before she announced that she was running - saying she shouldn't be trusted with City funds and had created a toxic work environment along with her supervisor. So I think the contrast is clear. [00:32:16] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for your time today and sharing your plans should you be elected to city council with all of the listeners today. Thank you so much. [00:32:25] Ron Davis: Thank you so much, Crystal. It's an honor to be on your show - I'm a diehard listener. [00:32:29] Crystal Fincher: Much appreciated. 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 Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Maritza Rivera about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 4. Listen and learn more about Maritza and her thoughts on: [01:06] - Why she is running [04:46] - Lightning round! [19:29] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 4 [22:51] - Response to ARTS staff letter complaints [24:58] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [29:02] - Public Safety: Alternative response [31:24] - Victim support [33:33] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [34:49] - Climate change [36:56] - Transit reliability [39:15] - Bike and pedestrian safety [39:52] - Small business support [41:43] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [43:40] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Maritza Rivera at https://maritzaforseattle.com/.   Maritza Rivera Maritza is running to make restoring our public safety system a priority because she knows from personal experience that failing to take public safety seriously harms low-income and underserved communities the most. She won't rest until we get to 5-minute response times for priority 911 calls, take home and car break-ins seriously, get guns off our streets and out of our schools and shut down open-air drug markets. Maritza loves Seattle, the small businesses, food, arts, music, and diverse populations that make up our city's rich fabric. Maritza is committed to listening to everyone and working with everyone – to find real solutions to real challenges we cannot ignore any longer.   Resources Campaign Website - Maritza Rivera   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, today I'm very pleased to be welcoming a candidate for Seattle City Council District 4 to the program - welcome, Maritza Rivera. [00:01:01] Maritza Rivera: Thank you, Crystal. Thanks for having me on the program today. [00:01:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, I wanted to start off by hearing why you are running. [00:01:12] Maritza Rivera: Thank you for the question, Crystal. I'm running because I'm a mom of two teenage daughters who go to Ingraham High School, where - sadly, and I'm sure you know, and everyone else by now knows - there was a shooting in the fall last November. And a student got killed by another student. And our kids were all in lockdown for hours. And as I was sitting - not sitting, standing - at the parking lot waiting for the kids to come out and my girls to come out, it was, you know, a frightening experience. And I thought, you know, the public safety issues in Seattle right now are such that I can't sit around and watch what's happening. And when our current councilmember, Alex Pedersen, decided not to run again, I thought - I have 30 years of public service, I have something I can offer the city council, and I can't sit around and watch - I have to try to do something. You know, I grew up in New York City in the Bronx, in a mainly Black and brown neighborhood - and it was low-income and it wasn't safe. You know, we were safe in our homes, but it wasn't safe walking to and from school. And I moved to Seattle 22 years ago because it was so safe and vibrant and beautiful - and I thought what a great place it would be to start and raise a family, and we did that. And then fast forward - you know, things have really changed in Seattle - and, you know, I got into the race to address what I think is most urgent right now, which is the public safety issues across the city that the D4 is also experiencing, like the, you know, the shooting at my daughter's school, like the - daughters' school - the, there are home break-ins and car break-ins, the businesses on the commercial corridors of the D4 are suffering. Those small businesses - they're getting their windows broken into, there're folks using drugs blocking their entryways. So, you know, these are all the issues - there've been shootings in this neighborhood apart from the school shooting. And so we really need to address that. And, you know, we need to do various things on the, you know, unhoused folks - we need to get folks off the street. I think it's inhumane to leave people living on the street where there's no sanitation and amenities, where women and youth are particularly vulnerable. Lots of folks in those encampments are vulnerable to, you know, the drug dealers who are preying on these folks. We really got to get them indoors. We need to provide services - both mental health and drug addiction services - but we need to have folks off the streets. You know, we need to do better that way. And so for all these reasons, I thought - you know, I'm going to get into this race and I'm gonna do what I can to help get our city back on track. I think the mayor's doing a great job, but he needs a city council that's gonna work with him to actually accomplish positive change. [00:04:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Well, we are going to add a different element into this than we have in some of our prior years' candidate interviews and do a little lightning round here in the interview. Pretty quick and painless - but just some quick yes or no, or quick answer questions. So starting off - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:05:08] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:05:09] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:05:13] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:05:14] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:05:21] Maritza Rivera: That's the PDA [Public Development Authority]? [00:05:24] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:05:25] Maritza Rivera: No. [00:05:26] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:05:30] Maritza Rivera: Bruce Harrell. [00:05:32] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:05:38] Maritza Rivera: Ann Davison. [00:05:39] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:05:46] Maritza Rivera: Oh my God. I'm so sorry, I'm having a - Leesa Manion, Jim - I can't remember, Crystal. [00:06:04] Crystal Fincher: Okay. In 2022, did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:06:10] Maritza Rivera: Patty Murray. [00:06:12] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:06:15] Maritza Rivera: Own. [00:06:16] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:06:24] Maritza Rivera: I don't have an opinion on that one. [00:06:27] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:06:30] Maritza Rivera: We are. [00:06:31] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to better help plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:06:47] Maritza Rivera: You know, I'm gonna say maybe on that one. [00:06:51] Crystal Fincher: Are there instances where you support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:06:57] Maritza Rivera: I, you know, we need to get people off the streets. So I do support getting folks off the streets and into sheltering. [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:07:17] Maritza Rivera: And that one also, I would say maybe, because it depends on - the reason I didn't vote for it was because I feel like we have all these programs for housing and I need to see, you know, where are we with what the investments we're already making before we add another thing. So I just have concerns about adding something else before we know what we're doing with the current investments that we have. But I think that, you know, it passed. So it doesn't matter, you know, it's the law of the land and I respect that. And I think that we should have - you know, let them do a, let us do a project - let us invest in a project and see how it goes. And if it's successful, then great - we should keep funding it. [00:08:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:08:20] Maritza Rivera: You know, to be honest, Crystal - I don't know enough about why he's, you know, he's making the recommendation to close it to be able to answer yes or no on that one. [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:08:37] Maritza Rivera: Depends what kind of police. Like I think if it's community police officers and if it's in a - you know, what the details around it is - I think I might support something like that, but it just depends what it is. [00:08:53] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow any armed presence in schools? [00:08:59] Maritza Rivera: Armed presence. I don't think we need armed presence in schools, but I do need - I think we need to make the relationship between, you know, our youth and schools and the police more - you know, a better relationship. [00:09:16] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:09:25] Maritza Rivera: I would have to see what that looks like. Civilian-led without any experience working with mental health folks - I'm sorry, with folks that are experiencing mental health crisis - like, I mean, you need mental health professionals to work with folks. So if it's in conjunction working with the mental health professionals, perhaps. But folks experiencing mental crisis really need a mental health professional. [00:09:54] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and for these, we're going for quick yes, no, or maybe answers. We have a whole section to talk about all the details. So I promise you - you'll get the ability to explain yourself on topics in a fuller way after we get done with this. Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:10:14] Maritza Rivera: Sorry, can you repeat the question? [00:10:17] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:10:25] Maritza Rivera: Maybe. [00:10:27] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:10:42] Maritza Rivera: Most, I mean, maybe, Crystal. Again, we need to look at what the proposal - these are hard to answer yes or no because without the details, it's hard to say on some of these. [00:10:54] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them toward meaningful public safety measures? [00:11:06] Maritza Rivera: We need to hire more police officers. So, I mean, taking money away from being able to do that, and you can't do the money- [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Right, this isn't for hiring police officers. This is money that was allocated for unfilled positions that were then not hired yet. So in this year's budget - where there is money there for them to be hired, but they weren't hired yet. [00:11:29] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, but it's not ongoing funding. So, you know, that's a maybe - because if it's, you're funding something temporarily, but then once you hire the officers, you're not gonna have the money to redirect the resources. So if you're saying the funds for this year's budget that haven't been used, and it's a one-time thing- [00:11:51] Crystal Fincher: Well, there would still be money for hiring in successive budgets. It's just if they didn't use it in the current year. [00:11:55] Maritza Rivera: Correct - current, but I mean - yeah. [00:11:57] Crystal Fincher: So you think it should be saved and added to the next budget? Is that- [00:12:01] Maritza Rivera: No, no - what I'm saying is if you're gonna use it for a one-time investment in something, then that's fine. But if it's not for ongoing - if you need to hire the officers, right? 'Cause the problem, Crystal, is sometimes - you know, if you're investing in something, that thing you're investing in, if it's a community thing, that needs ongoing investment as well. So I just wanna differentiate - if we're not using it this year, then we should redirect it to something else, like the budget in general of the City. But then it has to be something that's a one-time because then for the following year, you're gonna need it to fund the thing you originally- [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:12:44] Maritza Rivera: -fund, right? [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: And that is a useful differentiation. [00:12:48] Maritza Rivera: Yeah. [00:12:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:12:56] Maritza Rivera: I would support - you know, I've had- [00:12:58] Crystal Fincher: Going for a yes, no, or maybe, yes, no, or maybe. [00:13:01] Maritza Rivera: Well, maybe on that, but- [00:13:04] Crystal Fincher: Okay. [00:13:05] Maritza Rivera: More leaning toward no, because I think the Fire Department actually has a better solution that I would support instead of consumption sites. [00:13:14] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Do you support increasing funding in the City- [00:13:16] Maritza Rivera: I'm sorry, the Fire Department, did I say Fire? [00:13:18] Crystal Fincher: I think you said that. [00:13:21] Maritza Rivera: Okay, great. [00:13:22] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:13:28] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:13:29] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:13:40] Maritza Rivera: I need more information about that, Crystal. [00:13:43] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:13:53] Maritza Rivera: I need more information about the SPOG contract. So anything related to that. [00:14:00] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So again, opposing a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? Again, not enough information? [00:14:12] Maritza Rivera: Can you tell me the question again? Sorry. [00:14:18] Crystal Fincher: Sure. Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:14:32] Maritza Rivera: So take money away from the police department to put into police alternatives. [00:14:38] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that prohibits, or impedes, or makes harder the ability of the city to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:14:53] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, I do need more information. [00:14:55] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:15:04] Maritza Rivera: Ask me again - sorry - do I? [00:15:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? So if they're working - doing parking duty, or traffic direction duty - off-duty. Or if they're working in a security capacity off-duty. Do you support eliminating their ability to do that in SPD uniform? [00:15:37] Maritza Rivera: I need more information about that too, Crystal. These are very detailed. [00:15:45] Crystal Fincher: They're specific questions. [00:15:47] Maritza Rivera: Very specific - correct. [00:15:49] Crystal Fincher: Yes. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:15:58] Maritza Rivera: Yes, I support that. [00:16:00] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms and public facilities that match their gender? [00:16:05] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:16:06] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:16:14] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:16:16] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:16:24] Maritza Rivera: Need more information about that - it depends. [00:16:27] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:16:34] Maritza Rivera: I mean, as a user of the waterfront, I think it's a great project. Obviously, I don't have the details of the investments that are being made and how things are getting completed, but I think it's a great project for the city. [00:16:53] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates like the one issued by Amazon are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:17:02] Maritza Rivera: Yes, absolutely. [00:17:05] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken- [00:17:06] Maritza Rivera: We need to get folks back into the office if we're gonna get downtown back on track. [00:17:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:17:14] Maritza Rivera: Yes. Light rail. [00:17:15] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:17:19] Maritza Rivera: No. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:17:25] Maritza Rivera: Actually, I would like to see it closed off to non-commercial, which is a proposal - I know - that's being floated around. [00:17:34] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:17:42] Maritza Rivera: Sorry, ask again. [00:17:43] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:17:50] Maritza Rivera: Yes, we should do all we can to finish the extensions. [00:17:56] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:18:04] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:18:05] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:18:08] Maritza Rivera: I haven't personally, but my dad was when I was growing up. [00:18:15] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:18:24] Maritza Rivera: I definitely support that. [00:18:27] Crystal Fincher: So you would vote to increase funding? [00:18:30] Maritza Rivera: I mean, I support doing it. I can't say - I mean, I don't know what the current, where we currently are with that work at OLS [Office of Labor Standards], but I definitely support it. And if we need more funding, then we need to look - figure out how to get it. [00:18:47] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:18:49] Maritza Rivera: Yes. No - like walked with the picketers. [00:18:53] Crystal Fincher: Supporting. Supporting the picketers, yes. [00:18:56] Maritza Rivera: Supporting - yes. [00:18:57] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:19:04] Maritza Rivera: No. [00:19:05] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:19:12] Maritza Rivera: Campaign - no. [00:19:13] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:19:19] Maritza Rivera: Yes. [00:19:21] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the end of our lightning round. Pretty painless, there we go. So back to other questions. Lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district, and what impact that has had on residents there? [00:19:44] Maritza Rivera: I've worked - so I've worked at the City for a number of years now - I just resigned from my position as Deputy Director in the Office of Arts and Culture, where I primarily was in charge of getting our budget through the budget process. And prior to that, I was in Mayor Durkan's administration - worked in the Mayor's office and worked with a portfolio of City departments - a lot of it related to their budgets and reviewing of their budgets. So I think in general - not just in the D4, but across the city - I've been involved in reviewing department budgets and working to make sure and bring accountability to those budgets. And making sure that I was implementing the mayor's - and the city council, when they passed the budget - implementing the programs and the services that were passed in the budget. So like I'll say most recently, 'cause I was just at ARTS, there was recovery funding for arts organizations and artists across the city. And I worked - our staff did a great job - and I worked with our staff to get those dollars out the door as quickly as possible, particularly post-pandemic. And the department gives grants out to organizations, arts organizations, across the city. So we work to make sure and we were getting those grants out as quickly as possible. So I think these are things that are not just specific to the D4, but do include the D4. True, in the Durkan administration - unfortunately, we were in a pandemic. And one thing that I feel really proud of is - I worked on reopening of the farmers markets after everything was shut down. It was really the first thing that was opened, and I worked with the farmers markets across the city - including the one at the University District - to make sure that they opened it safely during that post-pandemic, not post-, but during the pandemic, actually - I shouldn't say post-pandemic - during that pandemic time. And I'm really proud of the work that I did there because the farmers market was open and available to the residents here in the D4. And I'm proud to say there were no outbreaks at the farmers markets because we were following the public health guidelines, and working with the farmers markets' leaders who did a great job in putting the guidelines - following the guidelines and making sure that they were doing all they could to make sure that there were no outbreaks so we could continue to keep the markets open. [00:22:51] Crystal Fincher: I wanted to ask more about your time at ARTS because there was reporting related to your time there saying that 26 out of 40 ARTS staff at the time signed a letter really detailing complaints against you, highlighted by three - that leadership disregarded City policies, that there was a toxic work environment, and that the staff's ability to do its work for the community was hindered. With over half of the employees there signing their name to this letter publicly and this being handed over to the Ombuds office with their concerns, how do you respond to this? Do you think that accurately reflects your time there? Were there any thing that these employees said that to you was something that you could improve or reflect on? [00:23:39] Maritza Rivera: I'll say, Crystal, that the mayor brought in Director, or former Director - or former Interim Director - royal alley-barnes to direct the office. She, in turn, brought me on - I was backfilling for someone at the time. And, you know, I know that staff - you know, every time there's change of leadership, staff has - some staff have a hard time. And so - you know, we, I feel really proud of the work that I did while I was at ARTS. And I have a lot of respect for the folks that work there. I know change is hard, but we worked together and we were able to get a lot accomplished, and I feel really proud of my personal work while I was at ARTS. [00:24:36] Crystal Fincher: As you consider those allegations in your time there, is there anything to you that you could have done differently to change that outcome? [00:24:47] Maritza Rivera: Again, I just feel really proud of the work that we were accomplished - I mean, that we accomplished together. That's - you know, I feel proud of the work there. [00:24:58] Crystal Fincher: Well, I wanna ask you about the budget, because the City of Seattle is projected to have a $224 million budget shortfall in 2025. The City's mandated to pass a balanced budget, so the options to address this are either raise revenue, cut services, or some combination of those two. Which one of those will be your approach to the budget? [00:25:22] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, thank you for the question, Crystal - and obviously this comes up a lot. First and foremost, I think we need to look at the budget and make sure that we are accountable to the dollars that we're currently investing. So I say that, to say - we need to look at the programs that are being funded and make sure that they're having the outcomes that we intended - because part of budgeting is making sure that the money that you're using is being well spent. And you don't know that if you don't know what outcomes you're getting - How many folks are you helping? Is it really helping? Does the community feel like it's helping? And so we need to do the reviewing of those programs in each of those departments to make sure that the programs that we're funding are actually, like I said, having the intended outcomes. If they are, then we should continue them. If they're not, then we should redirect the resources to something different that will have the outcomes that we're intending. So we need to engage in that exercise before then we look at - excuse me - raising revenue. And so that, to me, is really important - the accountability piece. I feel really strongly - I mean, my dad was a blue collar worker and he paid taxes, and I just, I'm very sensitive - people work really hard for their money and we wanna make sure that we're spending their money, we're accountable to those dollars. And then once we do that exercise, then we can look toward - if we need to raise revenue, then we can look at how we would do that. But I do feel like the accountability piece is really important and it's been missing. [00:27:18] Crystal Fincher: Well, I do wanna get into more specifics here because that is not a small budget cut - pretty significant - so unless that review winds up with some pretty steep cuts or that's the outcome - that will end up, there will also need to be revenue. There were some options presented by a revenue workgroup. Do you support revenue options, and which ones do you see yourself supporting or advocating? [00:27:44] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, Crystal - I can't say now which ones I would support. You know, I'd have to, I'd look at it and see and talk to, you know, folks. And see and then talk to my colleagues and see what makes sense for the city - and talk to the mayor, obviously, as well. So we need to do this working together. We need to find these solutions working together as a city council and working with the mayor. So I can't say today which ones I would support, but I will say that we need to work together to look at which ones make the most sense for the city. [00:28:25] Crystal Fincher: Are there any of the recommendations that you would not support, or what would be the priority revenue options or what you'd be most likely to support? [00:28:36] Maritza Rivera: I don't have - I can't say today what that would be. [00:28:41] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so nothing from the workgroup that you've heard makes it to the top of the list? [00:28:48] Maritza Rivera: There's nothing today that - I wouldn't prioritize it right now. I'd wanna have conversations about it. [00:28:54] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. I do wanna talk about- [00:28:56] Maritza Rivera: I haven't met with the workgroup and I haven't had the opportunity to have those conversations. [00:29:01] Crystal Fincher: I see. When it comes to public safety, several jurisdictions around the country and in our region have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having a behavioral health crisis or other issues, but Seattle has stalled in implementing what's a widely-supported idea. Money's been allocated, but it has not been implemented yet. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:29:32] Maritza Rivera: Well, I think that we need to support alternative responses because we know that, in certain cases, a police officer is not trained to handle a situation - but a mental health or social provider or social worker's in a better position to, is trained to respond to those situations and be able to deescalate. In terms of - you know, I think the non-police solutions where there's a co-response - sometimes that's appropriate and that's what we, you know, should support. You know, I think the Health One model is a great model - it's proven to be successful and it's one that we should look to invest more in. Those are the kinds of models that I think have proven results to work and something that we should look at expanding. And then, also - I mean, in terms of in the community - when the police budget got cut, things like the police, the community policing efforts, also - those are the things that kind of go first. And I think those are a really great way of working with community in the neighborhoods to really do, to handle, to address the public safety issues. And so I think that we need to go back to basics that way and make sure that all our neighborhoods have that community policing - community police and those neighborhoods working on the ground with the community folks to address the public safety issues in the neighborhoods. [00:31:24] Crystal Fincher: Now, I do wanna talk about victims and survivors. We talk a lot about victims - people who have been impacted by crime or who have been harmed - but most of what we hear are people speaking for victims or over victims. And we don't often listen to what they're saying, and what they say mostly is that - one, they wanna make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to them or anyone else ever again. And they want better support, more effective support, in helping to get beyond what happened to them - to help mitigate the harm that occurred, whether it's from an assault or a theft or you name it, some help getting beyond that. What can you do, in your capacity as a city councilperson to better support and help victims or people who have been harmed? [00:32:19] Maritza Rivera: I mean, I think - I mean, we need to listen to folks and we need to listen to - you know, we need to listen to their experiences and we need to listen to, you know, their needs. I think that about victims and also survivors - and just in general, as a city councilmember, your job is to listen to your residents in your - to the residents in your district, in this case district. It used to be they weren't district positions, right? They were citywide. But now you need to listen to folks in your district and make sure that you are, you know, not operating in a vacuum when you are doing the work because really, ultimately, the work is to support the residents of the city. And so that includes victims as well - listening and listening to what their needs are, because you need to be well-informed when you are making these decisions that have an impact across the city. [00:33:33] Crystal Fincher: One thing called out by experts as a barrier to the homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living - causing staffing issues, impacting the level of service. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area? And how can you make that more likely with how the City bids for and contracts for services? [00:33:59] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, absolutely - I think the nonprofits need to make sure that they're paying living wages to the folks that they hire, in the same way that the City does. And, you know, I mean, I think with the bids - that's an area where you can, as you're working with these providers and nonprofits, making sure that you're setting up funding models that require nonprofits and providers to support workers and make sure that they're paying living wages to their workers. [00:34:49] Crystal Fincher: Now, on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while we're experiencing devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods locally and around the globe. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:35:09] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, I think my biggest priority in terms of the climate is really on the transportation front. I think - you know, I came from a city where we had a robust transportation system and it meant that I didn't have a driver's license 'til I was 30 years old because I - and I took public transit everywhere. So, you know, Seattle - we need to be investing in a transportation system that's on par and competitive with other cities across the country. And, you know, we've lagged behind - it's taken us a long time to get even where we are, but we need to go further. And it really - I think, is one of the best ways that you can address climate change - is to get people out of their cars and using public transportation. And so I support, you know, the light rail, buses. We really need to get folks, you know, utilizing these services, but we can only do so if we have a robust service. And so we really need to focus on investments in the transportation. So, you know, like Move, the Move Seattle Levy's coming up next year - or not coming up, but, you know, renewal, hopefully. The council, whoever's sitting council, will vote to renew it and put it on the ballot again for folks in the city. But I really do think that we need to continue and we need to expand on the transportation investments, so we can have a robust system that folks will utilize and we can get folks out of their cars. [00:36:56] Crystal Fincher: One major issue that people are saying is preventing them from getting out of their cars right now is transit reliability. Because of staffing shortages, other issues - the reliability of buses has been tanking with buses not showing up when they're scheduled, routes being suspended, some being canceled - and really putting people who are currently riding in a bind, forcing some of them out of transit and into cars. Now, Sound Transit is a regional entity and King County Metro is a county entity, but as you talked about with the Move Seattle Levy and other things, the City does impact transit service in the city. So what can you, as a city councilmember, do to stabilize transit reliability? [00:37:43] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, well, we need to work in partnership with Sound Transit and the county to make sure that we are providing a service to residents that is robust and reliable. But we can only do so if we have strong partnerships, because to your point - we make investments, but Sound Transit is the entity that's responsible for implementing, right? So we need to have really strong partnerships with these entities. And I will say reliability is a huge issue, but I'm gonna say my experience is public safety is a huge issue as well. Right now, public safety, in my opinion, has impacted people's not wanting to take the light rail and buses. And then we've also seen bus drivers that have been impacted because of folks doing drugs on the buses and the light - well, bus drivers on the buses and the operators on the light rail. So we need to do, we need - I think public safety is an equally important piece to address when we're looking at trying to increase ridership of the light rail and buses across the city. [00:39:10] Crystal Fincher: How would you- [00:39:11] Maritza Rivera: And we need to work with our partners on that as well. [00:39:14] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. How would you improve pedestrian and bicycle safety? [00:39:20] Maritza Rivera: We need to make sure we have the robust bike lanes and we need to do things like the signal - I don't know what you call it - but the signal, when it changes, it lets the pedestrian, it gives some time for the pedestrian to cross before it changes for the driver. And so we need to do more of that across the city. We have that in certain places, but it's not robust. And so we need to do that - those kinds of things - to promote pedestrian and bike safety. [00:39:52] Crystal Fincher: Now, we have a vibrant economy and a vibrant business community in the city and in the district. We have some of the largest companies headquartered here and nearby, but also really diverse and varied small businesses. What are the highest priorities for small businesses in your district, and what can you do to better support those businesses? [00:40:17] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, the small business owners that I've talked to in the district are really concerned about public safety because they've had to deal with, like I said earlier, windows broken into. There's a business in the D5 that I know has gotten broken into five times and have been robbed. And so - those five times - so we need to support the public safety issues. We would need to provide support for the public safety issues that these small businesses are facing. You know, as you said, we have a vibrant economy. And I think that the lifeblood of any city is it's small businesses - it really - the small businesses keep a city vibrant. Obviously big business provides jobs, so that's important too. But right now I think what the small businesses are mostly facing are those public safety issues. And so we need to really work with them to make sure that we are addressing those issues so that folks are coming out and going to those businesses, and the business owners aren't losing money just trying to deal with the public safety issues that they're experiencing. [00:41:43] Crystal Fincher: Now I do wanna talk about another issue crucial to our local economy and that's childcare. Many families are dealing with a high cost of childcare - it's the number two cost behind housing for most families. And we recently got reporting that shows that childcare is more expensive than college now. Families are breaking their budgets trying to afford this, and we can't talk about inflation or affordability without contending with childcare. What can you do to ease the burden on families for childcare costs? [00:42:18] Maritza Rivera: Yeah, so it - I mean, I experienced firsthand just the childcare issues, a lack thereof. And I'm particularly concerned - I mean, I'm lucky that I actually took some time off to be able to care for my children because it wasn't penciling out - what I was making was going toward childcare. And it was difficult to even find the childcare to begin with, so we need to be supporting the opening of more childcare centers. We need to make sure that childcare providers are working - workers I mean, are making living wages because it's a hard job and, you know, folks are not gonna wanna do it if it's not, you know, a living wage. And so we need to support those things. And I know that the City has some childcare subsidies and my understanding is not everyone is aware - so making sure that community folks, you know, in low - in our underserved communities are aware of the services is really important too on the childcare front. But we definitely need more childcare options and we need to make sure workers are making a living wage so that they will want those jobs. [00:43:40] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we move to close this interview, there are still a lot of people trying to make up their minds between you and your opponent. When a voter is asking - Why should I support you? Or what is the difference between you and the person you're running against? - what do you say? [00:43:58] Maritza Rivera: What I say, Crystal, is that there is a stark difference between us in that - my opponent does not support the mayor's proposal to hire more police officers to address public safety. My opponent doesn't support the drug possession law, which is supported by the mayor and which I do support - and which our current councilmember in the D4 brought forward, actually, with Councilmember Nelson as well. That is huge. If folks - public safety, I have a sense of urgency of public safety. I've said, and I've been consistent, this is why I got into the race to begin with - was the public safety issues because of what happened at my daughters' school. And my opponent is not supporting the laws that would address public safety right now in the city - and that's what we're suffering the most from in the city currently - are the public safety issues. So that is a huge difference. I also think that my opponent's rhetoric is divisive. He's named-called councilmembers. And I talked to a voter the other day who said - my opponent went to her door and was, you know, name-calling and being derogatory on some councilmembers and they didn't like that my opponent was doing that. So I don't think that - you know, you can agree to disagree on the city council and still work together. I worked for Tom Rasmussen when Tom was first elected. And, you know, one thing I saw with that group of city councilmembers - they didn't all agree, you're not always gonna agree, but they did work together to find compromise and move forward. And there was civil discourse. And that's what's missing from the city council right now. And, you know, my opponent's divisive rhetoric is more of the same of the city councilmembers who are engaged in that type of behavior. And so those are two stark differences between us. [00:46:31] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for joining us today, candidate for Seattle City Council District 4, Maritza Rivera. Thank you so much. [00:46:39] Maritza Rivera: Thank you, Crystal. Have a great day. [00:46:42] Crystal Fincher: 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 Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Alex Hudson about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 3. Listen and learn more about Alex and her thoughts on: [01:08] - Why she is running [01:58] - Lightning round! [08:43] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [10:53] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 3 [13:21] - Climate change [15:03] - Transit reliability [17:32] - Bike and pedestrian safety [19:44] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [22:16] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [24:41] - Public Safety: Alternative response [30:55] - Small business support [34:52] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Alex Hudson at @AlexforSeattle.   Alex Hudson Alex Hudson's journey began in Redmond and flourished on a family farm nestled in Unincorporated East King County. With familial roots spanning over 70 years, Alex's commitment to her community runs deep. Today, Alex resides in First Hill alongside her partner and serves as the legal guardian of a freshman at Grafiel High School. Embracing a car-free lifestyle thanks to the neighborhood's walkability and robust public transit options, Alex and her family thrive in their bustling urban environment. Graduating from Redmond High School in 2002, Alex's determination fueled her journey to becoming a first-generation college graduate. Earning a BA in Political Science from Western Washington University, complemented by minors in Sociology and Economics, Alex's academic endeavors were marked by her active involvement within both the college and Bellingham communities. As an empowered advocate, Alex founded the ACLU-WA student club, directed the Associated Students Drug Information Center, and penned a weekly column for the student newspaper. These accomplishments earned her recognition as the '2008 Associated Student Employee of the Year' and the '2008 ACLU-WA Youth Activist of the Year'. Life threw a curveball with Alex's diagnosis of Hodgkin's Lymphoma, but access to vital government programs, coupled with gratitude for social institutions, enabled her recovery. In 2009, Alex's relocation to First Hill aligned with her role as House Manager at Town Hall Seattle. Infatuated with the neighborhood's historical charm, architectural splendor, and vibrant diversity, she made First Hill her home. After contributing to economic and community development consulting, Alex embarked on a pivotal journey as the inaugural employee of the First Hill Improvement Association (FHIA) in 2014. Over her 4.5-year tenure, Alex spearheaded transformative initiatives, including embedding community priorities within numerous development projects,, reimagining First Hill Park, citing two shelters for homeless people in the neighborhood, and leading negotiations for the 'Community Package Coalition', yielding an extraordinary $63 million investment in affordable housing, parks, and public spaces. Alex's impact reverberated further with the revitalization of the Public Realm Action Plan, the creation of Seattle's first 'pavement-to-parks' project, and the facilitation of over 20 artworks on street signal boxes. Named one of 'Seattle's Most Influential People of 2015' by Seattle Magazine for co-creating Seattlish.com, Alex's prowess extended to Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC) as its Executive Director in 2018. Under her leadership, TCC orchestrated monumental victories, securing over $5billion in funding for better transportation, making transit free for every young person in Washington, reforming fare enforcement policies at Sound Transit, championing wage reform for ride-share drivers, and advocating for mobility justice in a post-COVID world. Balancing her responsibilities, Alex contributes as a board member for Bellwether Housing Group and the Freeway Park Association. With a legacy of empowerment and transformative change, Alex Hudson remains a dedicated advocate, shaping the landscape of Seattle's communities and transportation systems.   Resources Campaign Website - Alex Hudson   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very excited to be welcoming Seattle City Council District 3 candidate, Alex Hudson, to the show today. Welcome. [00:01:03] Alex Hudson: It's great to be here - thanks for having me. [00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here. So I guess starting off, just wondering why you decided to run? [00:01:15] Alex Hudson: Yeah, I love the city of Seattle, and I want this to be a great place for the people who live here and people like my kiddo to be able to make a future. I have spent my career working on the issues that affect people in our city the most and pushing towards a city that loves people back. And so I'm excited about the opportunity to take my progressive values, my over a decade of experience taking good ideas and turning those into positive results for people to City Hall, where we can make a really huge impact on the things that matter most to people. [00:01:58] Crystal Fincher: Well, you know, as we were putting together these interviews, we thought, especially for people like you who have just a ton of policy and advocacy experience - how we could have wide-ranging conversations, especially just getting into all the details, we could wonk out forever - but we decided we would try for the first time in interviews, lightning rounds, just to try and help level set a little bit. The eyes got a little wide there, but hopefully this isn't too painful and pretty normal. So we'll do this for a bit and then we'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming of questions, but just to help give a little context beyond the questions that we get to. Wondering - starting out - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:02:45] Alex Hudson: Of course. [00:02:46] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy? [00:02:49] Alex Hudson: Of course. [00:02:50] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:02:54] Alex Hudson: Absolutely. [00:02:56] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:03:00] Alex Hudson: I voted for Lorena González. [00:03:02] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:03:06] Alex Hudson: I voted for Nicole Thomas Kennedy. [00:03:09] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:03:14] Alex Hudson: I voted for Leesa Manion. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent your residence? [00:03:19] Alex Hudson: I do. Yeah, I'm a lifelong renter. [00:03:21] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:03:31] Alex Hudson: Yes, absolutely. [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:03:39] Alex Hudson: The word sweeps is like always one where I'm like - what does that mean to folks, right? But in general, I think that people deserve to be able to live in a place, to exist peacefully before they are just moved along without any connection to resources or support. So I'm not sure if that's a yes or no, but I definitely support people's basic human right to exist and the City's obligation to take care of people. [00:04:08] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:04:13] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:04:14] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:04:22] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:04:23] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:27] Alex Hudson: No. [00:04:29] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:35] Alex Hudson: No. [00:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:44] Alex Hudson: Absolutely, yes. [00:04:45] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:04:51] Alex Hudson: Definitely, yes. [00:04:53] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:05:01] Alex Hudson: Definitely, yes. [00:05:03] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:05:12] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:05:12] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:05:18] Alex Hudson: 100%, yes. [00:05:19] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:05:24] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:05:25] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, OPA, or the Office of Inspector General, OIG, subpoena power? [00:05:38] Alex Hudson: Let me make sure I understand the question 'cause there's a double negative in there. It's - oppose it-- [00:05:44] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to approve a contract that does not have subpoena power? Would you vote to approve or deny a contract? [00:05:52] Alex Hudson: No. They should have subpoena power. [00:05:56] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:06:09] Alex Hudson: There should be no limit - like again, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the question right - sorry... [00:06:15] Crystal Fincher: Makes - totally fair, totally fair. [00:06:19] Alex Hudson: There should be - the oversight of our police department should not be set by the Police Officers Guild. [00:06:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:06:34] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:06:35] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:06:40] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:06:42] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:06:49] Alex Hudson: Of course. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:06:55] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:06:57] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:07:02] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:07:03] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:07:08] Alex Hudson: No. [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:07:12] Alex Hudson: No. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates like the one issued by Amazon are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:07:25] Alex Hudson: No. [00:07:26] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:07:28] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:07:29] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:32] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:07:33] Crystal Fincher: Go ahead, Alex Hudson. Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:41] Alex Hudson: No. [00:07:42] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:49] Alex Hudson: Oh my God, yes. [00:07:51] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:07:57] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:08:01] Alex Hudson: No. [00:08:02] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:10] Alex Hudson: Yes. [00:08:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:08:16] Alex Hudson: Like participated in support of? Or crossed? [00:08:19] Crystal Fincher: Participated in support of a picket. [00:08:21] Alex Hudson: Oh, yes. [00:08:22] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:08:24] Alex Hudson: No. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:08:28] Alex Hudson: No. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their efforts? [00:08:34] Alex Hudson: Of course. [00:08:36] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you for that. That was, I think, a pretty painless lightning round, but pretty illuminating, so appreciate that. Now, the City is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025. Because the City's mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address this upcoming deficit are either raise revenue or cuts. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its constituents? [00:09:08] Alex Hudson: Yeah, this is super important, right? This is like - the basic function of our city council is to pass legislation, pass a budget, and speak on behalf of the priorities, values, and vision of the people of the City of Seattle. I think, you know, I was an executive director of nonprofit organizations for over a decade, and so I've spent a lot of time making and overseeing budgets - not nearly as large or complicated as the City of Seattle, but the basic tenets are the same, right? And so we gotta do a couple of things. We gotta make sure that the money that we're spending still meets our priorities, and that we may need to shift some stuff around so that we can meet the biggest priorities that are in front of us right now. I think we need to be able to take a look and make sure that our spending is matching the ability to do that. I said, you know, when I ran a nonprofit organization, we opted into having audits every year, and I'm very proud that we had five years of clean audits with no managerial notes - and I think that that should be a pretty common practice because the relationship of taking public dollars and spending them - it's really important to get that right. But the reality is is that we know that we do not have the resources that we need in order to address the urgent issues in front of us, and we are going to need to bring more resources into the City budget to be able to do that. And so that's why I've been a very big proponent of things like the municipal capital gains tax, which is a way to start to begin to move our deeply upside-down tax system and the ability to take from the people who have the most and put it into services for the people who have the least. [00:10:53] Crystal Fincher: Now, a lot of people, as they're trying to make the decision between you and your opponent - especially after trying to get their hands around everyone in the primary - now we're looking in the general and are really honing in on issues. Now, you've been involved in a lot of work - as you have said, you've been the executive director of nonprofit organizations, have a long history of advocacy and policy experience. What would you say that you've accomplished that's tangible in the lives of District 3 residents that helps them understand who you are as a person and a candidate? [00:11:27] Alex Hudson: Yeah, quite a number of things. I've helped to bring hundreds of millions of dollars of resources into the things that matter most to folks. I was the lead negotiator and spokesperson for a 10-organization coalition that fought for a fair public deal from the redevelopment of the Convention Center. And through that work - almost two years of organizing - we brought $63 million of revenue into affordable housing, parks and public open space, and multimodal transportation. So if you are riding, for example, on the bike lanes that connect 8th Avenue to Broadway on Pike and Pine, that's because of community coalition work. If you are experiencing betterment in Freeway Park, that's because of that work. If you are a renter or a formerly homeless person living in The Rise and Blake House, which is the largest affordable housing building ever built in the City of Seattle in the last 60 years, that's because of work that I've done. If your child is riding on public transit for free, that's because of work that I've done. If you are enjoying the beautiful First Hill Park, which was redeveloped at no cost to the public, that's because of work that I did to help create that community-led vision and to bring private dollars into that. There are safer streets, better bike lanes, more and better public transit service, more and better affordable housing that I have helped to bring to bear through my work in running the neighborhood organization or running Transportation Choices Coalition. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much for that - really comprehensive and impressive body of work that is visible to people in the district and the city to see what can be built and accomplished there. Now, I wanna talk about climate change because on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, which is a critical milestone in order to make sure that we do reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate and prevent even worsening climate change - although we already are absolutely feeling the impacts, whether it's extreme heat or cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:13:52] Alex Hudson: Yeah, thanks for this question. This is the existential crisis of our time - there is nothing that is possible on a dead planet. And we know that cities are the forefront of this issue because the solution to our accelerating climate crisis is - or one of them is, certainly - is dense, walkable neighborhoods. I talk about, like, you shouldn't need to have a gallon of gas to get a gallon of milk. And the New York Times produced a map recently that talked about average carbon emissions by person and what it shows is that beautiful District 3 - because so much of it is 15-minute walkable neighborhoods - has some of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the country. And so we need to keep making it possible to live a low-carbon life. That means that we need to have more multifamily housing. We need to have a comprehensive plan that puts the things that you need in walking, biking, or transit distance of where you wanna go. We need to have a transit system, frankly, that isn't collapsing around us. And we need to be able to lean very deeply into that clean energy transition. [00:15:03] Crystal Fincher: So, I mean, you mentioned our collapsing transit system. And unfortunately it is, whether it's staff shortages, other challenges that are really just cratering the reliability of the system. Obviously, Metro - King County Metro - is handled by King County, but what role can the City of Seattle play to stabilize transit service in the city? [00:15:24] Alex Hudson: Yeah, folks may know that I have a long history working in transit advocacy. My family lives car-free by choice. And so we rely on public transit to get everywhere we need to go. ATU drivers take my kid to school every day - they make it possible for my whole family to live our lives, and I'm deeply grateful for the people who make that system possible. The City can do a lot to make our transit system possible. One is we need to continue our investment in the Transit Benefit District. I was happy and honored to run that campaign in 2020, November of 2020, and I always like to remind folks that that campaign passed by 82% at a time when - November of 2020, many people were still staying at home. And so that is not only some of the highest that anything has ever been approved in the City of Seattle, that sets an all-time historic national record for the highest approved a transit ballot measure has ever been in this entire country. So when we say that Seattle is a transit town, what we really should be saying that Seattle is the transit town. We need to make buses more reliable - that means we need to get serious about using our very limited public space, our roadway to prioritize the most number of people, which means bus lanes, bus queue jumps. We need to make it so that riding transit is a dignified and wonderful experience. We need to be investing in better bus stops. We need to be investing in the things that make it so that public transit system doesn't have to be a catch-all for social services. And we need to be making it so that fare isn't a barrier to people. So I think that there is a lot to do in terms of like allocating our roadway - that's the piece where the service and the reliability come to bear. We need to continue those investments through STBD [Seattle Transportation Benefit District] and others. And we need to make the experience of riding public transit be irresistibly good. [00:17:32] Crystal Fincher: How would you improve pedestrian and bicycle safety amid the safety crisis that we're experiencing now? [00:17:40] Alex Hudson: Yeah, this is not that complicated. And there are advocates who have been asking for some very basic things for years. We need to have - you talked about this at the top - we need to eliminate right turn on red everywhere in the city of Seattle. We need to signalize a whole lot more places to have left-hand turn lanes so that we're controlling the most dangerous driver movements that we have, which is those turning movements. We need to increase the number of bike lanes all over the place, right? Arterials should have bike lanes on them. I think a lot about 12th Avenue and obviously Eastlake has been much for discussion. We've done a really good job - I'm gonna get wonky, Crystal - we've done a really good job of tying housing density and transit service together in this beautiful virtuous cycle. But what we're missing is that third piece, which is the multimodal transportation. So I would like to see how we can make it - automatic thresholds get crossed in terms of density or transit that then induce and compel the City of Seattle to do these improvements. We have a Complete Streets mandate right now, but mandate's not really the right word - it's checklist. And so how can we make that go from discretionary or I-thought-about-it into like, this-is-what-is-required so that no one has to lose their life in the city of Seattle. We need more curb ramps. We need to make sure, you know, one thing that peeves me is how much of our lighting is for the road and how little of it is for the sidewalk. And so I would like to see more human scale lighting, especially since it's, you know, the big dark is coming and it can be pretty grim here for several months of the year. These are some of the really kind of basic things - we need to be doing a whole lot more narrowing, right - the real way that we have safer streets is through better design. [00:19:44] Crystal Fincher: Now I wanna talk about housing and homelessness. And one thing repeatedly called out by experts as a barrier to the homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living and it sets up just a lot of instability - in the work and the workers who are doing the work. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area? And how can we work with them to make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services? [00:20:17] Alex Hudson: Yeah, I'm on the board of the largest affordable housing provider in King County. And so I have a direct role in helping to make sure that we're living that value with our own workers. So I totally agree that the people who are on the frontlines of this issue should be able to have a comfortable life. I think the City can do a couple of things, right - like we can, in our contracting, like prioritize, we can be investing more deeply in these wages for folks. But I also wanna acknowledge the government's own responsibility in creating the housing affordability crisis in the first place. And so one of the most important ways that we can address this in the mid- and long-term is by bringing down the cost of housing. The City of Minneapolis released some great data a couple of weeks ago that I think should be front page news everywhere, which is by getting rid of exclusionary zoning and investing in affordability - they have created their, they have bucked macroeconomic trends and brought inflation down hugely compared to literally every other city in the country. So long-term, right now we need to pay people so that they can afford their rent today and next month and next year. But what we really need to do is recognize the government's own responsibility in creating this housing and affordability crisis in the first place, and then do everything we can to bring those costs down. It's also true of childcare, right? Like the biggest expenses that people have is their housing, their childcare, and their transportation. There is a lot that we can be doing to be bringing the costs down and making it so that more people can afford to live in the city of Seattle - and that we really think about the role of the government in terms of reducing and eliminating poverty. [00:22:16] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and thank you so much for bringing up childcare, because that is - for many people, like you said, the second largest expense behind housing. For some people, it's coming ahead of housing, depending on how many children they have. Recently reported that the cost of childcare is greater than the cost of college here in Washington and in many states. It's just absolutely expensive and a crisis in its own making for people trying to participate in the labor market, so much appreciated with that. What can we do to help address our childcare crisis in the city? [00:22:52] Alex Hudson: We can make it a whole lot easier to place childcare centers. There's a lot of pretty onerous restrictions about where those facilities can go. In 2015, we're gonna renew our Families and Education and Early Learning Promise levy, and we can be thinking about how to be - like that's the investment tool of how we do early learning and childcare. We can be thinking about things like universal pre-K and expanding all of these things beyond, and even investing in the earliest kinds of daycare. We can be thinking about how we can be incentivizing some of the vacant commercial space that exists all over the place, and how we can be subsidizing the childcare there. We can definitely be thinking more about how we do TOD-based, or transit-oriented development-based childcare. I was just talking to somebody recently about how we don't have childcare on top of the Capitol Hill light rail station - and one of the reasons is, is that the childcare providers there really feel like what they need is a vehicle pickup and drop-off zone. I, for one, recognize that vehicles actually put children in danger, but we can figure out creatively how to be partnering with those providers so that they can feel that transit-oriented development is a great place for their childcare to go. I'm really - you know, I think there's a lot of promise in the state capital gains tax, which is meant to be investing very deeply in early learning and creating free opportunities across the state. And so it's really those two things always, right - you got a problem - it's bringing down the cost of whatever that problem is, and investing more deeply in the subsidy for it. [00:24:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I wanna talk about public safety too, and starting off on the issue of alternative response. And while a lot of other jurisdictions around the country, and especially in our own region - in King County - have rolled out alternative response programs to better support people having behavioral health crises, Seattle is stalled in implementing what is such a widely-supported idea. Poll after poll, one of the things most widely agreed upon - you know, north of 70, 80, in some instances, 90% - has been that of alternative response, having specialized responders for things that don't quite fit the armed police response, or where that has shown to not be as effective. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:25:37] Alex Hudson: Yeah, I agree with the vast and overwhelming majority of Seattleites that we need more and better systems for making a safer Seattle for all of us - and that that includes civilian response, specialized teams, and others. I, like people in Seattle, are frustrated at why we're getting lapped by places like Kirkland, and I think that we can be doing a whole lot better here. I'm encouraged by the reality that we have some good solutions already in the city of Seattle that, frankly, other people have been copying for a very long time - like Health One. Health One is basically exactly what we're talking about, but Health One has barely seen its budget be increased since that program was implemented, you know, five or six years ago. Like, we don't need to sit around - this is such a Seattle thing, right, to like think that what we need to do is like create some brand new idea when it's like we already created the brand new idea. So we need to be investing in things like Health One. We need to be investing in LEAD and CoLEAD - these systems that really work - like We Deliver Care, part of the Third Avenue Project, is a really promising program that is working, that's connecting directly with people who are miserable and in need, and getting them those first and second steps towards the better life that they deserve, and a community that better reflects our desire to care for people. So I think it's pretty clear and obvious that what we need is this alternative response model. We need for that to include the ability for the people who are doing that first response to have a police officer back them up or be part of that if they want to, but not required to do that. And that's that difference between alternative responses and mandated co-responses. But this is really, really, really urgent. You and I were talking at the top of this - I have a 14-year-old and my 14-year-old and her friends wanna be able to go and enjoy the city. I want to be able to send her to the grocery store when I need eggs. I want her and her friends to be able to go hang out in the local parks and do things without a second thought. And the reality is that that's just not really possible right now and that there are far too many people who are not getting the care and support that they need. [00:28:12] Crystal Fincher: What is on the top of your list? And this alternative response may be it - I think it is for several people, certainly is on the minds of Seattleites, especially those responding to polls seeming to implore the City to implement more alternative and co-response, alternative response models. What do you think will make the biggest difference in terms of public safety in the city and in your district? [00:28:40] Alex Hudson: I really think that we can meet a lot of really important goals if we provide people with more resources to address mental and behavior - mental health crises - and to get people connected to drug treatment and services. Right now, I think when people are thinking about public safety, a lot of what that means for people - I hear this on the thousands and thousands and thousands of doors that I've knocked - people are really concerned about the prevalence of untreated drug addiction and suffering in our streets. So I deeply think that the first thing that we need are harm reduction centers or behavioral health centers - right now - that connect people who are struggling with drug addiction in our streets, connected to those services that they need in order to start living that better life. And that means, you know, things like medically assisted treatment - we need to be able to make that a whole lot easier to access. There's programs like the mobile clinics, which are good and promising - we need to scale that up. We need to also like get real about the housing that folks need in order to be stabilized. We have so few long-term residential care facility beds for folks who, you know, are gonna be the most successful with more support than even permanent supportive housing can provide people. And we've basically decimated that important resource in our city through a lack of investment. Seattle struggles to fund things at scale - like we talk about, we have these great ideas and they work, and then we give it like a tenth of the resources that it actually needs. And then we're like - Well, gee whiz, why didn't this work? And it's like - Well, 'cause we didn't actually give it the investment. So I think that it's really, really, really important that we stop people from dying in our streets. We get people connected to the medical care that they need, that they deserve. And then if we can address those issues with a real sense of urgency and in the framework of our progressive values, it's gonna feel like our city is more the place that we want it to be. [00:30:55] Crystal Fincher: Now, our economy gets talked about a lot - the people who make up the economy - and especially in terms of Seattle's economy, which is very diverse, having the largest corporations in the world - Amazon headquartered here, Microsoft headquartered nearby, but also a lot of vibrant small businesses who really help to give the city character and certainly play a massive role in our local economy and just how healthy we are as a community. What do you think are the biggest issues facing, particularly small businesses, in your district and what would help them the most? [00:31:34] Alex Hudson: Yeah, I love this question. District 3 is such a special place - there's a reason why people wanna live here, why it's so desirable to live here, and why people feel so sad when they have to leave. One of the things I learned is that District 3 in Capitol Hill is home to the densest concentration of small businesses anywhere in the state of Washington. It's this really beautiful ecosystem of uniqueness and flavor. But right now it's really hard to kind of sustain your business. Some of that is the cost of commercial rent. There's a great article in the New York Times just this morning about this, right - that there are tax loopholes that make it so that commercial rents that are vacant can be written off as losses by commercial landholders. And that incentivizes vacancy, which is super destructive to a sense of community and contributes to a lack of feeling of public safety. So we need to address the escalation in commercial rent. In the future, we need to make sure that we're building small business retail on the ground floor that's the right size, right? Like there's - downtown there's a whole lot of 5,000 and 10,000 square foot spaces that no small business can afford the lease on. And so that means that we've basically built a city that can only be successful with mega, mega global or national businesses. And that's not really kind of, I think the Seattle that we want. We need to recognize that it's gotten really expensive and in some places impossible to get insurance for small businesses, so the City can be helping to figure out ways that we can be either an underwriter or a supporter of the insurance that small businesses need. We need to make it faster, easier, and more seamless to open a business - we have some pretty onerous permitting and regulations that make it very difficult to start and operate a new business. And we need to figure out how we can be really intentional around getting around the restrictions around gift of public funds - this comes into play a lot with vandalism, either graffiti or broken windows, right - that becomes the financial responsibility of the individual business owner and those can be thousands of dollars that these businesses just don't have, and the city can be helpful there. So in addition to that, I think we need a whole lot more resources in our Office of Economic Development to be providing material and technical support to folks. It's a lot of paperwork and government bureaucracy stuff. And like people who start bakeries or boutiques are not - should not be expected to be experts in paperwork as well. So I think we can have a lot more kind of culturally relevant and in-language support at OED to be helping that. So there's a lot that we can be doing and this is super, super important. [00:34:52] Crystal Fincher: So as voters are trying to make the decision between you and your opponent, what do you tell them about why they should make the choice to vote for you? [00:35:02] Alex Hudson: I have over a decade of experience in translating good ideas into meaningful and impactful policy and investments that do and have made people's lives better. We are going to see - for the second time in a row - a majority brand-new city council, and there is a possibility that our most senior city councilperson will have been there for two years. And so it's really important that we have folks with a lot of experience because the crises that are surrounding our city don't stop - and we don't necessarily, nor does the ongoing work of the City of Seattle. I would also say I'm the very progressive candidate in this race and I think that I reflect the values of our district very strongly. People in this district want to see more housing. They want to see better transit and transportation options. They want to see a public sector that makes it so that our libraries and our community centers are open late and filled with programming. This is the strength of the public sector that I really believe in and know that we can have. So I think I am a strong representative of the progressive values of our district, and I have a very long proven track record of delivering on that and I'm ready to go Day One. [00:36:39] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much, Alex Hudson, candidate for Seattle City Council District 3, for taking the time to chat with us today. Appreciate it and wish you the best. [00:36:49] Alex Hudson: Thank you very much. It was an honor to be here. [00:36:52] Crystal Fincher: 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 Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Joy Hollingsworth about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 3. Listen and learn more about Joy and her thoughts on: [01:07] - Why she is running [02:11] - Lightning round! [08:51] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 3 [11:31] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [14:27] - Climate change [16:37] - Bike and pedestrian safety [20:03] - Transit reliability [22:30] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [24:38] - Public Safety: Alternative response [28:15] - Community surveillance vs safety, stance on ShotSpotter [30:16] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [32:57] - Small business support [36:49] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Joy Hollingsworth at @JoyHollings.   Joy Hollingsworth Joy Hollingsworth is a candidate for the Seattle City Council in District 3. Born and raised in the historic Central District, a neighborhood her family has called home since the 1940's, she is the product of a long line of educators and civil rights leaders. Joy works to build community by establishing relationships based on trust and commitment. She played basketball in college at the University of Arizona and earned her Master's in Education from the University of Washington. Joy currently works at a nonprofit that supports over 400 food banks, meal programs and schools and, prior to that, worked as the Operating Officer and Policy Analyst for her family's business.    Resources Campaign Website - Joy Hollingsworth   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very pleased today to be welcoming Seattle City Council District 3 candidate, Joy Hollingsworth, to the program. Welcome, Joy. [00:01:02] Joy Hollingsworth: Thank you, Crystal - very excited to be here. [00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you here. And the first thing I'm wondering is - why are you running? What made you decide to run, especially this year? [00:01:15] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, when I was doorbelling, someone asked me - Why would you wanna put your hand in a blender and turn it on? And that was their way of asking me - Why would I wanna run for city council? But the biggest thing - 39 years living in the district - and I have seen how public policy has really impacted our community and the missing link of implementation and impact in the interpretation of that policy. So I've been on the tail end of it through - whether it's gentrification, small businesses being ravaged, through seeing our youth - all these different issues, I've seen it firsthand. And I thought that Seattle Council needs a person that has that historical perspective, but also can add to the future of our city - and I'm really excited for that opportunity. [00:02:01] Crystal Fincher: Well, there is certainly a lot of opportunity ahead of us, both to fix a lot of things that have been plaguing us for a while and to build on an exciting vision for the future. We're gonna do things a little differently than we have done in some prior years' candidate interviews - and helping to give voters an idea of where you stand on a wide variety of topics before we get into the detail, as we normally have our conversation, and doing a little bit of a lightning round with yes or no questions here. So I have a little list here. We'll go through these yes or no's pretty quick. Starting off with - this year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:02:41] Joy Hollingsworth: I voted absolutely yes. [00:02:43] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy? [00:02:47] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:02:48] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative I-135? [00:02:54] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:02:55] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:03:01] Joy Hollingsworth: I voted for Bruce Harrell. [00:03:03] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:03:09] Joy Hollingsworth: I voted for Ann Davison. [00:03:10] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:03:16] Joy Hollingsworth: Leesa Manion. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:03:22] Joy Hollingsworth: Patty Murray. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:03:27] Joy Hollingsworth: Actually rent my house from my family - so I rent. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:03:33] Joy Hollingsworth: I am not. [00:03:34] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:03:42] Joy Hollingsworth: Absolutely. [00:03:43] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:03:50] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:03:51] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:04:00] Joy Hollingsworth: No, connecting them to resources - next to, if it was next to a school, that's a in-between for me. [00:04:08] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:04:15] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:04:16] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:20] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:04:21] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:26] Joy Hollingsworth: Community resource officers, yes. [00:04:30] Crystal Fincher: Do you support - and that's an armed officer in the school? [00:04:35] Joy Hollingsworth: No, not an armed officer - a resource officer that's not armed. [00:04:40] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:47] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:04:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:04:53] Joy Hollingsworth: Absolutely, yes. [00:04:54] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:05:06] Joy Hollingsworth: Is there a maybe answer to that? [00:05:08] Crystal Fincher: You can say maybe if you want. You can say maybe. [00:05:12] Joy Hollingsworth: Maybe, thank you. [00:05:13] Crystal Fincher: Do you support - I mean, some might call it a waffle, but we'll also call it a maybe. And we do have plenty of time after this to get into the nitty gritty. So you don't have to just leave it at a yes or no. We will talk more about that later. [00:05:26] Joy Hollingsworth: Thank you. [00:05:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you support - yes, of course. Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them toward meaningful public safety alternative measures? [00:05:38] Joy Hollingsworth: Maybe. [00:05:38] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:05:44] Joy Hollingsworth: No. Are you talking about for - sorry, for - no, I'll just, no. [00:05:52] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:05:58] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of the Inspector General subpoena power? [00:06:08] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:06:10] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:06:19] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:06:20] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:06:29] Joy Hollingsworth: Maybe. [00:06:31] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:06:38] Joy Hollingsworth: Maybe. [00:06:40] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:06:48] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms and public facilities that match their gender? [00:06:55] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:06:56] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:07:01] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:07:02] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:07:07] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:07:14] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, so far. [00:07:15] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe - okay. Do you believe return to work mandates like the one issued by Amazon are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:07:27] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:07:28] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:07:32] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:07:33] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:36] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:07:37] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:42] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:07:43] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:52] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:07:54] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:08:03] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes. [00:08:06] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:08:09] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:18] Joy Hollingsworth: Yes, absolutely. [00:08:19] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:08:23] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:08:28] Joy Hollingsworth: No. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:08:34] Joy Hollingsworth: I don't believe so. No, but they're allowed to. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, if your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:08:43] Joy Hollingsworth: Oh, absolutely. [00:08:45] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that is our little lightning round here - that was pretty painless, I think. So looking at what's going on in the district, lots of people look to work that people have done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district that's tangible to the residents, and what impact it has had on them? [00:09:11] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, a couple things. From one aspect, which I can think of, the first thing I ever did was turn our unit that my grandmother purchased in 1949 into a triplex back in 2001. And people might think like - Oh, that was just one thing that you did, but I can't begin to tell you the impact that had on our community, especially for people not knowing how. And we hosted a listening session, a technical assistance program where we showed people how to be able to turn their house into a triplex - from permitting, to construction, to financing, to implementation, to all these different things. And that was through our church, that was through different organizations - through the Urban League. And so that was like one of the first things that I did as a young person back in 2001 when I was like 17, 18 - I joined our family 'cause I had a lot of experience, even as a young age, learning how to do that. The second piece is the food insecurity piece. For the last three years, I've been on the frontlines of food insecurity, ensuring that organizations outside of the traditional food bank sector - and that means people that are organizations that are receiving federal funding - so the organizations outside of that, whether that's the mom who started a food pantry in her apartment complex or the church group, ensuring that they had food. And that was all the way from Africatown to King County Equity Now, Byrd Barr, Cooka T with Feed The People, the Madrona Pop-Up Pantry - just ensuring that they had food and resources for sustainability into our district. Those are the two main things that I can think of off the top of my head in the district. And last but not least, our family has a cannabis farm and we were on the frontlines of ensuring social equity - and the biggest piece that I know that we were a part of was the $200 million that is gonna be reinvested through the Department of Equity and the Department of Commerce. Right now, you can go and look at those grants and those can be reinvested back into communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs - and that was the Central District that was ravaged in South End. So those three main things - the cannabis equity, the food equity piece, and then the housing piece. [00:11:31] Crystal Fincher: So the City of Seattle is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025. Because the City's mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the upcoming deficit are either to raise revenue or cut services. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its constituents? [00:11:56] Joy Hollingsworth: I think the first piece, and I've said this often, about our budget is - would love for us to have a full examination audit to ensure that where we're spending money, what is it going to different places. Right now, a lot of people are feeling like they're not even receiving the type of services that they should be from our city through their property taxes, through all the different revenue streams that are happening in our city. We're not able to meet some of the basic needs. So I'd like us to do a full examination - how we're spending money first off. And then the second piece is - okay, now we know how we're spending money. I'm a small business owner. I know every nook and cranny how money's spent and where it goes in and comes out. And then we can figure out revenue sources to figure out how we allocate it to those. And I know the state just passed a capital gains tax, there could be a vacancy tax - all the different pieces that the task force has come out and recommended for us - to increase JumpStart tax, the CEO tax. There can be so many different pieces - high earners tax - I think those are on the table. But I think the first step is for us to understand where the money's going, how it's being spent, where it's allocated, and ways - are there more efficiencies that we can be able to put in place? [00:13:14] Crystal Fincher: So you talked about the state's action, the report that did come out from the council about options for raising revenue. Do you support or plan to advocate for any of those options in particular, or any others that you have? [00:13:29] Joy Hollingsworth: I would love for us to look at a high earners tax - I think that would be an ideal place to look at - also a CEO tax. It's not to say I'm against a capital gains tax. However, it's hard to base a tax off of a stock market and how that can fluctuate, and I would hate for us to project a budget based on a stock market and then stuff happens and we can't be able to provide those services. So those three - increasing a JumpStart tax would be on the table as well that we can look at that piece as well - but yeah, high earners, JumpStart Tax, and a CEO tax. [00:14:07] Crystal Fincher: So in favor of those. So would you be a no vote on capital gains? [00:14:11] Joy Hollingsworth: Not to say I wouldn't be a no. I would love - if we did vote yes, it would have to also be another tax associated with that to balance it out in case - I would hate to project revenue based off of a stock market, how volatile it is, that's all I'm saying. [00:14:27] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now on almost every measure, we're behind our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, to wildfire and floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:14:44] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, so we definitely have climate goals. One of the things that's not talked about is how much food is wasted in our city and how much that contributes to our climate piece. So for example, Spokane - 70% of their food is donated, 30% is purchased from a lot of their food banks. Seattle, it's reversed - 70% is purchased, 30% is donated. That is a food waste issue - 40% of our food is wasted. Every time you eat a hamburger - one pound - you are contributing 65 emissions of gasoline into our atmosphere. And so I'm vegan - I'm not trying to make anyone vegan - but understanding that a lot of times, a lot of our carbon emissions is food. And in Seattle, a lot of it is through transportation, obviously. And so those two biggest pieces - the food piece of it is ensuring that we can have a better system - how we get food into different spaces and food access points before it's wasted, because a lot of it is. And one thing that scares me a lot is food - I don't think a lot of people understand how important food is to our society and health and environment. But also is to ensure that we have equitable transportation policies. And right now what's going on is in District 2 - even though I'm in District 3 - a lot of the bus lanes are sitting empty. A lot of the transit options are being cut in South End communities. And so a lot of people down here would love to ride the bus. They'd love to have sidewalks. They would love - in North End and South End - we don't have a lot of sidewalks and pedestrian accessibility. I would love for us to champion more of the equitable side - climate justice - rather than just so much of infrastructure as we've been investing in, which is great, but it needs to marry the equitable piece as well. [00:16:37] Crystal Fincher: Now, when it comes to transit and transportation - as you just talked about - we are having a pedestrian and bicycle safety crisis. Do you view this as a crisis and what would you do to address it? [00:16:51] Joy Hollingsworth: Do I view the crisis of us not implementing a lot of bike lanes and pedestrianizing streets and safety piece? Oh yeah, absolutely. It's definitely a crisis. Look, North Seattle and South Seattle are the places that don't have adequate sidewalks. And so you have to design - in order for us to encourage people to use the buses, to use transit, you have to design it for a way we want people to interact. So sidewalk accessibility - ensuring that every sidewalk, or excuse me, every crosswalk next to a school should be lit - every single one. It used to be, you would press a button, it lights up for our kids to be able to walk to school. Also, we have to ensure that a lot of the sidewalk repairs, we have yet to - around Cal Anderson, you see a lot of the sidewalks are bumpy, they come out, they're not accessible for mom and strollers or someone that has a wheelchair. We have forgotten a lot about the infrastructure piece, like just the basic day-to-day stuff. And we've jumped over that to, you know, think about these grandiose things instead of really focusing, you know, micro issues that are within our community. [00:18:10] Crystal Fincher: So with so much needing to happen, what would you prioritize and how do you balance the competition between car infrastructure and that for pedestrians and bikes? [00:18:22] Joy Hollingsworth: A lot of people in Seattle feel like it's the War on Cars and it's not. It's about ensuring that we have safe transportation, whichever way you want to use that transit - whether it's bus, biking, walking, or, you know, using a vehicle. And so what's happening is - what I would love to prioritize are bike lanes that are, you know, not connected within our city. I think about 12th Avenue from Volunteer Park all the way up to Beacon Hill - that is a train wreck of a street. And so understanding, you know, we need protected bike lanes so people can be able to get from Volunteer Park up into the I-90 corridor, if they want to go east, or continue up into the Chief Sealth Trail - that place - ensuring that our sidewalks, accessibility around Cal Anderson Park or other places around our city are accessible and ADA specific so people in wheelchairs can be able to use them. I also want to champion, like I said, the crosswalk piece around schools. We have a number of schools in our school district from Meany over on John Street - that's where I live off of - those crosswalks are really dangerous, especially if you're coming east and the sun is shining right in your eyes, you can't even see the crosswalks. People can't even see people at times. So there's some high-need areas right now, but those would be some of the main pieces. So, you know, obviously bike lane infrastructure, the sidewalk infrastructure. And also too, we talk about how we want people to be in electric cars - it's hard to find an electric charging station around Seattle. And that infrastructure, you go to LA or other places, they're everywhere. And so if we want to invest in that infrastructure, we have to start doing it now. [00:20:03] Crystal Fincher: So right now, you know, speaking of transit - transit reliability is a problem right now. Between operator shortages and other things, buses just are not showing up when they're scheduled or supposed to for a lot of people - impacting ridership. Now, King County Metro and Sound Transit are county and regional bodies, but what can the City do to stabilize transit reliability? [00:20:28] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, one of the biggest things, Crystal, is we could make it affordable for a bus driver or a mechanic or someone in the working class to be able to live here. A lot of times I go on Twitter and - my favorite place - and you see, you know, people are talking about the late 8, or ghost buses that are not showing up, or just, you know, different issues that they've had with transit being late, or just certain different aspects. But we also have to understand that there are people driving these buses. And a lot of those people cannot afford to live in our city and they have to drive from Puyallup, from Tacoma, from wherever to live here - or there's a shortage on mechanics. And so we definitely want - I think the City can do a better job of making housing affordable, championing workforce housing specifically. There's a lot of people that make above affordable housing salaries, but not enough to make ends meet. And they are really struggling right now because we are pressing out our middle class and making it super unaffordable to live here. And so, you know, championing those pieces - whether if you're an essential worker, from someone who's a social worker to a teacher, to a first responder who is not with, works in the city, I'm talking about first responders that work, that do the contract work, that are, you know, the ambulance workers that might not be a Medic One - they're outside those systems that make minimum wage, which is ridiculous as they're saving lives. And then our bus drivers - they should have options for workforce housing, voucher programs, just like people do in affordable housing. And I think that would really help alleviate a lot of the housing costs that are going on and make it more accessible for people. And then the hiring bonuses, you know - police are at $30,000 and then we're offering a Metro rider $3,000, or Metro driver $3,000. Why can't that be the same, you know, or more closer to where we're making it more, you know, attractive for people to be drivers and operators - I think is important. [00:22:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I wanna keep talking about housing and homelessness, because one of the things called out by experts as a barrier to the homelessness response is - like you were just talking about for bus drivers - frontline worker wages that don't cover the cost of living for the city. 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 the City bids and contracts for services? [00:22:55] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, first of all, absolutely nonprofits should. We know they're squeezed, but I'll go back to this with the City piece. It's hard to be at the City to talk about how we should be paying living wages to folks and try to say - Hey, nonprofit, you need to be paying this. - when the City can't even do that right now. And they're in a contract dispute to figure out livable wages and, you know, cost of living increases, and the 1% that was tried to provide to them - which is ridiculous when Tacoma, you know, I think was at 6%. And, you know, what we have to do - so the first thing I'd love to do is for the City to get on point to ensure that - hey, we have livable wages, cost of living, so we can show nonprofits how to do it. But the other piece is - for the contracting piece, there should be a requirement for a certain standard of livable wages for, you know, people that are bidding for contracts. If they're gonna bid for a contract, they should be able to pay their staff a certain amount. The challenge with a lot of that is that a lot of these nonprofits ramped up their programming during COVID - they got a shot in the arm from the federal government. And so now they have expanded their programming, they expanded their staff. If you look at a lot of the [Form] 990s in nonprofits, you have seen them grow tremendously where they went from a staff of 50 to 100, or a staff of 30 to 100. I mean, it's wild. But to see that growth - obviously the need is there - and so now they're struggling with new sources of revenue and what that looks like. And so ideally it would be great for us to have that requirement that they have to pay a certain wage to their staff in order to get a contract. [00:24:37] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. And also wanna talk about public safety, which is a big concern - particularly alternative response, because while other jurisdictions around the country and even in our region have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having a behavioral health crisis, Seattle is stalled in implementing what is one of the most popular and widely-supported ideas by voters in the city. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:25:11] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, okay, so the public safety thing - look, I was the first one to come out and took heat for it from different news, well, from one news outlet, regarding my stance on police saying - Hey, I would love for us to have number one, better relationships with police officers. And I'd also love for us to - not love - but also for us, hearing from community members that they would like some type of police presence in their community to respond to certain Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls that are happening in their community. The second piece with that is it's not one or the other, it's also in addition to that - like you said, having other response models to different situations and activities that are going on in our city. Number one, being our Health One department through our Fire Department - they can alleviate a lot of the calls that are being transferred to SPD that should be responded by a medical professional or social worker that is equipped with a - someone who's doing pairs with the Health One piece, which is phenomenal. And we can ramp that up immediately - they already have the system, they have the stats to go with it, they can receive more funding. The third piece to that, which a lot of people have been asking for, are these situations where armed police officer's not required, maybe not a Health One person is not required - it should be like a mental health service provider. But a lot of the mental health service providers are also asking for potentially an officer to back them up in case something happens as well. And so it could be a co-response model as well. And I think a lot of those are needed because a lot of the calls that are coming into SPD are - officers not necessarily required. Now, the activity that we've seen in the district - from Asian families being targeted to just the other day, this young lady was carjacked at my parents' house in Rainier Beach, two houses down, by gun. The activities that we're seeing - a lot of them, unfortunately, are done by a lot of our youth and our kids that are being taken advantage of from certain adults in certain aspects. And so that tells me that our youth don't have a lot of stuff to do because they're doing other activities - and that we can deviate, have a diversion program like Choose 180 and Marty with Safe Passages and Community Passages - these gun violence prevention programs where we can create environments where they have things to do after school. They have Late Night to go to a community center. Back in the day, we'd go to Late Night, 9 to 11, to play basketball all day. You had something to do. Get them off their cell phones and reconnected and engaged with community. 'Cause right now they don't have a sense of being, a sense of belonging - and the pandemic really exacerbated a lot of those issues with our youth. And so we have to do a better job of investing in the mental health piece and in the afterschool activities for our kids. And in-school mentoring, which is huge. [00:28:15] Crystal Fincher: I also wanna talk about the sometimes friction between community surveillance and community safety. We have had proposals ranging from ShotSpotter to various cameras and license plate readers, various monitoring and hotspot focusing. Do you think those are effective, or do you prefer one over another? How do you process that, and consider that, and what would you advocate for? [00:28:44] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, not the license plate readers - that would not be one that I think would, that I would support. I definitely went back and forth with the ShotSpotter piece just because of the technology of being able to identify specifically where shots were coming from. And I think it's really hard to - now, with the increase of gun violence and what's been going on in a lot of the shootings and someone being able to buy a clip off whatever to turn their 9 into a little mini gun - which is wild to me - that you can be able to shoot off so many rounds from a Glock. The ShotSpotter thing, I think, is a conversation I definitely want to revisit with community. I sat in those meetings, I heard from people, they talked about - some people just wanted to do a certain area, some people wanted to just test it out. I think it's worth revisiting to ask community like - Hey, is this something that we think is needed? Not necessarily like - Hey, police department, is this gonna be helpful? But like community - Do you think this is gonna be helpful for you? Would you want this? - and I think it's worth a conversation again. [00:29:57] Crystal Fincher: So I mean, definitely some people in community are in support of it, some people are opposed throughout Seattle. Would you vote in favor of implementing a ShotSpotter pilot or trial? [00:30:10] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, I probably - I probably would. I probably would, Crystal. Yeah. [00:30:16] Crystal Fincher: Okay, I also wanna talk about childcare and how onerous it is on residents of Seattle and beyond to afford now - news that the average cost of childcare is more expensive than the cost to send a child to college. It is breaking the bank for a lot of families and really taking people out of the workforce - locking them into poverty. Is this something that you've thought about, and what would you do to address it? [00:30:45] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, I thought about this all the time - ran into a mom who said she lost her childcare just because she received a dollar wage, a dollar increase per hour. And so she didn't meet the threshold income for being able to receive a certain childcare, which is crazy. And right now our city does a really bad and poor job of creating environments that are inclusive, that are encouraging, and that create and help small - not small families - but young families into our city. And a form of childcare besides what the City can do, obviously, to add childcare to one of their benefit packages. And I'd love to see how when we do forums, there's childcare provided. I'd love to see how businesses and different companies - they include childcare in some of their packages when they're trying to get certain employees, which should be for everyone. But also our community centers used to be a form of childcare for folks. And right now when we underfunded community centers, afterschool programs, different summer activities for parents that used to be free - we really deleted a lot of the affordable childcare that was like the original affordable childcare. Not saying - okay, we're gonna give everybody a certain amount of money, but it's like, hey, we're gonna create these free activities for kids. I worked at an afterschool program where you could drop your kid off at 7:00 AM. And after they got off at 3 PM, we would go pick the kid up at their school - our transportation program was our most valuable program for parents - pick the kid up. And then after we picked the kid up, we'd bring them back, they'd do their homework, then they'd go in the gym - they would practice. By 7 PM, that parent knew that kid was fed, they finished all their homework, and they were tired, and they were gonna go straight to bed. To me, a lot of these nonprofits and a lot - we have to fund more of those. There are a lot of nonprofits, there are a lot of organizations and community groups that can and want to do that - they don't know how to scale up, they don't have the funding to do that. And those have to be different forms of childcare for our kids, and we're just not doing a good job of that right now. [00:32:57] Crystal Fincher: Now, I also wanna talk about business and about the economy. Seattle has a very diverse business community, District 3 has a very diverse business community. We have some of the largest corporations in the world headquartered right here, or right next door, and a vibrant community of small businesses. And I wanna talk in particular about the small businesses, especially in D3, because they do collectively impact our local economy so much - and they are dealing with a lot of challenges. And you yourself, as a small business owner, I'm sure are aware of that. What can we do, or what should we be doing to better support our small businesses and jumpstart our economy with them? [00:33:45] Joy Hollingsworth: Over during the pandemic, 6,500 small businesses either closed, or permanently closed, in Seattle. And when the big businesses left downtown, the small guys, small businesses stayed open. The mom and pops stayed open, the little restaurant on the corner, the coffee shop - they made it work, they're resilient. And what I've been hearing from our small businesses that have been here for years, people that might have been born and raised here that have small businesses, or just started here new businesses and brought all this together is that they want to feel a part of the revitalization piece. Because right now they feel like a lot of the focus has been on our big businesses here. We have our Amazon, we have our Starbucks, we have Expedia, Alaska Airlines - we have so many different businesses that are here that create, they're a part of our ecosystem. But we also have our small businesses that have not - number one, had a seat at the table, have not been prioritized, who have - contribute to our tax revenue, contribute jobs, great paying jobs, create a small business - from cleaning up their sidewalk and contributing in that way, or creating places for people to build community. And so one of the things that I would love for us to champion, particularly within Capitol Hill and the Pike/Pine Corridor, is if you go - if you walk from our, what do you call it, our waterfront, our newly formed waterfront, and you continue up into downtown, you go through Westlake, you go up and then you see our huge, brand new, shiny convention center, it stops right there. And then you look up and you're like - Am I supposed to pass that overpass or not, or what is going on there? And so it's very dangerous - the sidewalks haven't been widened, it's not cleaned properly, it just looks like really - it's not well lit, it looks really dangerous. And so wanting to create this entry into Capitol Hill from downtown, so we can encourage people to come up as we are getting our economy stemmed from downtown. And the second piece is, bringing Black businesses back to the Central District. A lot of those businesses don't have a BIA, or Business Improvement Association - they're not a part of a Chamber of Commerce. These are businesses that - from Simply Soulful to Monica's Hair Care - all these different businesses that want to come back in the Central District. They also want to feel like we are - there's a landmark - like people were encouraging people to come in the CD, we're creating programs that are just for them. They have access to Office of Economic Development with special, with intentional programming options and grants. And I think that's really important for me as well. So those two biggest things where they felt like they have a seat on the table, they have a voice to be able to advocate for them - it's huge - and we're not always just prioritizing what we think as the big businesses in Seattle. [00:36:47] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. Now, you are in a race right now - with your opponent and you looking competitive - for voters that are trying to figure out the difference between you two and make their decision about who they should vote for, what do you tell them? [00:37:06] Joy Hollingsworth: Yeah, I don't say one's better than the other. I say - Hey, this is my unique perspective. - a nonprofit leader, a small business owner, a family that grew up in the district for 39 years that has a historical perspective, someone that has experiences on being on the tail end of policy and understanding how it impacts our community and understanding and knowing what's missing as well. Someone who's going to listen, and we're building our priorities literally block by block - it's not what Joy's agenda is, it's not what I think the district should have - it's literally what I've been hearing. Our priorities are shaped by block by block people. And I'm also - if I'm wrong, I'm wrong - and I am humble about it, there's no ego. I wanna work with people and push stuff forward and figure out how we can find common ground and commonality. And I think that's the one thing that I would love to be able to bring to our city council - is that type of mentality with an optimistic outlook. It's hard to stay positive and be optimistic, and have something to look forward to, and think about how great our city is when there's so many problems that we've had. But I also think it takes someone crazy enough to figure out and be finding the opportunity and the optimism in certain things to inspire people to get stuff done. So we're not always having this friction and hitting heads - so I think that's important. [00:38:34] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for taking the time today to share who you are with us and what your plans are - very much appreciated - and we'll continue to follow your path on the campaign trail. [00:38:46] Joy Hollingsworth: Thank you, Crystal. And I really appreciate this opportunity to connect with you - it was fun. And I love your plants in the background - the listeners can't see, but you have nice plants. [00:38:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you very much. 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 staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts, Ashley Nerbovig! Ashley and Crystal discuss (and rant!) about continued and international outrage over Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders caught on body cam laughing about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the SPOG contract makes it near impossible to discipline or fire officers, Mayor Bruce Harrell's responsibility in creating the mess by voting for the contract as a City councilmember and in possibly getting us out of it by delivering a better one from the current negotiations, and how our recruiting problem is a culture problem in a competitive marketplace. The show then covers passage of the War on Drugs 2.0 bill by Seattle City Council, the start of the trial for three Tacoma officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis, and a rally held by Seattle City employees for fair pay. 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, Ashley Nerbovig, at @AshleyNerbovig. Resources “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle Police Officer Probably Won't Get Fired for Laughing about Jaahnavi Kandula's Death” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Police response time to Wing Luke Museum 911 calls raises questions about priorities” by Libby Denkmann and Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Seattle Police Officer Hurls Racist Slur at Chinese-American Neighbor” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Amid SPD controversy, Mayor Harrell leads with empathy” from Seattle Times Editorial Board   “Seattle Launches Drug War 2.0” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Council Passes New Law Empowering City Attorney to Prosecute People Who Use Drugs in Public” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   @daeshikjr on Twitter: “BREAKING: Seattle City Councilmembers revived a recently voted down bill that many community activists are calling War on Drugs 2.0. We spoke with Sara on her campaign trail about her experience with drugs, mushrooms, and what she hoped to accomplish while in office. …”   “Trial begins for Tacoma officers charged with killing Manuel Ellis” by Jared Brown from KNKX   “Trial of 3 Tacoma police officers accused of killing Manuel Ellis in 2020 gets underway” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune   “Historic trial begins for 3 officers charged in killing of Manny Ellis” by Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times   @tacoma_action on Twitter: “Here's how you can support the family of Manuel Ellis during the trial…”   Trial Information for State v. Burbank, Collins and Rankine | Pierce County Courts & Law    “City Workers Rally Their Asses Off” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 2 candidates, Tanya Woo and Tammy Morales. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts - and rocking that coverage - Ashley Nerbovig. Hello. [00:01:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Hey, Crystal - thanks. Hi. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Glad to have you on the show. We have no shortage of things to talk about and particularly this week where everything public safety was exploding, imploding, just all over the place. I want to start off talking about a story that is now making international headlines - the release of the video of an SPD officer, a SPOG executive, mocking the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by another policeman while she was just a pedestrian just walking and run over by a policeman who - it didn't seem like he had his lights and sirens on, going over 70 miles per hour. Just such a tragedy in the first place, and then outrage was the dominant feeling nationally, internationally when that video came out. What is going to happen or what does it look like is going to happen? You wrote a great piece this week about that. [00:02:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, he's not gonna get fired - for sure - unless something wildly out of the normal process happens. And even if that does, the arbitration process is such that they would look at the SPOG contract and be like - There was nothing in this that he did that's actually fireable. - and it's super frustrating to watch. And in that story, I break down how we've seen these cases before - that cops have said really outrageous stuff, or even done something pretty outrageous, or something that the public looks at as pretty outrageous - and the reaction has been either it's a written reprimand or it's unsustained findings. One of the examples I gave was that there was multiple officers in one car who - one of them said - they accelerate toward protesters, people can be heard to be laughing. And so one of them says - I effing hate these people - or something along those lines. And because they couldn't narrow it in and prove who said it, and none of the cops inside said who said it - it's frustrating, but it also makes sense when you read the SPOG contract - because they have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence, which is more than 50%, which sounds like a pretty low standard to hop over. But actually, I think they did a review of a bunch of different cops' policies on what they have to prove to require discipline across the country and SPD is in a very small minority - the majority of people have something that's lower or at a preponderance of evidence, and our standard is right above it. You see all of this outrage, and then you see Andrew Lewis and Lisa Herbold and Mayor Harrell and SPOG all say, essentially - We want to watch the OPA process, we're excited to watch that investigation. - as if they don't know that anyone reading the SPOG contract, anyone who's read enough OPA cases knows that this is going to end in the cop continuing to be on the force. And to some extent, you can make the argument that if this was one isolated comment, maybe it wouldn't be a firing that was justified. But when you look at his entire career, and then when you also look at what the actual other punishments are, right? You can get suspended, but you don't have that suspension served consecutively - you can serve it throughout a year. So it means that - the whole point of having a suspension is that they don't get paid, and it hurts their bottom line, and it's something to avoid. If you're just serving out a 15-day suspension over a year, and then you're making it up with tons of overtime, what are the consequences for cops in this city? And the answer is that our police accountability systems do not have actual consequences for our officers right now. [00:05:28] Crystal Fincher: Not at all. And it's infuriating. And this has kicked off a conversation that we've had before - just talking about the SPOG contract and the importance of that - there are a lot of people who are new here who weren't paying attention several years ago. There was an attempt that the City of Seattle - the council in particular - attempted to do this. They passed police accountability legislation that tightened that up. But then the current SPOG contract that's in place - was approved by Mayor Harrell on the council, by the way, who voted for the current contract that is currently handcuffing him and preventing him from being able to do anything about this - that superseded many of the City ordinances that dealt with this. And one thing that a lot of people don't know is that contract can supersede City law. So the things that the City thinks is happening, the process that we have - our democratic, our initiative process, the council process - all falls by the wayside when this is approved. And at the time, this was approved on a narrow vote - this was not, the conversation leading up to the approval of this current contract was not like - Oh, this looks great, it's fine. Lorena González infamously toiled over the vote that she was going to do, and later said that she regretted voting to approving it. But they were warned that this was going to happen. They were warned that moving backwards on accountability was going to produce really unsavory results. And lo and behold, here we are. So once again, we're in a situation where everyone - almost everyone - agrees. Most members of the public, of the national community, international community agree this is egregious. This is unacceptable. And the City's handcuffed because of this current contract. And I just want people to be aware that the next contract is currently being negotiated. The mayor's office - the same mayor who approved this current contract - is currently negotiating this next contract. And is Bruce Harrell going to ensure that something like this can't happen again with no remedy, or recourse, or consequence? That's really going to be up to how this contract is negotiated and structured. I don't know what's going to happen with this officer in this incident - he has a long record himself of issues, complaints - and I don't know what's happening with that is going to go through this process. But the executive's office, the council who will ultimately have to approve this contract does have a say in whether or not something like this can happen again. And I think they owe the residents of the city assurances that this shouldn't happen. We're seeing so many of these examples. This isn't the first example of a death mocked - it's just the first one that we have on video that's public. There was a tombstone before, there's been social media posts before. And also the fact that this was, I believe, VP of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. When you have leaders doing this - similar to the assistant police chief in Kent who displayed literal Nazi memorabilia - that speaks to culture. These are leaders. These are people dictating what we have here. And tangentially, and this is going on while we're having a conversation about police being short-staffed, while we're having a conversation about how hard it is to recruit - after the city has thrown money and recruitment bonuses and retainment bonuses at people. And can we just acknowledge that someone looking at this, now that they have the choice to join any police department, basically, they want to - they're all hiring - why would they join Seattle? This is the recruiting problem here. It's this culture. It's this continued drumbeat of toxic, distasteful stuff. [00:09:06] Ashley Nerbovig: I think you're right about it being a culture problem. But I also think that the strength of our SPOG contract - you could make an argument that these are some of the most protected City employees. And it's across the board that people don't want to be cops. And it makes sense because even if you take away all of the controversies, local governments overall are struggling right now to recruit people for any job. And then on top of it, you're talking about a job that requires a lot of no work from home - we've had a complete culture shift in what we value about work. And I think when you look at what the job of being a cop is, it's you have to live in a certain location, basically, you can live - although Auderer lives in Olympia, I think, so you can live far away - but you have to be able to go to work in-person. And then on top of it, you're tied to all of this really negative associations that we have with cops, and this shift in how we've thought about cops. And you're competing in a really tight job market where there's a lot of really - yes, you get a lot of money being a Seattle police officer, but that requires a lot of overtime. You can make that same money just like having a normal 40-hour workweek if you work something tech, and it can also be more flexible and more remote. I just think that the problem is exactly that being a cop is not appealing, and we can't change that - no one wants these jobs. And so why are we not talking about what people do want to work and starting from that place of - people do want to help people. I think a lot of cops in those positions talk about reshifting budget priorities, and that would mean changing their jobs. But cops were the first people to tell me that they didn't want to be social workers, that they weren't trying to do social work - and that they felt like they didn't have the tools and they weren't the people to be doing mental health intervention, or drug abuse intervention. Or homelessness intervention. You can't help someone unsheltered when you're a cop. The only thing cops can do is jail. I thought something really interesting - I know this is something we're going to talk about in a bit - and I really want to say something that I thought about with the SPOG contract. One of the things that I can't remember if it was Teresa Mosqueda or Morales who said it, but one of them was like - If we aren't funding these treatment options - when they were talking about the drug vote - If we aren't funding these treatment options, and we aren't funding these diversion programs, the only thing cops are going to be able to do if they want to get someone off the street is put them in jail. And I think that people have this idea that cops have other options, but that's their tool. It's not a choice for them. The only solution for cops is to arrest - that is their main job activity. And just this idea that people don't want these jobs, they are not effective for the problems that we have, and yet we have this desperation - and Bruce Harrell has this desperation to cling to tough-on-crime policies. And it's dumb. And you don't see any solutions, but people like to pretend like they saw some improvement - when they just like the feeling of, oh - you don't see anything change when you put a tough-on-crime policy. There's this idea that all of our - anytime we do something that's like violence intervention or like a community-based approach - that we don't see the results very quickly. And it always is so funny to me, because I'm like, you don't see - no one in their day-to-day life, if we tomorrow said you can arrest - other than maybe someone who went downtown and all of the homeless people, we can't even put anyone in the King County Jail. So I don't know what they're talking about right now, but you don't actually see a marked improvement - you just get a shift in media narratives - that's all that changes, really, in my opinion. [00:12:49] Crystal Fincher: This is the same thing that we're doing - and your point is exactly correct - we're only funding one thing. And what you fund, what you put resources to, is what you're going to have. We are so desperately short of other support services, behavioral health support services. And there are entities in the process of addressing that, right? Absolutely frustrating that it's not here now, there is some work being done there. So progress is being made largely at the county level and regionally. But this is not going to work. This is the same old thing. The thing that I find troubling, particularly as a progressive political consultant, is that this makes passing progressive policy harder. Because if you dress something up like progressive policy - Oh, it's really important that we treat root causes. And yeah, we all believe it. - and they all say that until it's time to actually put their money where their mouth is, to actually do the thing, to implement it. And then what we get is this warmed-over piece of legislation that does one of the things - yes, we can arrest - and makes it harder than it was before to do the other things. And it was astronomically hard before. We know what's going to happen with this. So the real question is, so what are they going to blame for the failure of this next? What excuse is coming up next? I talk to a lot of people, lay people, some people - I just like hearing an unfiltered opinion of someone who's not an insidery insider and paying attention to all the policy and stuff. And you would be shocked by how many people who are - they don't consider themselves super leftist, probably general Democrats, but they don't really pay attention to much - who are under the impression that Seattle's progressive city council has run amok. And it's like, when it comes to public safety, they are not passing progressive policy. Unfortunately, the conservative council - that is the policy that we have and that we've continued. And when everybody rushes to put that label on it - we're going to see a lot of political communication coming up soon, where I'm sure everybody is going to call themselves a progressive, probably pragmatic progressive, responsible progressive - but like they cling to that word and they want to present their policy is that. But when it's not, all it does is hurt actual progressive policy. So it's important for people to stand up and be like - No, we see that, and we see that it's not what the community is demanding and asking for. It's just really frustrating. We should probably get back to some of this news a little bit. [00:15:02] Ashley Nerbovig: There's just one last thing I want to say about Danny Westneat - this is going back a couple topics, but it was something that you said about the SPOG contract and that this is the leadership of SPOG. And Danny had a - bless his heart, he tried, probably - I quote tweeted it when I read the first couple of graphs. And then I went back and read his whole column about Auderer - I can't even say his last name - but the SPOG VP's comments. And he said quite a few things that were just absolutely ridiculous, where he talks about how SPOG uses public safety as a bargaining chip and says essentially - Oh, it'd be a shame if something happened to this beautiful city of yours. And then he goes on to give them that bargaining chip and say that Seattle desperately needs more cops. And then he goes to talking about how - he names a city that basically did defund because they also broke up their cop union. And it's just such a wild series of thoughts. And he concludes it on - SPOG needs to clean house. And it's so frustrating - even if you're just thinking of it logically - if you are a member of SPOG, and your vice president has gotten out of this many OPA investigations with little to no punishment - you don't think they know who is leading them? That's who I want as my union vice president - I want someone who's gotten away with a bunch of stuff - that is how you stay safe and stay protected - and who's going to clean house - the leadership? The leadership is the problem. Anyway, I just wanted to fully round that out by giving Danny like a 2 out of 5 stars on that column. [00:16:35] Crystal Fincher: There are a lot of people who are like - Wow, okay, didn't think there was going to be a day where many of them agreed with Danny Westneat. He got some of the way there. I think one of the challenges with that is a tendency to view unions as separate from workers, and the union as separate from the cops. They are elected by their peers in the union - this is representative of the culture, this is the result of them saying these are the people we feel best represent us. And this is what it is. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is - but here we are. And it's hard for me to separate SPOG versus police because SPOG is police. And it's just time we had a serious conversation about real accountability. And it's a tangible conversation - there is someone responsible for this, there is an intervention that can work here - we can negotiate this. It's up to the mayor, the people on negotiating committee, it's up to the council who's going to approve this. This doesn't just happen - they're permitted to happen by a contract that is in place. And if we're unhappy with it, and if City Hall can't see that the people are unhappy with a contract that enables this, the question is - particularly for Bruce Harrell, who is the boss of the police department - they literally report to him, police chief literally reports to him, direct report, his responsibility. What is he going to do now? Is he going to respond to this and say, I'm going to ensure this doesn't happen again? Because that's a buck-stops-here attitude that is normally expected of an executive. That's the job. What is he going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again? How is he going to live up to his word that he's going to improve the culture and improve public safety? We're waiting. And it seems like they're just permitting this. They're just - Oh, that's too bad. [00:18:20] Ashley Nerbovig: The Seattle editorial board said he's been leading with empathy. If anyone really wants to rage out, read that editorial. I don't know if Bruce called and said he was going to cancel the whole city's subscription to The Seattle Times, but it's just absolute garbage. Kandula was killed while Officer Kevin Dave was responding to a guy who had too much cocaine and wasn't even ODing. Rich, my editor, said this to me earlier this week, where he was like, we were talking about the drug vote, and he was saying - This is just another example of how cops shouldn't be the ones responding to people overdosing. EMTs can go to these things. [00:18:56] Crystal Fincher: And do in most other cities - without police, to be clear. [00:18:59] Ashley Nerbovig: And you mentioned earlier that it was unclear about his lights. And I don't know for sure what was going on there, because I know his in-car video wasn't working. But I've read another OPA case where someone had said that a cop was just turning on his lights and sirens to get through red lights - and the justification for that that they showed was that it was like - oh, he was tactically using his lights and sirens, which means that they only turn them on to get through lights and stuff, even though he's responding to a call. And when they do that, it means that their in-car video doesn't turn on. And that's allowed because - oh, it's a tactic. And super curious to see the end of this OPA report for Kevin Dave. EMTs are not worried about sneaking up on people - they just turn on their lights and go. But yeah, it's going to be really frustrating to watch. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: So now can you break down what this legislation does? Because I've seen it characterized in a number of different ways - Oh, it's making drugs illegal. It's like doing different things. What did this legislation actually change? [00:19:56] Ashley Nerbovig: This particular piece of legislation - to do my full roundup of this - everybody knows that in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court struck down our felony drug possession law. The Washington State Legislature scrambled to pass something - and they passed this idea of we're going to do two referrals to treatment before we arrest anyone, and we're only going to arrest on a misdemeanor, and that went across the state for people in possession of drugs. That went on for two years and it was unworkable - they didn't structure it, they didn't create a database for people to be marking referrals - it's called a stopgap measure. It was one of those things where it was a really half thought-out piece of what potentially could be progressive legislation, did more harm than just making it a misdemeanor and then trying to talk about decriminalization a little bit later - I think that might have actually ended up being strategically a better way to go, except you would have seen a bunch of people arrested in that time. The result is that they came back this session and they said - Okay, no. They had that big fight and they said - We're going to make it a gross misdemeanor, your first two offenses you're going to get a maximum sentence of 180 days, any offenses after that you're going to go up to 364 days. And they said - We prefer people defer to treatment, we prefer cops defer. - that was one thing that Herbold and Lewis both kept saying is - their City bill, that it was different from the state bill and that it starts the diversion out of the system process at the cop level before people even have a case started, whereas they kept describing the state bill as getting started. There are multiple places throughout the system that you can get diverted - you can get diverted before you get arrested so there's never anything on your record, you can get diverted after you've been arrested by the cops and now the prosecutors are in charge of your case and they defer any charges or defer any charges from getting actually convicted and then you're able to get it off of your record. So that's deferred prosecution. And then there's, you can get stuff - after you've been sentenced, you can get stuff wiped off your record. The argument that the City was making in how their bill was different from the state bill is they're saying - Oh, we really make it clear that our policy is not to arrest. The state bill does too. They say that it's their preference that people are diverted to treatment rather than be arrested. They also put a bunch of deferred prosecution stuff in there to divert people out of the system once they have charges against them. It's easier to talk about what this bill didn't do. It set a policy that said - This is our preference by the City of Seattle. So the state law was already in place. And now because it's a misdemeanor, state law passes - that starts in August, like everything gets implemented. So technically, cops could find people who were using drugs in public or possessing drugs in public and arrest them on a gross misdemeanor. And I think the using is such an interesting part of this, because there's nothing about possession as a charge that doesn't get at the same thing that public use does. When you make it all about public use and you add public use plus possession to this law, it is such a dog whistle towards people who are just mad at unhoused people. Morales said something really clear in the City Council vote, which was that this bill is not going to curb public use because the people who this bill is targeting have nowhere else to use. And so the state law passes, SPD cops can do this. But if SPD cops right now in Seattle - or right before this, because Harrell signed the bill yesterday - before this bill passed, if they arrested someone, their charges, because Seattle doesn't have its own ordinance, would have gone to Leesa Manion's office, the King County Prosecutor's, which would have made a ton of sense. King County Prosecutor's has a bunch of programs already in place for this - they've already been dealing with felony versions of this for a long time. But her office did a weird thing and got really like - We don't have the misdemeanor staff to handle this and these felony drug courts that we have wouldn't even apply to this. They did a bunch of workarounds - they really quashed the idea of these cases getting referred to them really early on, or at least they asked for money from us that apparently City Council just was unwilling to try to negotiate - or they were unwilling to negotiate trying to work out a contract. I never really understood what her motivations were with that or were slamming it down so hard. And so the City said - We're going to implement this ordinance and we're going to send these cases to our city attorney, Republican Ann Davison. So that's what this law does is that it doesn't - anyone who describes it - all that this law does is say that now Ann Davison can prosecute these cases, and also we would really like it if cops didn't arrest people on these charges. And it says - and I'll give them this - it adds a bunch of paperwork that cops now need to have when they do arrest someone on a drug possession charge. But I think Morales really summed it up really well where she said - This does not expand any diversion, it doesn't expand any treatment. - and this is probably a little bit more opinion-based, but - It doesn't improve public safety in any way. And I think that's so key is that we can ask - even if it's not, even if you aren't someone that believes in the nefarious, like that cops are all like Auderer and don't care about behavioral health and don't really look at people who are addicts on the street as someone that needs public health intervention - let's buy the premise that there are well-meaning cops out there who want to take these people to treatment. We do not have resources. And this idea that - in the City Council staff member, or the City Council Central Staff's memo, they said - Diversion requires social workers. These are actually much longer, much more resource-intensive cases. And cops are going to maybe divert the first or second time that they find someone, but then there's no resources to pick that person up - there's nothing to actually help them, maybe they're not ready to get treatment yet. And at some point, they're just going to arrest them and they're going to go through all of the charges. And maybe they're not going to go to jail because King County won't take them right now, but it's creating the structure for that. And they're still going to have to continue to show up at municipal court until they get something on their record that ends up putting them in jail. And we know how bad jail is - we know that it increases the chances of overdose. I think this bill kills people - I think that's the bottom line of what this bill does - is that it's going to kill a bunch of people, and make a bunch of people poorer, and do nothing to curb drug addiction, and fill our jails, and just continue the cycle of mass incarceration. [00:26:51] Crystal Fincher: The outcomes from this type of policy are clear. We have so much information about what happens when you do just fund, enable sending people to jail without doing anything to address the root causes for why they're there. Also, there are some people rejoicing over this - like it is going to help - I'll be curious to see their evaluation after a period of time, to see what their perception of what results. But it's just frustrating because we could choose to do what has shown to be effective elsewhere. Everybody is frustrated. I don't think anyone is happy. I don't want to be in a space where someone is using publicly, right? And perhaps inhaling secondhand something or whatever. But I also recognize that generally people who do use in public don't have another place to use. And if it is an issue of - addiction isn't logical, right? Addiction isn't reasonable. It's not - Oh, there are consequences for me going to jail now, so I'm just going to stop being addicted. The thing about addiction is that you can't decide to stop being addicted. It's not up to you. And that people fall into addiction for a variety of reasons. And being addicted is a reality that so many people face - to treat it as like they're less than human for struggling with that particular issue is ridiculous. But we do that from a public safety perspective. And as you said, this is going to largely wind up targeting the homeless - that's usually who this applies to - people. We can talk about the drug habits of executives and rich people, and the rates of drug use are not low across the board. I always find it so curious. We drug test minimum wage and low wage workers, but not high wage executives. I'm pretty confident what results we would see if we did that. There's an interesting video with Sara Nelson - yeah, speaking of politicians using drugs, and then voting on drug ordinances - but Sara Nelson has a place to use privately. That's the difference. [00:28:52] Ashley Nerbovig: Because we're going after public use, we're not going after possession. And the casual way she talks about it - you are aware that you are growing drugs, and you're telling people where to find drugs - and I can hear her argument against this, right? But the point of it is that drugs are not inherently dangerous, and it was incredibly frustrating to watch that video. And then think about the fact that when this was in front of the Public Safety Committee, Mosqueda came out and said - I want to make it very clear that lots of public health agencies at this point have said that breathing in secondhand fentanyl smoke is not dangerous to your health. I am someone who opens a window if someone blows vape smoke too close to me - I don't like it, I don't want that smell, I am not totally convinced that the smell will not linger. But it's like that, right - it's a smell, I'm not worried about getting a nicotine contact high. And the way that fentanyl gets demonized as the worst drug that we've ever seen, it's part of how we can dehumanize the people who are using it. And I think it's so interesting, because if you ask someone to class their own drugs, shrooms and weed and cocaine would be the bourgeoisie of drugs - they're allowed, it's fine - alcohol. All of those things are totally fine. And the people who use them are not degenerates or any way bad. Maybe cocaine. But for the most part, we are totally okay with those kinds of drugs, no matter how alcohol is still one of the most harmful substances in our society. Whenever I call the King County Medical Examiner's Board to get the overdose deaths, it's overdose deaths and deaths due to alcoholism. But they're longer term, right? So I'm not saying that - fentanyl is absolutely killing people - it's in everything. And it is a new, very scary problem because we don't have a ton of ways to treat it. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of what we're seeing, which is you had someone like Sara Nelson who struggled with her own story of addiction. But as soon as it becomes a drug that they view as dirty or not fun to scavenge for, you get this attitude of - We need to crack down on this. And that's how it's got to be a punishment-based system - it's not a conversation, it's not help, it's not treatment - we've got to really show these people the errors, the way to be, and improve their life. And it's just so condescending. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: This is the crack playbook at play. And again, to be clear, not at all saying that fentanyl is not very troublesome, problematic, and that we don't want people using that. Those are all true. But to say somehow a unique and unsolvable addiction issue as opposed to opioids, as opposed to all of the other things. The one thing that we know is that there are new drugs created all the time for a variety of things. There's going to be something more potent. Fentanyl is not the last, right? It's just the current. There is going to be a next. We've been playing this cat and mouse game with the War on Drugs, with all that we're doing - it's here. But hearing the language around that is the same tactic that happened with crack, right? And the justification to pass a ton of laws, super harsh penalties, mandating mandatory time, adding it as a strike for possessing crack, lower thresholds for dealing and all of that, as opposed to cocaine, which was used by a different demographic largely and fueled there. This is pretty transparent. And unfortunately, you hear a lot of the rhetoric in public meetings. You hear it from people - Oh man, this fentanyl, these people are like zombies, this is something completely new we haven't seen before. Those are all the same things that they said with crack. Those are all the same things that they say with the new drug that they want to use when they're in the mood to crack down and jail people - here is where we're at. Acting like fentanyl is just - oh, if you're addicted, you're lost, you're hopeless, is untrue. It is a dangerous drug. We need to address it. Public health approaches have a better record of doing that than punitive jail-based approaches. But it's a problem that we do need to get our arms around, but we make it harder to do that when we pursue policies to jail - which are very expensive to do in every single way. And then say - Sorry, we just don't have the resources to provide more treatment services, to provide more behavioral health services, to provide more housing, to provide detox for people. Those are all necessary for us to deal with this problem, and we just aren't doing it. I would like to do it. I would like to meaningfully address this - most people would - but this makes it much harder. I do want to talk about this week, a very important - and for our state historic - trial starting, of the three officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis. What is happening here? [00:33:58] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah. So they're still in jury selection. It's going to be a long, drawn-out process. I think opening statements start October 2nd. And for people who don't know the case, Manny Ellis was an unarmed Black man who was in Tacoma - this was March before George Floyd's death, and there are so many parallels. Everything that is terrible about George Floyd is terrible in this case. Bob Ferguson comes in, says that he's going to investigate this case, does an investigation. Tacoma Police Department does not cooperate with Washington State Patrol. Washington State Patrol and AG Ferguson ends up creating this probable cause statement and now three officers, three men are all on trial this week. Or the trial is starting and jury selection is starting. And there's one guy who - I can't remember his name now - but he's live tweeting all of it. And there's been some really interesting tidbits. One of the jurors - the judge asked if there were any jurors who might have conflicts presiding over a case involving law enforcement, no one raised their hands, and then the judge looks at this guy and says - But didn't you say you have a brother in law enforcement? And there's no other details, but that's where it's starting right now. And it'll be a really interesting case - it's horrible to see these cases get to this point - and you wonder about, I don't know anything about the disciplinary records of these cops. But yeah, that's where it's starting. And that's the background on it. [00:35:14] Crystal Fincher: And certainly - it's a trial. And I generally try not to follow these things or get emotionally invested in these trials - for good reason - they often don't seem to wind up with justice, and even what is justice when your loved one, someone you care about, a human being is killed. And just also lifting up - we hear about all these cases around the country - we have more than enough here locally. There's another police officer from Auburn currently awaiting trial for killing Jesse Sarey in Auburn. It's really troubling. And we also have family and friends of Manny dealing with this and having to once again hear the horrific details of this killing. And they're continuing to call for the firing of the cops who've been on payroll this entire time, who are still on payroll. There's a GoFundMe for the family. And court is something that people can show up to and show support if they want to do that also. It's a tragedy. And I hope the family is able to find peace and healing and that this can assist with that. I have no idea where they stand on this, but certainly, I'm thinking of them as this trial continues to go on. Last thing I want to talk about today is Seattle City employees rallying for fair pay. Why did this rally happen? [00:36:38] Ashley Nerbovig: Shout out to Hannah Krieg - she got all the great quotes for this one. This rally happened because apparently, and I'm quoting directly from her story - Bruce Harrell is funny, he's a funny guy, and if this is true, I believe it - Mayor Harrell told them to rally their asses off. The City started their negotiations for a pay increase of 1% and has settled on a pay increase of 2%. And the City workers are saying that's an insane way to start negotiations in one of the most expensive cities in the country. She puts this really good stat in there - that's a pay cut as the cost of, a 1% cost of living adjustment or even a 2% cost of living adjustment is a pay cut as the cost of living rose 8.7% this year. It's really important to note that the SPOG contract guarantees at minimum like a 1.5%, I think - I did a little tweet about this - it's plus COLA or something. But effectively, regardless of what their contract says, they have never gone a year without at least a 3% increase. Lieutenants and higher up guilds just got like a 4% increase. Sometimes I'll get these emails from the mayor's office that's - I'm really like unhappy with how you've portrayed us as prioritizing police. We really prioritize like other things too. - and it's, you can see it, where their money is going. So the workers are contract, are striking because they're not getting, at minimum, just keeping up with inflation. And the City of Seattle seems to think this is just like across the board, boy to cut is in general services and for the city. And that's - I really encourage people to follow Hannah's coverage on this because she's really on top of it. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's really challenging. We talked about police saying they have a shortage of officers and all of the action that has been taken to fix that including a retention bonus, healthy retention bonuses. And so we're talking about the shortages in the rest of the city, and it just doesn't seem like there is the interest in making sure the City is able to provide essential services and the level of service for everything that is currently happening and that people expect. There have been several council candidates who have said and agreed with - Yeah, we should be giving City workers the same kind of retention bonuses, investing in their retention, doing something tangible to actually address the shortage here. And we're going to be seeing Mayor Harrell's budget come out pretty soon. It's going to be interesting to see how he deals with that and what it is because a budget is a value statement - that's a document of values - where you're spending your money is what you value the most. And other things - you can talk about them and say they're great, but if you aren't funding them, clearly they were lower on the priority list in your estimation. And he may have his reasons to justify that. But it is disingenuous to say - Oh, I completely prioritize that, I value that, and I'm just not going to fund that while I'm going to fund this other thing. So it will be interesting to see. But it seems like the City has a lot of work to do to start to step up. And everyone on the campaign trail talks about their values and making sure people can live where they work, how important that is to our economy - and it absolutely is important - again, what tangibly is going to be done about that? What are we going to see in that budget? And if not, just what is really the tangible impact of that? So we'll continue to follow that. But certainly workers see some definite red flags there and are rallying to make sure people understand that this is a problem that has consequences for the entire city and beyond. And for all the plans that people say they have, they're going to rely on these employees to execute them. So we better make sure that there are people in place to deliver on the policy that we pass as a city. [00:40:34] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I hope we get a strike. I think it would be good for people to feel what happens when they don't - I think that a lot of these services are invisible. And we already see that SPOG is doing all these sick-outs and they're not responding to calls - and a lot of them are blaming it on the staffing shortages. When you hear about sick-outs, you get a little bit curious about those call response times. I hope it turns into a strike because I think people do need to realize how essential these workers are. [00:41:00] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the public - some people definitely see that, some people definitely don't. But a strike will be a failure, right? We're having a rally because an initial offer was pretty insulting. It was not a serious offer. It's a pay cut. If you're starting saying - Okay, how big a pay cut are you going to take to people who are already short-staffed and overworked? Because really, let's talk about it. When we talk about short staffing, that means that the same amount of work is falling on fewer heads. And that's a hard position to be in - and many of these positions aren't like super high-paid positions anyway. People are struggling to just pay their bills and work is getting harder, and now you're going to ask them to take a pay cut. And being disrespectful when that happens - Okay, go rally your ass off. So I hope there is more respect in this process and that lines of communication open and are productive. Because strikes are disruptive, right? They're not fun, they create a lot of drama. It may come to that - and I absolutely support workers' rights to strike and sometime that's necessary to get the job done - but I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they are able to talk. But it's going to take more respect from the City perspective, realistically - they just aren't starting in a serious place. [00:42:14] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I like what you said there. It would be a failure. My chaotic evil side is - yeah, disrupt it, show people that you exist and stuff. But you're right. It would suck for these workers to have to go on strike because - the no pay and I'm sure they have a fund - you're 100% correct. What I would actually like to see is Mayor Harrell care about these people the way that he has been so consistently able to show care for our police department. [00:42:44] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 22, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and the courts, Ashley Nerbovig. You can find Ashley on Twitter at @AshleyNerbovig, A-S-H-L-E-Y N-E-R-B-O-V-I-G. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on just about every platform at @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks - wherever you want to listen to us, you can listen to us - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar of your favorite pod player. And be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen - it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Tammy Morales about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 2. Listen and learn more about Tammy and her thoughts on: [01:08] - Why she is running [01:51] - Lightning round! [8:43] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 2 [10:46] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [14:45] - Public Safety: Alternative response [18:11] - Victim support [21:33] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [23:38] - Climate change [27:10] - Transit reliability [30:55] - Bike and pedestrian safety [33:45] - Small business support [35:58] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [39:30] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Tammy Morales at @TammyMoralesSEA.   Tammy Morales Tammy is a sitting City Councilmember running for re-election. She was one of the only supporters of I-135 for permanent affordable housing from the get-go. And Tammy's an urban planner who was previously an organizer for the Rainier Beach Action Coalition and a UFCW 21.  Her priority is to amplify the voices of Seattle's racial, climate, and economic justice coalitions. Tammy will continue her commitment to authentic community engagement that centers racial equity, especially when looking to prevent displacement, improve public health, create food security, and ensure access. She envisions a city where all single parents and their kids have full stomachs every single day; where every type of renter can afford where they sleep and have plenty left over for some fun; where children don't have to worry about bullets or cars as they make their way home from school or meet up with friends; where we prevent struggle; where we are kind to each other interpersonally and in policy; and where everyone has a fair shot at a happy and healthy life.   Resources Campaign Website - Tammy Morales   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very excited to be welcoming current City councilmember and candidate for Seattle City Council District 2, Tammy Morales. Welcome. [00:01:03] Tammy Morales: Hi, Crystal - so good to see you. Thanks for having me. [00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Good to see you. Well, I just wanted to start off asking - why did you choose to run for re-election? [00:01:12] Tammy Morales: Well, you know, when I ran last time, it was because I saw the displacement that's happening in the City of Seattle, particularly here in the South End and in our communities of color. And so I spent my first term working on trying to address those issues. And the work's not done - there's a lot more to do to increase affordability for our neighbors, to really build more community safety, and to make sure that we have the kind of healthy, vibrant neighborhoods that I know we can have in Seattle. And that's work that I'm really excited to continue to do. [00:01:51] Crystal Fincher: Well, and we're doing things a little bit differently than we have some of the past candidate interviews and implementing including a lightning round. [00:01:59] Tammy Morales: Okay. [00:02:00] Crystal Fincher: So we have some quick yes or no, or quick answer questions. Starting with - this year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers Levy? [00:02:10] Tammy Morales: Yes, I did. [00:02:11] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services Levy? [00:02:16] Tammy Morales: Yes, I did. [00:02:17] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:02:22] Tammy Morales: You bet I did. [00:02:25] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for mayor? [00:02:32] Tammy Morales: I voted for Lorena. [00:02:33] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:02:39] Tammy Morales: I voted for Nicole. [00:02:41] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:02:47] Tammy Morales: I voted for Leesa. [00:02:48] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:02:53] Tammy Morales: Patty Murray. [00:02:54] Crystal Fincher: Do you own or rent your residence? [00:02:57] Tammy Morales: I own. [00:02:58] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:03:00] Tammy Morales: I am not a landlord. [00:03:02] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to better plan housing and development needs in District 2? [00:03:12] Tammy Morales: I did vote for more metrics for landlords, including more rental registration information in City Council - working with Councilmember Pedersen, which is not a well-expected partnership for me, but we work together well on some issues and that was one. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the mayor. [00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you'd support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:03:40] Tammy Morales: No. [00:03:41] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:03:47] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:03:55] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:03:57] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:03] Tammy Morales: No. [00:04:05] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:08] Tammy Morales: No. [00:04:09] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:15] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:16] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:04:21] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:23] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:04:32] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:04:43] Tammy Morales: Yes, I voted on that a couple of times. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:04:51] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:04:58] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:05:09] Tammy Morales: If that's the way it's presented, I would oppose that. [00:05:12] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:05:23] Tammy Morales: I would oppose that, yes. [00:05:27] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:05:37] Tammy Morales: Do I oppose - would I oppose that? Yes. [00:05:40] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:05:46] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:05:47] Crystal Fincher: Will you ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:05:55] Tammy Morales: I certainly would support it - yeah. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms and public facilities that match their gender? [00:06:04] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:06:06] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:06:10] Tammy Morales: Yes, I do. [00:06:12] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:06:21] Tammy Morales: Reduce it - no. I'll say maybe divert, but it very much depends on for what purpose. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:06:37] Tammy Morales: Meh. [00:06:39] Crystal Fincher: Sometimes I do wish our viewers could see faces and this - a little bit - that was a very meh face. Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:06:53] Tammy Morales: No. [00:06:54] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:06:58] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:00] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:02] Tammy Morales: No. [00:07:03] Crystal Fincher: In the past month? [00:07:05] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:06] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:10] Tammy Morales: No. [00:07:11] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:19] Tammy Morales: Should what hap-- [00:07:22] Crystal Fincher: I'll repeat the question. Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:37] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:38] Crystal Fincher: Should we make investments to speed it up? [00:07:41] Tammy Morales: I don't know if it's the money that is causing the problem or if there's some other issues, but - I'll say yes. [00:07:48] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:07:54] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:56] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:07:59] Tammy Morales: No, I haven't. [00:08:01] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:09] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:08:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:08:13] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:08:14] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:08:16] Tammy Morales: No. [00:08:18] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:08:20] Tammy Morales: No, they aren't. [00:08:22] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:08:27] Tammy Morales: Sure. [00:08:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the end of our lightning round. Hopefully that was easy. [00:08:34] Tammy Morales: I need to do a little more digging on Sound Transit's - delay, delay, delay. [00:08:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Now, lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district, and what impact it has on residents? [00:08:58] Tammy Morales: Oh, great. Yeah, so in District 2, we have fewer - less green space than in other parts of the city. And because we have so many young people down here, there's a lot of interest in more opportunity for young people to recreate. So we've invested a lot through the Metropolitan Parks District and through - mostly through the Metropolitan Parks District - for things like park improvements at Be'er Sheva Park art installation, for a new skate park in Rainier Beach. There's a lot of interest in creating opportunity for young people to be outside. So there's a lot that we've done to improve, to change the community centers to help them become community resilience hubs that are following Green building practices and preparing for extreme weather events. So creating space where people can go during extreme heat or during smoke events. So, you know, those are a few examples of the things that we've done in kind of the parks and climate arena. And then we've also invested millions of dollars in sidewalk improvements in different parts of District 2. This is a part of the city that lacks sidewalks in much of it - much of the South End. And so every year we've tried to put money into the budget process to make sure that at least in some patches of neighborhoods, there's sidewalk repair or sidewalk improvements that are being done. [00:10:46] Crystal Fincher: Well, I do want to talk about the budget because the City is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025, which is right around the corner. Because we are mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, our options to address this upcoming deficit are either raise revenue, cut services, or some combination of the two. Which one will be your approach to address this budget shortfall? [00:11:12] Tammy Morales: Well, we absolutely have to raise revenue. So in the last budget cycle, we had a proposed amendment to do a modest increase of the JumpStart payroll expense tax - that was something that I supported, it did not pass - but I do think we're going to have to look at that again. You know, we are a growing city. In the last 20 years, we grew, I think, twice as fast as anybody anticipated. And so that means that we have increased need in the city, whether that's infrastructure or service needs, to make sure that our neighbors are getting the kind of public service that they deserve. And we have to be able to pay for that. So I do think that we will have to have a conversation about increasing the payroll expense tax. We're also looking at a capital gains tax - I think that will be part of the conversation we have this budget cycle. And, you know, the thing is that this is not new information for the City - there was a progressive revenue committee that was formed in 2017, 2018 that started looking at these issues, Mayor Harrell had another task force in the last year to continue that conversation. But the recommendations are the same, which is that as a growing city, given the constraints that we have at the state level, we do have to contemplate how else we will raise revenue to be able to serve our community. And increasing revenue, particularly on large corporations is - in my opinion, and the opinion of many of my colleagues - the way for us to go. [00:12:58] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the JumpStart tax was a popular policy, not just with the City Council, but with the residents of Seattle - so looking at expanding that is definitely an option on the table. Are there still going to have to be cuts? Will those, you know, even if we were to successfully generate more revenue with both of those, does that cover that shortfall or will there also need to be some cuts? [00:13:22] Tammy Morales: You know, we are absolutely looking at the possibility of having to reduce the budget next year. There's - and the challenge is that it is, you know, something like $140 million next year, and it will be even more than that the following biennium. And so how we address that is going to be part of the conversation we start this budget cycle. You know, how we address the staffing of the City is going to be a really hard conversation because what I fear is that, you know, the departments where, you know - there's been a lot of work done to recruit new people into the city, to make sure that we're diversifying our City workforce. And I want to make sure that if we get to a point where we have to have staff layoffs, that those new folks - who are mostly people of color - who have come in are not going to be the first people to go. So it's going to be hard conversations. And, you know, we are just now starting to think about the strategy for dealing with what those conversations are going to have to look like over the next year. [00:14:45] Crystal Fincher: I do want to have a conversation about public safety - it's on the forefront of many people's minds. But also what we see through elections and polling is that a comprehensive view of public safety is where most voters are at - and many leaders in the City are talking about it - so it includes not just police, but also community response, alternative responses that are community-based. [00:15:09] Tammy Morales: Absolutely. [00:15:09] Crystal Fincher: While other jurisdictions around the country and in our own region have rolled out some of these alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises, Seattle is stalled in the implementation of what again is a widely-supported idea. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:15:34] Tammy Morales: Well, that's a great question. And it is something that we have been and will continue to talk about a lot in the city. I feel like I've been really clear for a very long time that the challenges that we have in our communities are very often the result of history of disinvestment in some communities. And so, in my opinion, we need to start at a higher level of this conversation - in order to reduce the violence and reduce some of the community safety issues that we are all very well aware of, we really have to be investing in changing the community conditions that lead to violence in the first place. So that's why it is important to me that we invest in affordable housing, that we invest in food security and access to healthcare and education. And really focus on economic opportunity, particularly for our young people. I think that's an important first step in this conversation. The next step is really looking at the different problems that we have in the city. We do have a need for police to be investigating - particularly if we're talking about violent crime - gun violence, for example. And we need trained experts in responding to mental health crises. We need community programs, as you referred to, who are focused on violence interruption and can really support families after there is an incident. So there are different challenges - safety challenges - that we have, and they each require their own response. I think it's important that we really set up these different responses to be successful, particularly if we're talking about sending somebody out to respond to someone who's having an acute mental health crisis or a behavioral health crisis - police aren't equipped to deal with that. So Councilmember Lewis has been working - trying to set up a CAHOOTS-style alternative response system here for many years now. And I think that is the direction we need to be going. And I think we need to, as a city, really get serious about creating our public health response to some of the public health crises that we have. [00:18:11] Crystal Fincher: Now I wanna talk about people who have been harmed and victimized. And for people who have been victims, they say overwhelmingly they want two things. One, to make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to them or anyone else ever again. And they want better support. Sometimes - well, many times - people are left hanging, they call the police, report is taken. And even if a person is arrested, they're still left with - you know, if there is a break in, having to replace whatever it is, time lost work, medical bills, just a wide variety of things. How can we better support victims and survivors? [00:18:50] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I was having lunch yesterday with some leaders in the Vietnamese community. And as you know, there's been a string of home invasions, you know, with elderly folks being assaulted. It's important, as we're understanding their impacts, that we are addressing what they want. So, you know, whether that's victim support after the fact, support with mental health care, with medical care, or really looking at the interaction that they have when they call 911. So in the case of these incidents, for example, you know, we're understanding that there was a 15, 20 minute delay in getting a person on the 911 call who could speak their language. And when you're in a traumatizing situation, when you've been victimized, you know, you need support much faster than that. So one of the things that we're looking at is language justice and how we better support our neighbors who don't speak English as a first language in getting access to the City services that they deserve. The other thing I'll say is that we have some accountability that - we really need to be investigating or inquiring about from our police department. You know, in one of these instances, we understand that it was two weeks later before a detective actually reached out to the family. So getting a better understanding of how the investigation - you know, language access issues and getting those resolved, what the process is for investigating, beginning the investigations sooner - and then really understanding why it takes so long to get information is gonna be important for all of these families. The other thing I'll say is that we have organizations in the city that do provide victim support. They provide aftercare. I'm thinking about Choose 180, Community Passageways - these are groups that work with the family afterward to make sure that they get the support they need. And all of these violence interruption programs, diversion programs - you know, real community support - also need to be supported so that they can scale up and provide the kind of assistance that they do to our community members. [00:21:33] Crystal Fincher: I also wanna talk about homelessness. And one thing called out by experts as a barrier to the effectiveness of our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, especially in Seattle. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for Seattle? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services? [00:21:59] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's a great question, Crystal. I mean, we all see the crises that are happening on our street. You know, when I see somebody who's homeless, what I see is somebody who's been failed by all of our different systems. And so as a city, we have an obligation to take care of the health and safety of all of our neighbors - you know, I hear a lot of people referring to our City charter saying that, you know, it is our primary duty to ensure the public safety. That's not just for some people - that's not just for housed people - that's for all of us. And so to your question, you know, the City contracts with many social service providers, with many different nonprofit organizations to deliver care and service to our homeless population on behalf of the City. And therefore it is our obligation to make sure that those workers are also paid well and compensated for, you know, really important frontline work that they do. In the last budget cycle, we did have to fight for, you know, cost of living increases for our social service workers. Our Human Services Department contracts with many different organizations and the contracts that they put out really need to include cost of living increases and adjustments so that folks get paid for the work they do. I mean, that's basic. So yeah, there is an obligation for us to make sure that folks who we are contracting with to deliver City services need to be paid fairly. [00:23:38] Crystal Fincher: Now on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while we're experiencing horrible impacts ranging from extreme heat and cold, wildfires, smoky and toxic air, floods, just everything. What are your highest priority plans to get us back on track to meet those goals? [00:24:02] Tammy Morales: That's a great question. So there's a couple pieces of legislation that are in the works that need a lot of support from community. The first I'll say is the Building Emissions Performance Standards, which is a bill that has been - I think had been negotiated and was about to come before council. The mayor has recently decided not to transmit that. And I think it's because there's still a lot of work to do. So building emissions and transportation are the two big contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the city. And those are the two places where we really need to start making change because as you said, we are way off track in meeting our 2030 climate goals for reducing emissions. So that bill is intended to, you know, set standards for future construction. And I think part of the challenge that we are hearing from advocates is that it doesn't go far enough and it doesn't achieve the goals soon enough. So we have a 2030 plan. The bill as created would set a 2050 deadline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And so, you know, I am hopeful that the mayor does transmit that legislation. I believe Councilmember Sawant, whose committee it would be in, is planning to introduce her own bill if that doesn't come soon. So that's an important conversation for us to be having. And then there's another piece of legislation called the Living Hotels policy that would set similar environmental standards for hotels that are built in the city. I'm sure you know that tourism is itself part of the climate challenge for all of us as people come to the city - in planes, in cars, to stay in hotels - that really does add to our climate crisis. And so this is a policy that would intend to set some standards for green construction for any future hotels that are built and would really set some different standards for how we are raising expectation about what construction looks like in the city. So that's the building side. And then what I guess I will say about the transportation side is, you know, we really need to get people out of their cars, which means we need to invest and really support a robust public transit system. So working with King County Metro to make sure they have enough workers, make sure that they're increasing their routes, the frequency and reliability of their routes - because we really need to make getting out of your car the easy choice in the city if we want to address the transportation emissions, transportation-related emissions in the city. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that kind of leads into my next question in that - right now, staying out of people's car, even for people who are using transit, is more challenging today because reliability of the system is tanking, really. Whether it's because of staff shortages or other challenges - more buses aren't showing up, routes being suspended, canceled. And so just the reliability of the system is posing a challenge for many people who rely on timely and consistent buses to get to work and their necessities of life. What can the City do to stabilize transit reliability - even keeping in mind that Sound Transit is a regional entity and King County Metro is a county entity - how can the City help to stabilize that? [00:27:59] Tammy Morales: Yeah, well, so part of the work that we do is regularly meeting with Sound Transit and really trying to hold them accountable for delivery of service, for how they are delivering service. And when there are frequent disruptions because of maintenance needs or something is - it seems mostly maintenance-related needs - it's really disruptive to anybody who relies on that line to get into work or to do whatever else they need to do. So that is a conversation that we need to have with the department. And as they are building out the system, my hope is that there is a greater efficiency with getting these repairs done so that it is not so disruptive in the future. The bus transit system is something that is operated by King County Metro. And I think the fact that they recently - finally - signed a contract with their workers is a huge step. So part of the challenge at King County Metro is that workers are not paid well - they were still in bargaining - and I think a lot of that has been addressed. So my hope is that that will lead to folks coming back to work, their ability to increase staff retention, and start to address some of the reliability in that system. And I think the last thing I'll say is that, we have a transportation levy that is coming up. So as we support getting more riders into Metro, it's gonna be important to make sure that they are getting access to service. So we use funding from the Transportation Benefit District to buy more bus service hours. But we can also use funding from the levy to really focus on other ways for folks to get around - building out, as you were referring to earlier, building out the bicycle infrastructure, the pedestrian infrastructure - to make sure that the sort of fragmented networks of bike lanes that we have are better connected. That would make it really easy for folks to get out of their cars and to start using a safer network system to get around. And really supporting the creation of greener infrastructure in the city so that people can get out of their cars and take advantage of those opportunities is gonna be an important part of the transportation levy conversation. [00:30:55] Crystal Fincher: Well, and safety for pedestrians and people riding bikes is a humongous concern - right now, it's really a crisis. With more deaths occurring than ever before, we're far away from meeting our Vision Zero goals as the City of Seattle. What can be done? How will you move to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety? [00:31:18] Tammy Morales: Yeah, well, I think we've talked about this before, Crystal, but the district that I represent experiences almost 60% of the traffic fatalities in the city. So we know that we have huge issues with the major arterials - Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Rainier Avenue, Beacon Avenue - all of these streets have high, they're really designed to be speedways. So the conversation we've been having with the Department of Transportation in the City is not just how do we improve sidewalks, how do we add more crosswalks, what can we do about signal timing - all of those things are important. But even more than that is that we need to redesign the streets themselves so that it is not easy to go 60 miles an hour down what is supposed to be a 25 mile an hour road. That's work that I think is starting to shift - there is more acknowledgement in the Department of Transportation that if we're gonna reach our Vision Zero goals, there is a significant shift in the way we design our roads that will be needed. And so that is work that we are beginning as a city. And then I really think that one of my goals is to see in every neighborhood a pedestrianized street. So during COVID, we did some of these street closures to create Healthy Streets. We don't maybe need them in every block, but it would be great to have a pedestrianized street - you know, here in Beacon Hill, we have Plaza Roberto Maestas, where they close down the street - there's vendors, there's food trucks, it's a community gathering space. I think just having people be able to share an experience like that in every neighborhood can also help elevate the awareness of the fact that we have neighbors who are trying to navigate our community and we all have an obligation to be careful as we're going through our neighborhood. So it is increasing awareness of the fact that there are pedestrians and also - very importantly - rethinking the way we design our streets to make sure that folks can get around safely. [00:33:45] Crystal Fincher: I do wanna talk about the economy and the businesses in your district. We have some of the largest corporations in the world in Seattle, but also very vibrant and diverse small businesses. What are the biggest concerns that you hear from small businesses in your district and what are your priorities to help them? [00:34:05] Tammy Morales: Boy, what I hear about a lot is about commercial rents. So part of the issue about displacement in Seattle is not just residential tenants, but it's also about business tenants. So small businesses are also experiencing displacement, they're also dealing with landlord-tenant issues that they don't necessarily know how to resolve. And so a lot of the work that we're doing - that we plan to do next year - is around, it's sort of rooted in generational wealth building strategies. But it is very much about increasing commercial ownership of commercial property - so allowing business owners to buy something instead of being tenants. It's about access to capital, so that they can purchase commercial property. We have a lot of folks who need language access - again, this keeps coming up. A lot of our small businesses - the owners don't speak English as a first language. And so they need support understanding a lease agreement, understanding how to apply for a loan and what that loan is requiring of them. So that's another piece where, you know, we are working with our Office of Economic Development, with our Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs to figure out what the right business navigator system is. But there's a lot of work to be done to support our small businesses in being able to stay in the city. And I'm excited about starting that work with OED and really making sure that our neighbors can stay. [00:35:58] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about another issue that's crucial to the economy and that's childcare. Now, childcare, we've recently seen reporting that it is now more expensive than college on an annual basis. We can't talk about inflation or affordability without contending with childcare, which is also just in shorter supply than it was, in addition to being much more expensive. What can you do to help families struggling with the cost of childcare? [00:36:32] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's an important issue. So there are a few things that we need to consider. The first is just the availability of childcare - so whether it is an in-home family daycare provider or a licensed childcare facility, we have to scale up all of those things. So from a land use perspective, that means making it easier to build childcare facilities and making sure that they are exempt from some of the paperwork requirements that we often impose on construction. We also need to make sure that we are supporting childcare workers themselves. It is an expensive proposition to take your child to childcare - and I know I've got three kids, it was not easy - but it's expensive because we are entrusting these childcare providers with our littlest citizens and they do an important job. And there's also limitations on how many children they can watch at one time. So making sure that we are providing them with good wages and access to benefits is also important. And as you said, it is so expensive to provide childcare. So some of the things that we've talked about in the past - some things I would like to see - include, for example, having sort of a health savings account, but for childcare. So having employers provide access to a savings opportunity to be able to stockpile that. And also just asking our employers to provide better access to childcare subsidies so that they can ensure that their workers can get to work and do the things that they - provide the services that they are providing for folks. Part of the thing, one of the things that the City is doing is also trying to, through the Families and Education levy, increase the Seattle preschool program opportunities. So we just expanded, particularly for bilingual slots, we just added seven additional facilities that can provide bilingual education. So we now have 35 Seattle preschool programs operating in the city. And I think most of the additional ones were here in the South End. So there is work that the City can do in terms of providing actual financial support. And then there is work that we can do to make sure that it is easier to build and easier to increase the capacity of our city to provide space for childcare providers. [00:39:30] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we close this conversation today, there is still a number of residents trying to contend and determine the differences between you and your opponent. When you're talking to someone who's trying to understand the difference and deciding for whom they're gonna vote, what do you tell them? [00:39:49] Tammy Morales: Well, thank you for the question. You know, what I will say is that we are losing half of our current council, and I can tell you that that is potentially destabilizing. So we need trusted, experienced leaders on the council - people who can partner skillfully with other colleagues, with advocates, with the mayor's office to really get things done - and that's the experience I bring. I will say that's why I've been endorsed by other elected or formerly elected leaders like King County Councilmember Zahilay, Larry Gossett, Senator Saldaña, small business owners, advocates - it's because they wanna see a thriving Seattle and they know that I wanna see a thriving Seattle. But I also want a council that can collaborate, that can agree to disagree on policy without getting divisive - you know, I think we all understand that the council needs to be working better together. And so we need folks who can partner and collaborate. You know, I think folks might be surprised to learn that I have a great working relationship, for example, with Councilmember Pedersen, with whom I don't agree on very much at all. But we are very transparent with each other, we're very clear about where we're coming from and why we may not be able to support something. And that allows us to work together really well when we can find something that we agree on, like the legislation I referred to earlier. So, you know, it's important to have folks there who understand how to deliver, whether it's policy or budget resources, for the district. And that's something that I'm really proud of having done in my first term, and that I would be honored to be able to do in a second term. [00:41:52] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much, Seattle City Councilmember and candidate for re-election in Seattle's Council District 2, Tammy Morales. [00:42:01] Tammy Morales: Thanks so much for having me, Crystal - good to see you. [00:42:03] Crystal Fincher: 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 Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Tanya Woo about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 2. Listen and learn more about Tanya and her thoughts on: [01:06] - Why she is running [02:02] - Lightning round! [12:49] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 2 [17:13] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [19:36] - Homelessness: Involvement with opposition to SODO shelter expansion [25:15] - Public Safety: Alternative response [27:08] - Victim support [30:52] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [36:02] - Small business support [39:16] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [40:28] - Bike and pedestrian safety [45:59] - Transit reliability [48:02] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Tanya Woo at @votetanyawoo.   Tanya Woo My family immigrated to Seattle in 1887. I grew up on Beacon Hill, worked at our family business in the Chinatown International District and now live in Rainier Beach. I've seen how South Seattle has changed. I've seen what happens to neighborhoods that don't have a voice and are expected to just live with bad city policies. I want to change that, and that's why I'm running for Seattle City Council. I spearheaded the renovation of my family's building, the Louisa hotel, that provides small business space and workforce housing. Twice a week, my Community Watch walks around Little Saigon, Nihomachi (Japantown) and Chinatown trying to make our streets safer for everyone, which includes our unhoused neighbors. My work against government discrimination in the Chinatown International District has taught me a very important lesson: the only time people in South Seattle are heard is when we make those in positions of power listen.   Resources Campaign Website - Tanya Woo   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very pleased to be welcoming Tanya Woo, Seattle City Council candidate in District 2, to the program. Thank you so much for joining us, Tanya. [00:01:04] Tanya Woo: Well, thank you for having me - I'm really excited to be here. [00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you - and just wanted to start off by understanding why you chose to run and why now? [00:01:14] Tanya Woo: Yes, and so this comes from a long history of work in the Chinatown International District, as well as being a lifelong resident here in District 2. Just seeing the effects of the pandemic on our community, as well as seeing all of these high-impact projects that are happening around the Chinatown International District these last four years - and realizing that the district is really fighting for its life, basically. And so we were fighting for a seat at the table, we were fighting to amplify voices and to be heard - and realizing that the best way to get a seat at the table is to fight for it and to run for it. And so after a lot of discussion and a lot of encouragement, I decided to throw my hat into the ring. [00:02:01] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. Well, as we get started on this show - I mean, we do candidate interviews a lot - we're adding a new dimension into the interviews this year, which is a lightning round before we get to the rest of our regular conversation and discussion. And so just a number of yes or no questions, that hopefully are easy, or super one-answer choice questions. So we'll just run through this and then get back to the other questions. So this year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:02:31] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:02:32] Crystal Fincher: And this year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:02:37] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:02:38] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? ... In February. [00:02:43] Tanya Woo: I may not have voted for that. I may not have voted for that one. [00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: Okay. And in 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Seattle Mayor? [00:03:00] Tanya Woo: I did not vote in that election. [00:03:02] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Okay, so I guess that covers - let me find that - so City Attorney. Last year in 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:03:17] Tanya Woo: Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. I don't know which elections I voted for, which ones I did not vote for. [00:03:21] Crystal Fincher: Okay. [00:03:22] Tanya Woo: I'll have to pull up my record to answer. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: We will skip the... [00:03:26] Tanya Woo: I am so sorry. [00:03:27] Crystal Fincher: It's fine, it's fine. We'll skip the rest of those. We'll go to the other questions. Do you rent or own your residence? [00:03:34] Tanya Woo: My husband owns the residence. [00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Okay, are you a landlord? [00:03:39] Tanya Woo: My family is a landlord. [00:03:41] Crystal Fincher: Okay, would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:03:50] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:03:51] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:03:59] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:04:00] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:04:06] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:04:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:04:18] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:04:19] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:28] Tanya Woo: Oh. I don't think I've ever really thought about this one. Probably yes. [00:04:43] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:51] Tanya Woo: I think that's up to the schools. [00:04:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:59] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:00] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:05:03] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:04] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:05:13] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:14] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:05:24] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:24] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:05:33] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:34] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:05:40] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:05:41] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:05:54] Tanya Woo: Do I oppose it? Yes. [00:05:56] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:06:05] Tanya Woo: So sorry, can you repeat the question? [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: Sure, sure, sure. Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:06:21] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:06:22] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the city to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:06:32] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:06:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:06:45] Tanya Woo: Such as traffic control? [00:06:49] Crystal Fincher: That would fall under one if they're off-duty, I think, yeah. [00:06:54] Tanya Woo: I do not oppose it, so. [00:06:56] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:07:07] Tanya Woo: And this isn't - do I oppose it? [00:07:09] Crystal Fincher: No - will you vote to ensure that - [00:07:10] Tanya Woo: Oh, sorry - okay. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: - trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:07:18] Tanya Woo: Oh, I think that's a conversation we have to have with the sports teams, but I would be in support of it. [00:07:25] Crystal Fincher: So when you say conversation to have with the sports teams - if they voted against it, would you support that? [00:07:31] Tanya Woo: I think we have to support - yes. [00:07:33] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so you would support-- [00:07:35] Tanya Woo: If the sports teams voted. [00:07:37] Crystal Fincher: Sports team said that they couldn't play, then they couldn't play. [00:07:40] Tanya Woo: If they had good reason. [00:07:41] Crystal Fincher: Got it. [00:07:42] Tanya Woo: 'Cause I think every sports is different. [00:07:44] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:07:51] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:07:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:07:58] Tanya Woo: I'm so sorry, going back to the gender one - their stated gender or their perceived gender? [00:08:04] Crystal Fincher: Whatever gender they identify as. [00:08:06] Tanya Woo: Okay, yes, then - we need to ensure that it's served - okay. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:08:17] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:08:17] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:08:29] Tanya Woo: That's a very complicated question. [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Okay, we can leave it as - it's complicated, it's not a yes or no - and we can get to that. We have plenty of time to talk about this in the other questions, so we can cover the details of that. [00:08:41] Tanya Woo: Okay great. Yeah - that's a lot of -- Oh, go ahead. [00:08:45] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:08:50] Tanya Woo: Yes, I love the direction it's going in. [00:08:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:09:01] Tanya Woo: And that's the three days a week, right? [00:09:05] Crystal Fincher: Theirs is three days a week - whatever, you know, if they're mandating a return and not work from home in whatever form that would be. So it could be three, it could be five. [00:09:15] Tanya Woo: I think yes. Oh, okay. I think it's great to start with three. And then, of course, the willingness to work with families where that could be a barrier - where there's any barriers involved. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so do you think - I mean, do you think the mandate is necessary or is that it's on a case-by-case basis and-- [00:09:33] Tanya Woo: Well, I think it's necessary to revitalize the downtown area. I know there's a lot of barriers for some people not being able to physically return to work - I think case-by-case in those situations should be allowed. [00:09:48] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:09:52] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:09:53] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:09:55] Tanya Woo: No. [00:09:56] Crystal Fincher: In the past month? [00:09:59] Tanya Woo: No. [00:10:01] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:10:11] Tanya Woo: Oh, I know that is being talked about right now. I think it'd be nice to not allow it, but I know some of the business owners want it - so I think definitely let Pike Place Market decide on how they want to proceed. [00:10:30] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:10:44] Tanya Woo: For all red lights? [00:10:45] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:10:47] Tanya Woo: Okay. That would add a lot of needed infrastructure. I would support that, but I think we'd have to put together a plan to be able to carry that out. [00:11:03] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:15] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:11:20] Tanya Woo: No. [00:11:20] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:11:31] Tanya Woo: Would I support putting money into investigations? [00:11:35] Crystal Fincher: Increasing funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:11:42] Tanya Woo: Oh - yes. [00:11:43] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:11:46] Tanya Woo: No. [00:11:47] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:11:49] Tanya Woo: No. [00:11:50] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:11:53] Tanya Woo: They have the option to do so, but I do not believe so. [00:11:57] Crystal Fincher: Okay. If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:12:02] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:12:03] Crystal Fincher: Are any of the staff employed by your businesses unionized? [00:12:14] Tanya Woo: If, are my staff employed by businesses unionized? [00:12:18] Crystal Fincher: Any staff employed by your business unionized? [00:12:22] Tanya Woo: No. [00:12:24] Crystal Fincher: If they wanted to unionize, would you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:12:28] Tanya Woo: Yes. [00:12:30] Crystal Fincher: Well, look, that's the end of the lightning round - you survived, it's wonderful. [00:12:34] Tanya Woo: Okay great - these are always rough because I feel like sometimes issues are so complicated and there's a lot of gray - it's not always black and white - but yeah, that wasn't so bad. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: Which is why we have a robust conversation in front of us to talk about all of that. But I want to start out for - helping to give people a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead, which a lot of people see throughout the community. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district and what impact that has had on residents? [00:13:08] Tanya Woo: Yes. Three years ago, during the pandemic - when there were a lot of pandemic racism, anti-Asian hate happening - our businesses were forced to close down throughout the city. And a lot of people were uncertain and just confused about what was happening, especially in our communities of color. I helped start a group called the Chinatown International District Community Watch. We saw there was a lack and a gap in services between the hours of 6pm and 6am - and that was the time when many of our streets, because of the stay-at-home mandate, it was just a ghost town. And so we wanted to make sure that people felt supported, that our small businesses felt supported in the Chinatown International District - which includes our housed and unhoused neighbors and residents. And so we started like this alternative to policing group that kind of just went through the three neighborhoods - Little Saigon, Chinatown, and Japantown - and just made sure everyone was okay. We believe that building trust between our unhoused neighbors and those who are there at 12th and Jackson engaged in the illegal markets were okay. We always believe that trust was the best way to de-escalate the situation. And they wanted to build connection and build relationships with people to help connect people to resources and to just be there. We wanted to give hope to our seniors and to our small business owners who were working through the pandemic. And so wanted to let them know that we were here and available if they need help - we did senior escorts. We also did something regarding self-defense training, which mainly focused on situational awareness - many in the Asian culture, people don't - there's not a lot eye contact, people are not looking around when they're walking. And so there are a lot instances where our seniors were unfortunately being attacked - we had a hate incident happen within the CID. And so we wanted to be there to show support for the community. And it's been three years and we're still going strong. We kind of segued into different sections. There was a couple of large encampments that had grown in the first, second, or third year. And we started doing outreach and engagement in the encampments - getting to know our unhoused - we saw who was doing what, we saw the [unintelligible] who were engaged in the sex trade, who was engaged in the illegal markets. But we wanted to make sure that people who needed services and help were also being heard. So we were actively going into the encampments during that time - and now that those encampments have been resolved, we're going into Little Saigon area and 12th and Jackson with water bottles and meals. And trying to make that connection - that community cares, we want people to be okay. And we've done things where we've had to administer Narcan and CPR. And we really see that there's a need here. And so I believe that we're very, very slowly - there are many success stories - people who have found housing come back and say hi to us, and they invite us to see their homes. Many people who we have connected to other services, like brought to the hospital - helped bring to the hospital - have come back to thank us. And just seeing that we're making a difference in people's lives, I think brings me worlds of happiness. And so-- [00:17:03] Crystal Fincher: Now-- [00:17:03] Tanya Woo: --that was-- oh, go ahead. [00:17:05] Crystal Fincher: Oh, no, go ahead, finish. [00:17:06] Tanya Woo: Oh yeah, and so that's one of the things I'm really proud of and excited about - that this is continuing. [00:17:12] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. Now talking about homelessness, one thing called out by experts as a barrier to the homelessness response is frontline worker wages that don't cover the cost of living and that impairing the response. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area, or that this is a problem with the response? And how can we fix it if it is a problem with how the City bids for contracts and services? [00:17:39] Tanya Woo: Yes, I agree we have to pay a living wage and that is a huge barrier. I mean, even if - there's a huge turnaround in a lot of our nonprofits and our services - we have amazing people who are moving on and that turnaround, especially with caseworkers, is a bit detrimental to further relationships with many members of the community who need behavioral health services, addiction treatment, who are partnered with people to lead them through the journey from being unhoused into finding housing. And how important is that we pay a living wage to case managers so we don't see that there's a huge gap in services and that people are being missed or forgotten. And in other service sectors, I think there has to be - we have to meet those needs because the best way to fight homelessness is to prevent it. So especially with City contracts, there has to be - now that many City contracts are being renegotiated - to get a cost of living wage and also a percentage to match, for every single year going forward, the increase in the cost of living. I think that has to be comparable to other cities, other markets that we're seeing. And we have to make it a priority because we have to put people first, and we have to allow people to be able to live here and work here, as well as be able to negotiate these contracts so that they are fair. And also we have to make other, look at other things as well in terms of City contracts - I think trying to employ more minority businesses in City contracts, as well as female businesses, in terms of the larger contract picture is also very important. [00:19:36] Crystal Fincher: Now, you were involved in the opposition to the proposed - it was nicknamed the "Megaplex" - but a services complex for the homeless there. And I think there were legitimate issues raised over the past several years about the CID residents being left out of discussions about what infrastructure is being built and developed, and mitigations or lack thereof. And the CID and its residents experiencing hardships and consequences out of proportion to people in other parts of the city, and that being a growing frustration - and then this happens and it feels like they're repeating the same cycle. While that's competing with the need to provide supportive housing, and to providing behavioral health treatment and services, and places where people can go and be, and offer these services. So if the right place or the right way to do it wasn't with that, what is the right way and the right place to do it? [00:20:41] Tanya Woo: So first off, I want to make it very clear, we're not against the shelter. We were not against behavioral health services. We just wanted a seat at the table. This comes in a long line of historical high-impact projects that received no community input. And we're looking at I-5, we're looking at Sound Transit, we're looking at the stadiums, the Seattle Streetcar - all high-impact projects that have been detrimental, has really affected our community - but there was no community engagement or outreach. And so in the case of this shelter complex, the lease was signed in May, but the community was not notified until September for a facility that was supposed to open in November, December. And we asked, you know - there's something called the Racial Equity Toolkit that we have provided the City that dictates or advises on how to do that community outreach and engagement - and something that we desperately need and would like to see carried out. And so if King County and the City had started community outreach and engagement back in May, this would not even have been an issue. And so basically in September, when we were first notified during a public safety meeting that only contained a few of us, we were asking around - Have you heard about this project? - and no one's heard about it and people were confused. And so we reached out - and we were a community in crisis - and none of our elected officials showed up for us. And so that's why we started protesting, was because, you know, protests that are loudest are the people who are not being heard. We went to King County, we went to City Council meetings - and we realized there are a lot of barriers for how communities of color, especially non-English speakers, communities of refugees and immigrants can engage in the political process. We requested for a translator ahead of time - we're told no, we had to bring our own - and then translation only goes one way, only goes towards the City councilmembers, it does not go back towards the community. And so we were just standing up in between breaks, yelling at the community members - this is what's happening, this is what people are saying. And that's emblematic of what's happening in the entire district. There is just not very much outreach and engagement and we definitely need more of that, we would like to see the table. There were a whole lot of issues that we would like to have been addressed. For instance, there should have been a good neighbor agreement between the community and the shelter that should have been in place when the shelter had opened back in 2020. And there should have also - we were seeing these encampments that were right outside the doors of the shelter - and last year, there were about seven homicides in the CID. I believe all but one were within the encampments. And so we were also asking for safety for our unhoused neighbors and wanted to enter a discussion with a public, a safety plan for everyone, including our unhoused neighbors. And we can go on and talk about all the reasons, I guess, that we wanted that discussion, engagement - and instead of giving that to us, they just decided to cancel the whole project and no one was happy. [00:23:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, and so I guess that's my question - and so if you are in favor of providing services and doing that, where do you think they should be sited in the district? [00:24:11] Tanya Woo: I think that area would have worked, but what we needed was that outreach and engagement. We were getting no information. We were holding our own town halls and reading off what we knew based on media and - of course we had our facts wrong 'cause no one was telling us what was happening. And that was basically - this is why I'm running - we wanted a seat at the table. And it's not gonna be given to us - we have to demand it. [00:24:42] Crystal Fincher: So would you be supportive of starting a new process with that site as the goal, but with the appropriate amount and type of authentic community engagement and collaboration? [00:24:55] Tanya Woo: Yes. And that's all we wanted - was that community engagement and collaboration. And we've historically have not gotten it. And so we feel like our community, that CID community, has suffered from the lack of investments and the lack of attention. [00:25:14] Crystal Fincher: I gotcha. Now I also wanna talk about public safety - and starting talking about alternative response - in other jurisdictions around the country, and in our own region and King County, have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having a behavioral health crisis. And Seattle is stalled in implementing, which is one of the most widely-supported ideas by Seattle voters and voters in District 2 - which is standing up non-police public safety issues and solutions. What are your thoughts on these and what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:25:51] Tanya Woo: Yes. So I believe that Community Watch is a great example of alternatives to policing. And also there are a lot of organizations who do a lot of great and important work in community - We Deliver Care, LEAD, REACH, Co-LEAD, JustCARE - throughout the years that I would love to see grow on a larger scale and be able to support the entire city. I know they have little pockets within the city where they're doing this amazing work and it's working - and I would love to see more of that. That alternative to policing model is present, it's there - we just need to put City funding and City support behind it. So I also believe, like Health One, which pairs a case worker, case manager with a response team definitely needs to be expanded. Having more case workers out there should be a priority. Having case workers with officers should definitely be explored - and so I do support that model. [00:27:06] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, a lot of times we hear people talking about what victims would want, but in survey after survey and talking to victims directly and BIPOC communities - the community in District 2 is largely at-risk for violence at greater proportions than other places in the city - but largely they say two things. They first wanna make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen again. And they want support - better support - through the systems. We've had business owners in the City of Seattle talk about - Yeah, I can call police, it takes them a long time to respond. But even if they come, it's not really helping me move forward. But something like a victim compensation fund or more support or something like that would happen. - How do you think we could better support victims of crime in the city? And how do you think that might change the overall feeling of safety? [00:28:04] Tanya Woo: Yes. So for example, there have been about 14 robberies in the Beacon Hill, Rainier Beach area - mostly targeting Asian American seniors, but they're targeting young and old people as well. And so in those instances where they're targeting non-English speakers, we're seeing that not only are people not reporting in a timely manner, but they're not reporting at all - because that structure has not been put in place to help our immigrant, refugee, non-English speaking community. There's one survivor who I met recently who was severely traumatized by this experience - this person can't sleep at night, they have nightmares, and it's very obvious they need a lot of support. But that support structure has not been put into place, especially if you're a non-English speaker. So we were working with this person on connecting them to agencies to help - they have a $5,000 Harborview bill that they have to pay, working two jobs each, as well as dealing with all this trauma. And so we need something in place to help survivors, especially the refugee non-English speaking immigrant community members, to have access to these services, to be able to get assistance in paying their bills, or assistance in being able to get therapy, or other help that they may need. And that's - navigating the process is very difficult. Also - with these 14 burglaries - the community was not notified. I don't know why they waited until 14 to get the word out. Even now, we're not entirely sure what the circumstances are. We know that for one instance, this person was followed from King's Plaza - but how do we stop these from happening by watching out for each other? Especially if these are starting out at King's Plaza or other grocery stores, how can we allow for these marketplaces to keep an eye out for each other and make sure that they're not being followed? Just getting the word out is very difficult, and I wish there'd be more City agencies working with our nonprofits and organizational partners who are in these communities to get the word out as well as to help connect survivors to resources. So I agree that there is a huge lack, but I think we really need to work together to build upon what we have. [00:30:52] Crystal Fincher: Now I wanna talk about the City budget - and the City of Seattle is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025. Because the City's mandated to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the deficit are to either raise revenue or cut services. What approach are you going to take? [00:31:13] Tanya Woo: Ah, I think we have to look at the entire budget and define metrics of success for every single agency and making sure that there are results. We put so much money into KCRHA, which is the Regional Homeless Authority, but there is no metric for success, we don't know where this money is going - well, we have a general idea, but we don't know what the results are. How many people are they housing? I know right now they're going through a process where they're trying to come up with a system similar to that, but I would like to see something done for all government agencies. I mean, for any of us who have ever applied for a grant, we know how arduous it is to just basically name every single line item, and then be accountable for it, and then also show the results to be able to close out that grant. I think we have to hold all our agencies to that same level. [00:32:10] Crystal Fincher: So does that mean that that might be an area where you'd look to cut? Is that what you're saying? [00:32:16] Tanya Woo: Or not cut, but to maybe move around - see what programs are successful, what are not successful, and then invest in the programs that are showing results. [00:32:26] Crystal Fincher: So given that, if the money is just shifted and we're still dealing with a big budget deficit, how would you move to fix that? [00:32:38] Tanya Woo: Ah, then we'll have to look at - so we have to look at our priorities and really focus on those. And so I think it's looking at the overall budget - and yes, I guess, moving money around does equal cuts and other things, but giving a real clear picture of where the results are and moving the money to where the results are, I think, should be the priority. [00:33:09] Crystal Fincher: Okay, I think I've read that you're on record opposing a lot of the new revenue proposals and options. Is that correct? [00:33:17] Tanya Woo: Well, I wanted to see what the Progressive Revenue Task Force was going to put out. And I believe they gave a list of recommendations, and three is moving on to further legislation. And so I do not oppose any of the recommendations so far, but I want to see where the legislation - what the legislation looks like before making a final determination. [00:33:46] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so jury's still out, depends on what ultimately happens. So at this point, is it fair to say that you are not a strong supporter, or won't be leading any charge to implement new revenue, and may be a vote in support or in opposition? [00:34:02] Tanya Woo: Well, from my understanding - the three things that are being pushed forward are just continuations of things that are currently in place. And so I just want to wait and see. [00:34:15] Crystal Fincher: Well, the capital gains tax would be one, or a CEO tax would be another one, expanding the JumpStart tax. Yeah, so those ones are not currently in place. So are you looking to limiting what you would do to things that are already in place, or would you support something potentially beyond that? [00:34:37] Tanya Woo: Oh, I would want to see - I think some of them were not considered - I think the legality of each is being considered. So I probably would not be an advocate for any particular tax currently. I just want to see what legislation gets pushed forward before making determination of which I'm supportive or opposed of. [00:34:58] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so if that doesn't shake out and there isn't any new revenue, how would you propose doing things like supplementing victim services, or increasing public safety, or increasing homeless services that need new revenue? Would that just have to be offset by cuts in other areas, shifting to more higher priority areas on your agenda? [00:35:26] Tanya Woo: Yes, I think it's looking at the budget in its totality and seeing where we can make those cuts and how these programs could be successful because I believe they're in place - we're not reinventing the wheel here - we're just supporting and being able to help build capacity of some of these organizations and nonprofits, as well as I think - communication, outreach, and engagement is really important and making sure that communities of color know what's available and have access or even knowledge of these resources. [00:36:01] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, I want to talk about small businesses and the economy. You are a small business owner. Seattle and District 2 have very diverse businesses. Seattle has some of the largest corporations in the world headquartered here and some nearby, and also just a vibrant and diverse small business community - which is very important to our local and regional economy and just how the city is developing and feeling. What is most important - what would you lead and do to support small businesses in your district? [00:36:40] Tanya Woo: Yes, my family has been involved with a lot of small businesses. My grandparents had the Moon Temple Restaurant that they worked at for 32 years. Then my parents used that to help fund and open Seattle's first Chinese bakery, the Mon Hei Bakery in the Chinatown International District - I grew up in there, in the bakery, doing odd jobs for 50 cents an hour. And then later my dad - because we were able to build that intergenerational wealth through these small businesses, able to buy the building that the bakery was in. And so realizing how important our small businesses are in terms of being the social center for many community members, also being a safe haven for community as well. And making sure that we have that economic engine to help provide good paying jobs and allowing for many communities to stay in place. And so I think we have to be more proactive versus reactive. We had the broken window fund that really helped a lot of businesses, but the application process was a bit cumbersome and a lot of people who did not understand it. And so I think it'd be nice to have these, like City of Seattle service stations - I know Othello has one, the U district has one - but to have some in locations where small businesses can have access to be able to get their questions answered regarding City resources and being able to get City grants. Now, many of our small businesses are dealing with graffiti and the City will send notices to our small businesses demanding that they pay a fee every single day that that graffiti remains in place. And so having access to government to be able to, to, I guess, push back on these notices, as well as to get help in terms of how to access resources, and also to just basically address their concerns. I know at 12th and Jackson, there is a huge illegal market there, as well as many people using fentanyl - and that's really affected the business community. And so how do we interact with local government and agencies to bring light to this issue, to get more attention, and possibly work with community in trying to resolve and help people. [00:39:16] Crystal Fincher: Now, I also wanna talk about childcare, which is really important. And we recently received news that childcare is now more expensive than a college education - which has a devastating impact on families. Do you have plans to fix this? [00:39:32] Tanya Woo: Yes, I think the City could do a lot to help, I guess, childcare businesses to grow and to help with permitting process for childcare businesses to get started. And looking at - and just basically working in partnership with the childcare business community - figure out what the barriers are in place to provide more childcare. I think also helping accessibility - not only physically, but financially. And also helping with choices, so people are not having to drive across the city to be able to access good childcare options. I think that's something we need to work in partnership with not only businesses, large and small, but also with what families need. So I think there's a lot of work we can do in that area. [00:40:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also wanna talk about transit and transportation. Pedestrian and bicycle safety has been atrocious. Pedestrians and bicyclists are not currently safe. What would you do to improve that? [00:40:42] Tanya Woo: Yes, I know there's a lot of traffic calming measures that community has been asking for, but SDOT has not been able to put in place. And so trying to find out what those barriers are and - within SDOT itself - be able to implement these traffic calming measures. There are many promises that have been made in these last 10 years and many projects - communities really excited for - that have not been implemented. So I think it's really holding agencies accountable and finding out those barriers are to get through that. And looking, especially in South Seattle, our traffic death numbers have not, pedestrian traffic death numbers have not gotten any better - and I think they're getting worse at this point. So is there - I know there's a lot of discussion groups, a lot of people who are really passionate about this issue - but how do we draw everybody in and make these things happen? And I've heard the frustration where people are - We're gonna go out there and paint that sidewalk ourself, or we're gonna put that planter in - we can't wait for the City to act. - and so how do we allow for these community projects? I know there's been a lot of speed bumps that have been helpful. How do we look at other traffic calming measures and make them happen is of paramount importance. [00:42:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I guess, what I'm getting at or what I'm wondering is - there have been a lot of promises made by SDOT, and the City, and various politicians and promises to bring change and it hasn't happened. So how exactly can you hold, what will you do to hold SDOT and your other colleagues accountable if you were to make it onto the council - as well as the mayor - to get action in District 2? [00:42:33] Tanya Woo: Yes, and I think that's the big question that a lot of people are wrestling with. And I think it's just getting down to - what are the barriers? Is there a lack of staffing? Or a lack of permitting - is the permitting process the barrier? Is there a community engagement process that needs to be done? And being able, I think, trying to understand what that barrier is. Is it just not a priority? [00:43:02] Crystal Fincher: If it is an issue of priority, how do you overcome that? [00:43:06] Tanya Woo: I think we have to make it a priority - it's lives on the line here - and we have to draw everyone in. And I know a lot of people have a lot of suggestions, like we need better lighting and that's a bigger infrastructure issue - putting that in place. And there's discussions regarding the traffic signals and cameras, especially. But I think there's a very divided community in terms of how to attack the situation, but I think it's going to have to be a - it's all-of-the-above situation - but I think it's getting SDOT to act is the biggest barrier. And if SDOT doesn't have the capacity, how can we give them the capacity or allow for community members to step in and to help? [00:43:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely allowing community members to step in and act would be good. Unfortunately, SDOT is not that fond of that in many instances, if it's not already part of a pre-planned program. A lot of it seems to be coming down to right-of-way and investment in car infrastructure versus bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And so parking spaces - that type of infrastructure and space that could be used to provide safe facilities there - would you vote to eliminate parking spaces in order to provide safe infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists in your district? [00:44:30] Tanya Woo: Yes, I think that is a - I support that, but I think that's a community-by-community approach. I know for the Chinatown International District - that many people using bikes go through there, yet it's also part of the downtown core where parking is a huge importance, especially since there are many seniors there who cannot utilize the bike lanes or who need those handicap parking spaces. And so I think it's a community-by-community approach and definitely having those discussions is important, but it's a larger picture of how do we - it's growing pains we have - we haven't planned for the city to grow so quickly. So how do we fit that in into our communities? How do we bring in Sound Transit, Metro to offer more consistent schedules? Metro just got some schedules cut and with ST3 coming into place and that discussion happening, we have to involve and look at not only ST3, but bike lanes and draw Metro in on the discussion for a larger planning for the next couple of years so that we set ourselves up for success. [00:45:57] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now transit reliability is becoming an increasingly pressing issue with staff shortages and other challenges creating ghost buses, missed buses, canceled trips, eliminated routes and trips - and it is jeopardizing transit ridership, jeopardizing so much in the city. Now Sound Transit is a regional body and King County Metro is a county body, but what can the City do to help stabilize transit reliability? [00:46:33] Tanya Woo: I think we have an aging workforce that's not being replenished. And so how do we go about that is a good question that needs - I think we need to talk about. Also, I think a lot of - there's a lot of public safety concerns that I think permeates through all of our issues, especially with hearing from - people going to, children going to school being on buses and seeing a drug use happening, as well as drivers having to deal with a lot of behavioral health issues or unhoused residents trying to stay warm or on their buses. And so how do we work together to promote the feeling of safety? And I think it's also looking, trying to offer more routes, more options and choices for people to be able to take the bus and have that system work. I know like a lot of people don't find it reliable because they always complain like - We're waiting longer than we feel like for buses to show up and then there's three or four buses at the same time that shows up - and how do we look at, make sure there's more consistent consistency and more options for people. [00:48:02] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now a lot of people are trying to make a decision about who they're gonna vote for, about who aligns with their values. What do you tell them in order to help them make their decision between you and your opponent? [00:48:17] Tanya Woo: Yes, and so I've spent my whole life working towards a lot of the issues that I feel are huge priorities for the city - to provide more housing. My family actually went and we - have the Louisa Hotel - recently redeveloped and opened right before the pandemic. We have 84 units of workforce housing, which only charges people a percentage of their income so no one's forced to pay rent they cannot afford. I think we need more of that in the city and I know how to build. And we have about 20 units working with our organization called Housing Connector to be able to house the formerly unhoused, and that organization also pairs people with a caseworker to help partner through their journey from - into finding housing. And I think that's a really important project that many people - or many, I guess, apartment owners - should get involved in. I helped start Community Watch, which I feel like is a great model for alternatives to public safety. And so I see that there is a need, and we have to act, and so I've gone out and done that. We go into our unhoused community - try to bring services and connect people to resources. And so I have a lot of on the ground experience - I'm embedded in community within our encampments, I see firsthand the trickle down effects of policy, and I also see displacement and gentrification - which is something I've been working against my whole life and trying to protect our communities of color from that. And so I know what it's like to be in a community that feels like they're not being heard. To see a community, I guess, being on the list of one of the most endangered neighborhoods of the nation - a list we're not proud of - but we have to do more and we have to act to make sure that no other neighborhood gets put on that list in the City of Seattle and how do we get our neighborhood off that list is really important. So I'm a person of action. And I'm in community and I hear the gunshots every single night where I live - I live in the Rainier Beach area, I work in the CID, I go to the CID and I hear gunshots there and I realize public safety is so important and not a topic that's being addressed by our current councilmember. I agree that police need to be reformed, but we need - my group, we were in place of a shooting and we are not equipped to be able to deal with that and so for that, we absolutely need a police department. But we need a police department that's culturally competent and that will prioritize de-escalation. And so having that in place, I believe, is really important - in partnership with community investments with the community, as well as we need more after-school programs for youth, our community centers, our libraries, and our parks to resume the programming that they had pre-pandemic. And so I think there are a lot of actionable items that can be done to help empower people that could be done that's not currently being done. So there's a lot of work in certain areas that I would like to help implement and those will fall in the three priorities, like with public safety, homelessness and housing, as well as transportation. And so as a movement of action and want to help amplify voices of community and make sure that our communities of color are not forgotten, especially in a district where there is a lot of diversity and we should celebrate that. And so part of the reason why I'm running is because I've seen all this in the last four or three - many years - I've lived here my entire life, I know the communities. And we have to act, time for action is now - we can't just talk about ideology and debate amongst each other about what will work and what not will work - and in the end, not coming to solutions. And this should be a priority - going to solutions and problem solving, and especially making sure that the perfect solution is not an enemy of a good one. [00:53:09] Crystal Fincher: Well, gotcha. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to share with us today, candidate for Seattle City Council District 2, Tanya Woo - much appreciated. [00:53:19] Tanya Woo: Thank you - have a good rest of your day. [00:53:21] Crystal Fincher: You too. 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 Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Maren Costa about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 1. Listen and learn more about Maren and her thoughts on: [01:08] - Why she is running [04:15] - Lightning round! [14:34] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 1 [15:46] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [17:45] - Climate change [20:54] - Transit reliability [22:20] - Bike and pedestrian safety [23:24] - Public Safety: Alternative response [26:00] - Victim support [29:43] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [31:39] - Small business support [33:45] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [36:37] - Difference between her and opponent 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 Maren Costa at @marencosta.   Maren Costa Maren Costa is 21 year resident of West Seattle, Seattle Public Schools mom, tech leader, and climate justice organizer. While at Amazon, Maren guided big teams and big budgets to successful results. She rallied her colleagues and co-founded Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, which used first-in-the-industry collective organizing tactics to bring international scrutiny to Amazon's climate negligence -- and resulted in multi-billion dollar climate commitments. Now, Maren is running to represent Seattle's District 1 to help lead a housed, healthy, and safer Seattle.   Resources Campaign Website - Maren Costa   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. I am thrilled to be welcoming a candidate for Seattle City Council District 1 to the show today. Welcome, Maren Costa. [00:01:03] Maren Costa: Thank you, Crystal. It's a pleasure to be here, and I have to say I'm a big fan. [00:01:08] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate it. I just wanted to start out by hearing - what made you decide to run? [00:01:18] Maren Costa: Yeah, that's a great question, and there's several facets to that answer, but the first one is I'm a mom and I have kids. And I think about their future, and I think about wanting to leave a better future for them than I currently see - the path that we're on - so that's a big one. And then another one is that I was in Big Tech and managing big teams and big budgets and solving big problems, but I started to get really concerned about the climate crisis, and I believe when you wanna make change, you start where you are. And I was at Amazon at the time - one of the largest carbon footprints, and also a company that was getting like an F on every rating scale for climate, this was before The Climate Pledge - so I thought - Hey, I'm gonna start where I am. I started trying to make change from within and talking to all the SVPs and VPs and that I'd met in my 15 years at the time being there, but I couldn't make any progress, and so - people just didn't wanna talk about climate. It had worked for me before where I would say like - Here's a great idea, here's why it's great for customers, here's why it's great for the business. And it would be like - Great, here's the team, here's money, go do it. But when it came to climate, it was nobody wanted to move. And so I found another way to make change. I started organizing with my coworkers and organizing around climate justice and getting thousands of tech workers to stand up and walk out. We walked out for the Global Climate Strike. I did end up getting illegally fired right at the start of the pandemic when we were also standing up for warehouse workers' safety, but the National Labor Relations Board stepped in - took Amazon to court and we won, in addition to winning all of The Climate Pledge and those other things. So just really seeing the power of collective action, the powers that workers have when we come together, and how important that is in bringing balance to the powers that be - that's a big reason. And then the third reason is I love Seattle - I've lived here for 33 years. I love District 1 - I've lived in District 1, in West Seattle, for 21 years. And I see the challenges facing our city. And I think a lot of us are frustrated with some of the seemingly intractable problems that we're facing. And I wanna take all of my skill set and my energy and put it towards trying to solve big problems for our communities. [00:04:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, I decided to switch things up a little bit in our candidate interview series this year, and we're implementing a lightning round in the interview. So just a series of yes or no, or either-or questions. But we'll start off with - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:04:39] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:04:41] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:04:47] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:04:49] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:04:54] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:04:56] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:05:02] Maren Costa: Lorena González. [00:05:05] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:05:12] Maren Costa: Nicole Thomas Kennedy. [00:05:15] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in 2022 for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:05:25] Maren Costa: Gosh, I don't remember. 'Cause I know Leesa now, you know, roughly, through campaigning. I think I voted for Leesa? I don't remember. [00:05:36] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:05:41] Maren Costa: Patty Murray. [00:05:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you own or rent your residence? [00:05:46] Maren Costa: I own. [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:05:50] Maren Costa: No. [00:05:52] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:06:04] Maren Costa: I think so. Sounds like a good idea. I don't actually know much about that. [00:06:10] Crystal Fincher: Are there instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:06:21] Maren Costa: Only if people are already provided with where they're going to be safely housed. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote-- [00:06:31] Maren Costa: I'm not in favor of sweeps. [00:06:33] Crystal Fincher: Got it. Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:06:40] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:06:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:06:49] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:06:57] Maren Costa: No, but we know how complicated that turned out to be. [00:07:01] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:07:08] Maren Costa: I think that's a no. I want to hear more from the schools and the people - what they want, but - [00:07:17] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:07:24] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:07:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:07:32] Maren Costa: Absolutely. [00:07:34] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:07:43] Maren Costa: Absolutely. [00:07:45] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them toward meaningful public safety measures? [00:07:55] Maren Costa: I think that makes sense. [00:07:57] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating-- [00:07:59] Maren Costa: That's a yes. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:08:11] Maren Costa: That's - I'm - yes. I think I'm a yes on that one. I want to do a bit more research on that as well, but - [00:08:19] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:08:25] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:08:27] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:08:36] Maren Costa: I don't know. I don't know what that is. [00:08:46] Crystal Fincher: The ability for them to subpoena people involved in their investigations. So with the Office of Police Accountability and Office of Inspector General - people involved in doing police investigations. Would you approve a contract where they did not have subpoena power? [00:09:04] Maren Costa: I'm sorry, I still don't quite understand. Like that we would be able to subpoena police officers to testify in cases against police officers - is that? [00:09:18] Crystal Fincher: If there was a complaint made and throughout that investigation - yes, they could compel information from police officers or other people involved. [00:09:28] Maren Costa: Okay, and then so would I support a contract that didn't-- [00:09:33] Crystal Fincher: That didn't have - where those offices did not have the ability to subpoena? [00:09:40] Maren Costa: No. [00:09:42] Crystal Fincher: Okay. [00:09:43] Maren Costa: I would want to be able to subpoena officers to testify. [00:09:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? Right now there are limitations - there must be, there's a cap on the number of civilians. Should that number of civilians be capped? Would you oppose a contract that didn't remove that limitation? [00:10:17] Maren Costa: No. I would not oppose a contract that didn't remove. This is the double negative that's getting me. [00:10:23] Crystal Fincher: You would only support a contract that eliminated-- [00:10:28] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:10:30] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so the limitation would need to be removed and then you would like it. Is that a correct characterization? [00:10:36] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:10:36] Crystal Fincher: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. [00:10:38] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:10:38] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Not trying to have these be gotcha questions - want to make sure that you actually understand, that we get an actual real answer. [00:10:47] Maren Costa: No, these are great questions and it makes me know how much I need to know, how much more I need to know. [00:10:53] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:11:04] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:11:07] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:11:14] Maren Costa: Yes. I think that's - is that like traffic enforcement and stuff? [00:11:20] Crystal Fincher: Yep. [00:11:20] Maren Costa: Yeah. [00:11:22] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:11:31] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:11:32] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:11:39] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:11:41] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:11:48] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:11:50] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:11:55] Maren Costa: No. [00:11:56] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:12:03] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:12:05] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work-- [00:12:07] Maren Costa: I have some complaints, but overall, yes. [00:12:11] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:12:21] Maren Costa: Probably in the interim. [00:12:24] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:12:28] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:12:29] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:12:34] Maren Costa: No. [00:12:36] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past month? [00:12:40] Maren Costa: No. Not a bike rider. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:12:54] Maren Costa: I would say no. But I don't know. I don't know all the pros and cons there. [00:13:01] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:13:11] Maren Costa: Say again - sorry. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:13:23] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:13:33] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:13:35] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:13:39] Maren Costa: No. [00:13:40] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:13:49] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:13:51] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:13:54] Maren Costa: Yes. [00:13:56] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:13:58] Maren Costa: No. [00:14:00] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:14:04] Maren Costa: No, it's just Kyler. [00:14:10] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:14:16] Maren Costa: Absolutely. [00:14:18] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that's the end of the lightning round - pretty painless, I hope. [00:14:24] Maren Costa: It was - that was good. That was intense - I love it. It was wonky. [00:14:30] Crystal Fincher: It was wonky - true to name. Lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district and what impact that has on residents? [00:14:50] Maren Costa: Yeah, I think that the work that I did at Amazon to bring Amazon as, both a city and a global company, into better alignment with climate justice has a direct impact in my community, particularly in the - one of the things that came out of that was their bid to buy 100,000 Rivian vans. And now I daily see those vans out in my neighborhood driving around and I'm so happy every time I see that 'cause it's like - wow, that's less pollution that's driving through my neighborhood right now. I mean, we can't, maybe, you know, there's, maybe we wish there was just fewer vans and that we were buying less in general, but when, you know, if we're gonna have those vans, it's so much better to see them being electric and I feel really proud of that. [00:15:46] Crystal Fincher: Excellent, appreciate that. I wanna ask you about the City budget. City's projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025. Because we're mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the upcoming deficit are either raise revenue or cut services. Which one of those is your approach or what combination of those will be your approach? [00:16:18] Maren Costa: We should always be looking at how we can be more frugal with the resources that we have - that's a given. However, we need to raise more progressive revenue. I'm in favor of the recommendations that came out of the recent work task force assigned to progressive revenue. So things like an additional capital gains tax on top of the state tax, you know, a vacancy tax. As a climate justice advocate, I will always be interested in progressive ways that we could tax carbon. You know, anything like that where we can make doing the right thing the desirable thing, sort of like the sugar tax is, you know - that could have good benefits for climate. So we definitely need to raise more progressive revenue. It's always a challenge. There's money in our city, we can see it - but it's just hard to bring it actually into the workings of the City and turning it into things that benefit everyone here. You know, we have an upside down tax code. And so it's just - the chips are sort of stacked against us. And so we need to be more creative with the way that we generate progressive revenue. And I think that those recommendations, some of those recommendations that came out of the task force are good places to start. [00:17:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing the devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods, toxic air, you name it. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:18:05] Maren Costa: Thank you, Crystal. That was a great question and something I'm very passionate about. You know, one of the things that I say is, you know, all of these things that we care about if we don't have a planet to live on, you know, they don't matter. And then I also say that housing is climate justice, transit is climate justice - you know, it's all connected. And so there's so much work we need to do. One of the things that I would love to do - you know, out of the gate - would be to get climate resiliency centers in every neighborhood. So making sure that maybe all 27 branches of the public library, schools, community centers, you know, churches even - that have backup power, air filtration, heat pump air conditioning - safe places for people to go in extreme weather events. So that's like the first line of defense, but we need to also go heavily on offense because as we know, and as you say, we're behind - as a city, as a nation, as a planet. And so we know that the building emissions performance standards are going to be on the table for the next council. It sounds like they won't be coming through this, you know, before the end of the year. I will want to make sure that those have teeth, that we make sure that, again, doing the right thing is the desirable thing so that you can't, you know, too easily avoid them or buy out of them. Because it's time for us to start facing the facts that we need to do this tough work to make the transition that is inevitable and that we're already behind on. We know that climate will affect the most vulnerable among us, worst and first. And this is why our unhoused neighbors, low-income communities - we need to start there with our climate work so for example, you know, fixing the flooding problem in South Park, that was a king tide combined with an atmospheric river in December and it displaced about 20 families, many of whom have still not been able to move back into their houses. And so I would want to take a look at making sure that we're starting with the historically under-invested communities first. [00:20:52] Crystal Fincher: Thanks for that. I wanna talk about transit a bit, starting off with - residents in the city are experiencing a lot of disruption and interruption in transit service and reviews are not all stellar. It seems like we really need some intervention. Recognizing that Sound Transit is a regional entity and King County Metro is a county entity, what can you do as a City councilmember to stabilize transit service? [00:21:23] Maren Costa: You know, a lot of the closures are based on, you know, maintenance and drivers - a shortage of drivers. And so doing everything we can to make sure that drivers feel safe and supported and paid well and - so that we keep as many drivers as we can and hire more - the ones that we need. And then, you know, the maintenance, I'm not sure how we could do that better, but looking into any ways that we could improve - keeping buses on the roads. I'm trying to think if there's anything else at the City level - I'd say those are the two big ones. [00:22:20] Crystal Fincher: How would you go about improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in your district? [00:22:29] Maren Costa: We have some significant like problems, you know, for pedestrian safety and bike safety in District 1. We've seen a lot of road racing on Alki, up and down California Avenue and 35th Avenue. So bringing in some of the speed bumps have been helpful and we can continue to do more of that. We've built in some, you know, traffic controls around Alki that have really improved and we just need to keep doing that. Bike lanes need to be safe, protected, connected. We are missing almost entirely a safe east-west bike connection across District 1, so that would be something I would want to prioritize. [00:23:22] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha, makes sense. Now, when it comes to public safety, other jurisdictions around the country and in our own region have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises. But Seattle is stalled in implementing what is a widely-supported idea. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:23:50] Maren Costa: Crystal, this is so important. When I talk to voters in my district, public safety comes up, you know, top of the list for many people. And we know that we have a shortage of officers, a sort of a nationwide problem - hiring is hard. So now more than ever, we need to stand up these police alternatives. We are feeling the pain of the fact that we haven't invested in these areas as we should have. We had one tool in our tool belt and now we're really feeling the pain of that short-sightedness. I'm in favor of bringing in civilian response. We see programs like Health One and the firefighters making good strides in that area. What was the question again? [00:24:53] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:24:59] Maren Costa: Okay, I don't know that I know that nuance. Civilian-led? [00:25:06] Crystal Fincher: Or responses where the person is accompanied by an armed policeman versus ones where they aren't. [00:25:12] Maren Costa: Right, I see. Yeah, I think we need more. I think we actually need more nuance there. I think we need a few tiers. You know, there are certain calls that need to be responded to with, you know, an officer with a gun. Then maybe there's officer-led civilian-back. And then maybe civilian-led officer-back. And then civilian only. And we need to make sure that we're using all types of combinations there for the appropriate call - keeping our civilian responders safe, making sure that we're not putting them in danger. But leading with civilian as often as we can, because the more we can minimize, you know, contact between armed officers and community - you know, we can keep our community safe that way as well. [00:26:00] Crystal Fincher: I wanna talk about victims. A lot of times we hear victims talked about in political conversations a lot and their concerns mischaracterized. But when talking to victims and data coming from studies involving them, two things come to the top as priorities. One, to make sure what happened to them never happens to them or anyone else again. And two, that they receive more support to help recover from what happened, to help restore what had been damaged or lost, or, you know, to help rehabilitate. And we do a really poor job of that - as a community, as a government - when it comes to assistance and support for victims. In your role as a councilmember, what would you do to better support victims of crime? [00:26:56] Maren Costa: That's a great question. I think a lot of times, as victims, people can feel very isolated and alone. And so I think like community support - community support groups, community support networks - if there are other people with that same lived experience could be incredibly helpful. And I don't know if that exists or if that's something that the City could help promote. And then I think, you know, having a channel to express that frustration - what broke in the system that made you feel, you know, victimized, where did the system, how was the system not there to support you? And being able to be heard, to make sure that the City or whatever, you know, department understands what went wrong. And then seeing that be taken seriously and seeing change and results - that is what is restorative to, I think, to victims - is knowing that you've been heard and that change happened. And so in any way that we can make sure that victims are heard, and then that we take the problem seriously and make the changes necessary to make sure that it doesn't happen again is really important. [00:28:39] Crystal Fincher: We've heard from certainly victims across the spectrum and some businesses - there's actually a business owner who wrote a column talking about wanting better support for businesses that have been victims of break-ins and theft - things like victims' assistance funds, business assistance funds, you know, to repair storefronts that are damaged or anything like that. Would that be something that you think would be helpful and that you would support? [00:29:06] Maren Costa: I do. I've heard that from a lot of businesses. I know that, you know, in some cases, there's, you know, small business insurance and you can have some of that paid for, but it's a lot of times - it's not. It's every single time that window is broken, you're paying $10,000 to have it replaced. And it doesn't - there is no support. A lot of these businesses are on, you know, shoestring budgets already. And we want to keep our small businesses alive and vibrant and they need support. [00:29:43] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about housing and homelessness. One thing called out by experts as a barrier to the effectiveness of the homelessness response on the ground is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, especially in a city like Seattle. 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 for and contract for services at the City? [00:30:11] Maren Costa: I do think we need to pay a living wage. I have met directly with people on the frontlines. They are being, as I've heard described, criminally underpaid - and I think that's accurate. The work that these people are doing on the frontlines for our city has such a massive value for our city, for our society. And, you know, not only are they undervalued almost everywhere, they're even more undervalued in some of these City positions where they could go do the same function somewhere else - you know, outside of a nonprofit or - you know, and be paid more. And I've had people say, you know, I could go work at Dick's Drive-In and make more money, you know. And the work that they're doing is highly skilled - it takes time and it's so important to build the trust. We cannot have this low-paid, high-turnover staff and expect the results that we all wanna see. And so I'm not sure how the contracts - not being a City insider, I don't know how the contracts are made or what control we have, but I would definitely be an advocate for making sure that those frontline workers are getting paid a living wage. [00:31:39] Crystal Fincher: Now, Seattle and District 1 have a really vibrant business community. Some of the largest corporations in the world are here, and so many small businesses that run the gamut of products and services are here - but they face a number of challenges. What are the top challenges that you see small businesses facing in your district and what are your top priorities for addressing those needs? [00:32:07] Maren Costa: I think that, you know, during COVID, we saw some subsidies that really helped keep small businesses alive, but I think we're still seeing the challenges. People are still kind of coming out of the shadow of COVID. In any ways that we could - and I know that a lot of that was federal money, but - you know, in any ways that we can continue subsidies that keep businesses afloat. I have a good friend who's a small business owner - my twin sister is a small business owner in District 1 - but a good friend who's just constantly bobbing, just barely bobbing above the line of staying afloat. And so we need to support these things. We need to make sure that there's different sizes of spaces for small businesses - making it really flexible - if you need 400 square feet, you can find 400 square feet. So, you know, having these shared business spaces or dividing these into smaller spaces, making retail units available on the first level of multi, you know, four-floors-and-a-corner-store, opening up zoning where we can have more small businesses throughout our communities. Just - what I usually say, like, what's good for small businesses is good for the community. Like when we know that it's working well for small businesses, we know we're doing something right. So they bring such, as you say, vibrancy to our communities and we wanna do what we can to support them. [00:33:45] Crystal Fincher: Childcare is another humongous concern for, really, the entire community. For parents of kids, childcare is often a cost - their number two, sometimes with a number of kids, number one cost. We just saw reporting that childcare is now more expensive than college on an annual basis, which is just staggering. And the availability of childcare is also a challenge. What can you do in your role as a City councilmember to help parents with this? [00:34:19] Maren Costa: We do need - I've heard that there's only about 50% of parents with kids, or the number of kids - only about 50% of the needs are met by the childcare centers that we have. So people are being forced to reach to, you know, relatives or nannies or, you know - but there's just not the space in childcare centers that we need in District 1. There's a large childcare center at the, you know, Delridge - you know, right by the Delridge on the West Seattle Bridge and Fauntleroy, I guess - that is under eminent domain for the - to the transit. And it's, you know, it's gonna be really hard to lose that center - they take care of a lot of families. And the money that is being offered for them to relocate is not anywhere near what they need to relocate. So making sure that that center gets to stay afloat, if in fact they are displaced by Sound Transit, would be incredibly important. And making sure that they're given the subsidies needed to actually rebuild their business. And then I would love to see more and, you know, smaller childcare centers distributed throughout neighborhoods so that people can, not only - you know, we would love to see people be able to live where they work, near where they work. So we're seeing a lot of displacement out, you know, into Federal Way and further out, people keep getting pushed out. But so to be able to live where you, near where you work and to be able to have childcare where you work. So making sure that some of the big businesses that go in put childcare centers in the buildings that they're in so that, you know, that's something that can work for working parents - to have childcare at your work site. And then just making sure that we're supporting the small childcare centers that are open and making a reasonable, viable business to open new ones. [00:36:36] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we close today, there are a number of voters, residents living in Seattle who are trying to make a decision between you and your opponent and who they should vote for, who most aligns with their values. What do you say to voters when they ask - what's the difference or why should I choose you? [00:36:58] Maren Costa: I think that the skill set that I bring and - the skill set, the values, and the focuses that I bring are going to be really, I think, valuable for the City going forward. So I come out of big business and big tech - I've managed big teams and big budgets, I've brought competing teams together to actually work together to get more stuff done at both Amazon and Microsoft. I think we need someone on council who actually really understands big tech. And then obviously I have a focus on climate. I think we need someone on council who has the depth of the climate justice focus that I have. And I think that my former opponents who endorsed me - the six primary opponents who came together to endorse me - speak to the level of trust that they have in me to authentically and thoughtfully lead our, and represent our district on council. They've seen me learn and listen and follow through. And I think my past experience and how I've shown up on the campaign trail speak to that. [00:38:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for joining us today - Seattle City Council candidate in District 1, Maren Costa. Thank you so much. [00:38:57] Maren Costa: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure to be here. [00:39:00] Crystal Fincher: 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 Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Rob Saka about his campaign for Seattle City Council District 1. Listen and learn more about Rob and his thoughts on: [01:10] - Why he is running [05:31] - Lightning round! [14:12] - What is an accomplishment of his that impacts District 1 [17:46] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [23:29] - Climate change [25:29] - Transit reliability [28:08] - Bike and pedestrian safety [30:22] - Public Safety: Alternative response [35:00] - Victim support [40:56] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [43:03] - Small business support [47:30] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [51:38] - Progressive revenue options [53:41] - Difference between him and opponent 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 Rob Saka at @voterobsaka.   Rob Saka I am a Seattle Public Schools dad of three, attorney, justice reform advocate, Air Force Veteran, and West Seattle resident. As the son of a Nigerian immigrant, I overcame abject poverty, a traumatic and unstable home life cycling through the foster care system, to rise in the ranks of the U.S. Air Force, earn my college and law degrees under the G.I. Bill, and achieve success as an attorney and policy advocate in Seattle and King County. I grew up in the foster care system in Minnesota until my father was able to rescue me at nine years old. We moved out west and settled in low-income apartments in Kent, blocks away from a justice center that would later house some of my childhood friends. Growing up, I watched my dad work numerous physically demanding low-wage jobs. As a single father, he ended up settling for any honest work he could get to put food on our table. I went on to earn my college degree under the G.I. Bill at the University of Washington where I met my wife, Alicia. After quickly moving up the Enlisted ranks, I earned a rare Deserving Airman Commission and served as an Intelligence Officer. After 10 years in the military, I resigned my commission to focus on serving others as a civilian attorney. I thought I could help others in my community better overcome some of the systemic barriers I had navigated growing up if I was armed with the power of the law. After graduating law school from the University of California, Hastings Law, I moved back to Seattle to practice law at Perkins Coie. I have tried my best to bring my unique brand of servant leadership and passionate advocacy in service of communities across this city, including by serving on nonprofit boards such as the Seattle Urban League, representing fellow Veterans in need pro bono, via the Seattle Stand Down Initiative, helping underserved microentrepreneurs start and grow their businesses, volunteering to be head coach for my daughter's Little League baseball team, and much more. In 2018, King County Executive Dow Constantine appointed me to serve on the once per decade Charter Commission where I helped champion and pass several voter-approved ballot measures to reform our justice system and protect workers. In 2021, the King County Council appointed me to the nonpartisan Districting Committee tasked with redrawing King County Council districts using Census data. In 2022, Mayor Bruce Harrell appointed me to serve on the Seattle Police Chief Search Committee responsible for helping to select the next Chief of Police.   Resources Campaign Website - Rob Saka   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well hello - today I am thrilled to be joined by a candidate for Seattle City Council in District 1, Rob Saka. Welcome, Rob. [00:01:03] Rob Saka: Thank you, Crystal - appreciate the opportunity to share this virtual space here with you and your audience. [00:01:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, I guess what I'm starting off wondering is - why are you running? [00:01:17] Rob Saka: Yeah, so great, great question. So just a little bit about me first. I'm a - Crystal, I'm a public school dad of three - three young kids. I'm an Air Force veteran, attorney, community safety advocate. I had the pleasure of serving on a lot of boards and commissions, most recently the Seattle Police Chief Search Committee. Before that, I served - I got nitty gritty, waist deep in US census data and helped redraw the legislative boundaries in King County using a process that runs parallel to state and federal redistricting. Before that, helped champion and pass a brand new justice reform framework right here in Martin Luther King County - and that voter's ultimately approved. And, you know, so I live in Delridge with my family and look, I'm grateful - as an Air Force veteran, I went to law school. In the last 10 years, I've been helping organizations and individuals of all sizes start and grow their businesses and be successful. And I'm grateful, Crystal, where I am today personally and professionally. But I'm also someone who overcame the foster care system for the first nine years of my life - cycling in and out, in and out, mostly in - before my father, who is a Nigerian immigrant, was able to finally rescue me from those circumstances at age nine. And, you know, me and my dad - he ended up raising me as a single parent, ended up sort of struggling growing up, our struggles continued together. But I was born in Minneapolis and moved out West like middle school age - landed in South King County in Kent, so proud to have called - proud to call West Seattle my home today, lived in Seattle for over 15 years. But, you know, particularly during the formative years of my childhood - you know, adolescence - grew up in South County in Kent. And, you know, so let's just say I have a non-traditional background and journey and path to where I am today. And I grew up in Kent - in the valley in Kent - that were blocks away from the Norm Maleng Regional Justice Center, Crystal, that would later house some of my childhood friends. And sadly, some of them would be sentenced for their crimes by judges who are now my professional mentors in the legal community. And so I've always felt this continuing, ongoing - not just responsibility, but duty - duty to make sure that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities and walks of life are able to not only achieve their true potential in life, but thrive. And part of my calling, part of the way I've been able to do that is through justice reform and making sure more people that look like me and you and others, you know, aren't like - more specifically more Black and brown folks - aren't overly represented in the criminal justice system here. And so I mentioned some of that work. And I fought to hold bad police accountable in the past, and I'll continue to do that, you know, going forward if elected in Seattle City Council. But public safety has been weighing heavily on my heart and my mind, Crystal, as a dad - dad in the city, just a dad from Delridge. And I understand the need - as a Black man growing up in this country, I understand the need to have better police because I've experienced police brutality firsthand. And better police - not no police, not defund police, but better police - and I fought to hold bad police accountable, continue that work going forward. But the stakes have never been higher to make sure that we have the public safety resources and prevention and response and intervention capabilities - both, all - that we need to meet the challenges we're currently facing. And I was - been personally disheartened by some of the current direction of the Seattle City Council in particular, and I'm here to focus on solutions. The stakes for this city have never been higher - for my kids, for kids across this entire city. But I couldn't be more energized and excited at the opportunity that we all have to bring about the change that I think people are so desperately yearning for. So that's why. [00:05:31] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Well, before we dive into all of the details and long discussion we're gonna have, we are adding a new element into our candidate interviews this year, which is a bit of a lightning round - just short form yes or no, or choose one answers. And so starting with this little group - This year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:05:56] Rob Saka: Yes, happily. [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy? [00:06:03] Rob Saka: Yes, yes - that benefits everybody. Not just 'cause I'm a vet - heck yes. [00:06:08] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:06:13] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:06:16] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote in favor of Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for Mayor? [00:06:21] Rob Saka: I voted for Mayor Bruce Harrell. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for City Attorney? [00:06:29] Rob Saka: Ooh, yeah, it's - rock and a hard place - but given the choice between an abolitionist and someone super duper hefty and strong on public safety, I voted for Ann Davison. [00:06:43] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for Prosecutor? [00:06:48] Rob Saka: Leesa. [00:06:49] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:06:54] Rob Saka: Senator Murray. I helped knock on doors for her in 2010. Of course, yeah. [00:07:00] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent or own your residence? [00:07:03] Rob Saka: Today, I own - grateful for that - but I'm a lifelong renter and other unstable and insecure housing before that, but today, I own. [00:07:12] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:07:14] Rob Saka: No. [00:07:15] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in the district? [00:07:25] Rob Saka: Maybe. Curious to understand more about what specific set of problems that would help address-- [00:07:34] Crystal Fincher: We can get more into all the detail. We'll keep these to yes or no right now. Are there instances where you support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:07:45] Rob Saka: I support better connecting our unhoused neighbors with shelter and services, and some people call it sweeps, some people call it restoring encampments or whatever, but-- [00:07:57] Crystal Fincher: Is this a yes or a no? [00:08:01] Rob Saka: I support connecting people with, better connecting people with shelter and services. So I guess under your framing, yes. [00:08:08] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:08:15] Rob Saka: Maybe. We need to figure out where that's gonna come from, but I'm inclined to do it. I'm looking forward to working with the authors of the original bill - that I voted for - to figure out what the funding solution looks like. [00:08:28] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:08:36] Rob Saka: As a principle - long-term, yeah, long-term, but yeah, we still have issues and challenges today that require incarceration, and so-- [00:08:52] Crystal Fincher: Moving on to - lightning round, lightning round. Do you agree with King County Executive Dow Constantine that the Youth Jail should be closed in 2025? [00:09:02] Rob Saka: Maybe. [00:09:04] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed with an SPD? [00:09:10] Rob Saka: Maybe. [00:09:11] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:09:17] Rob Saka: Yes, if that's what the community wants. [00:09:19] Crystal Fincher: Would, do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:09:25] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:09:31] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:09:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals, and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:09:42] Rob Saka: No. [00:09:44] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:09:53] Rob Saka: No. [00:09:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:10:00] Rob Saka: No. [00:10:01] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:10:08] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:10:10] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract, or Seattle Police Officers Guild contract, that does not give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:10:22] Rob Saka: Yes, I worked on it at the county level - yes. [00:10:26] Crystal Fincher: So you oppose it, they should have subpoena power? [00:10:28] Rob Saka: Yeah, absolutely. I believe an effective civili-- well, we can talk about it, but yeah, yeah. [00:10:32] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:10:45] Rob Saka: Help me understand this question - is it - so-- [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose basically lifting the cap, removing limitations? Would you oppose a contract that doesn't remove those limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:11:03] Rob Saka: No. [00:11:03] Crystal Fincher: Meaning should - okay, gotcha. Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability, do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:11:20] Rob Saka: Would I oppose a SPOG contract that removes? [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: That impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:11:31] Rob Saka: Yes, provided it doesn't impact, yeah. [00:11:34] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:11:43] Rob Saka: No. [00:11:45] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:11:53] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:11:55] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:12:00] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:12:02] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:12:08] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:12:10] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:12:15] Rob Saka: No. [00:12:17] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:12:23] Rob Saka: Yes. Maybe. Could be better. [00:12:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:12:34] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:12:36] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:12:40] Rob Saka: No. [00:12:41] Crystal Fincher: In the past month? [00:12:43] Rob Saka: No. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:12:48] Rob Saka: No. In the last month - yes. [00:12:51] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:13:00] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:02] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:13:09] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:13:19] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:21] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:13:23] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:25] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:13:33] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:35] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:13:39] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:13:40] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:13:42] Rob Saka: No. [00:13:44] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:13:49] Rob Saka: No, no one in my-- [00:13:52] Crystal Fincher: You would know if it was. [00:13:53] Rob Saka: Yeah. [00:13:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:14:00] Rob Saka: Yes. [00:14:02] Crystal Fincher: See, and that's the end of the lightning round - quick and painless. And now we can get into our deep conversation where we can get into all of the nuance. Wanted to start out talking about, you know, a lot of people look to work that candidates have done to get a feel for what they prioritize and how qualified they are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district and what impact that has had on its residents? [00:14:28] Rob Saka: Yeah, so a couple of things. I kind of - as I mentioned, I served on a number of boards, appointed boards, and commissions at the county and city level. And particularly with respect to my prior work in the King County Charter Commission where kind of basically changed the landscape for, you know - at the constitutional, the basic framework of the county, made a number of changes that voters ultimately approved and signed off on that, you know, helped make King County a better place. And therefore this district and the city, entire city a better place. So more specifically, you know, I'm really proud of a lot of the work that I did in the justice reform space. You know, I'm one of the co-architects, the reason why in this county we no longer elect our sheriff, we appoint our sheriff. Why? Because I believe in effective civilian oversight of law enforcement. Also, you know, one of the lightning round questions earlier was about, you know, granting the civilian Office of Law Enforcement Oversight or whatever - the parallel office, whatever it's called, at the city level - them subpoena power. And I helped champion and pass that at the county level to make sure that the civilian Office of Law Enforcement Oversight has subpoena power and voters approved that. And, you know, also with respect to the inquest process, when someone is killed by law enforcement, you know, I helped add safeguards and protections and making sure that that process is more fair and transparent for all, more specifically by adding and allowing the families of the deceased to be represented by, you know, have legal representation and clarifying what constitutes an in-custody death situation. So, you know, that's sort of like the package of justice reform work that I'm proud to have been a part of and help lead. And then there's this whole issue of workplace protections. It is now unlawful in this county to discriminate against workers on the basis of, you know, their status as family caregivers or their status as a veteran, including veterans who were dishonorably discharged as a direct result of their, you know, their trans and queer status. Some, you know, as we know, when Trump took office, you know, he did what Trump does and unfortunately, a lot of people were given paperwork and discharged, many dishonorably, from the military. And so now in this county, you can no longer - so it's not just the people of, absolutely, you know, like everyone benefits from that, not just the people in the county. And selfishly, look, as a veteran and someone who has - with three young kids - and I have my own family caregiving obligations, but so my DNA and fingerprints are clearly all over that. But we know that everyone, everyone benefits, again, when they can show up to work without fear of reprisal, retribution, discrimination, because of one of those things. [00:17:46] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Well, I wanna talk about the City budget. The City of Seattle is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025. The City's mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget. So the only options to address that deficit are either raising revenue or cutting services. Which one of those is, or what combination of those, is your approach? [00:18:12] Rob Saka: Yeah, it might be a more - I respectfully, you know, reject the paradigm - it's one or the other, you know, cutting or modifying maybe. And we can consider new revenue opportunities, but I think my starting place is operating within existing state law, meaning, you know, we have to have a balanced budget and start with whatever City budget we do have in place. And, you know, so that's my starting point. We need to identify what's working well, like working well spending-wise - what kind of, you know, I personally support audits of city budgets - independent, third-party audits even of city budgets, potentially across the board to identify and regular ongoing like monitoring and systems evaluations to make sure we're getting the bang for our buck and making sure whatever dollars we're spending are wisely spent. And we can shift, you know, reshift or, you know, reallocate resources to areas of greater need and greater impact potentially, but depending on the opportunity. And then from there-- [00:19:25] Crystal Fincher: I guess starting in the frame, just to help clarify the frame. So if we are working within the City budget and starting with the existing City budget, what we're moving to needs to be $224 [million] slimmer than what currently is. So I think audits are wonderful things, I think they're actually an underutilized resource for many - and not a tool of punishment, but a tool of discovery. But if you do have to cut, if you are starting from the point of - let's take this budget and see where we can trim - where are you starting? What, where would you prioritize those cuts? [00:20:03] Rob Saka: Yeah, I'm not gonna prioritize any specific area. I'm not gonna come in and target any specific area. Instead, I'm gonna approach it with a curious mind and, you know, figure out what are those programs and services that are well delivered, well administered, and we're seeing results for. And what are, you know, other opportunities where they either need potentially additional investment or maybe reinvestment and kind of going from there. And then, you know, that's kind of like the framing that I kind of view this as. And then from there, if an existing - so if everything, after all that work, you know, it's a set of, you know, it's a spectrum, a set of analysis that kind of run side-by-side and in parallel. But, you know, from there, let's look at - so take the issue of homelessness, for example. Homelessness is certainly a Seattle problem, but it is not a Seattle-only problem. The issue of homelessness in this city is a regional problem, it's a county problem, it's a state problem, and it's a federal problem. And it's a shared - so I think not only should we not try and solve the issue - whatever the issue is, whatever the challenge is - alone and in a silo. We need to look to those other partners and other governments for design, helping to co-design and co-engineer the policy solution - Step one. Step two is we also need to look to them for, you know, like help funding the specific solutions as well. So, you know, I would push for more - that's one area where I would push for more funding of, you know, like the shared responsibility model. And from there, let's explore public-private partnerships - building housing, affordable housing - you know, there's organizations and private organizations, including some companies who, you know, want to contribute and help address the problem. And so working collaboratively with them to figure out what's doable, how we can potentially close some of those gaps and fund them. And then let's look at new revenue opportunities after that. And I know there's this new Progressive Revenue Task Force - or whatever it's been rebranded, it's called something else in Seattle now, but - and then let's look at new revenue potentials and opportunities. But there's like, I kind of think about it more than just like - yeah, I try to avoid the either or-- [00:22:43] Crystal Fincher: I mean, but isn't that, wouldn't that be the position that you're in when you're elected? You have to trim the budget by $224 million - absent finding new revenue, which is going to take a little bit to trickle in and get started anyway. So you're going to have to make that call as a councilmember, right? [00:23:01] Rob Saka: I'm going to have to make the call to be the, be a responsible steward of whatever dollars we are spending. I'm going to have to make the call of being, you know, doing my due diligence to make sure that we're operating within the existing City budget, identifying, you know, system deficiencies and opportunities to improve and streamline and allocate and sometimes reallocate resources. Yes. [00:23:27] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Okay. So let's talk about climate change. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while experiencing devastating impacts from extreme heat and cold, to wildfires and floods. It's been really challenging and anticipated to see things like that with increasing frequency. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet the 2030 goals? [00:23:53] Rob Saka: Yeah, so climate change is an issue that's really important to me personally and my family. And having talked to a lot of people throughout this district, it is one that I know is weighing heavily on the hearts and minds of a lot of people - I wouldn't say that supersedes public safety in the issue of, in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it is very important, it's very urgent. So my specific plans and proposals from a policy perspective to address climate - make sure we have a, we actually bring to life climate justice and we're seeing and building out climate resiliency across this district and hopefully across the City as well. This - District 1, first of all, as you probably know, now includes South Park and Georgetown due to redistricting. And those are some of the most historically, you know, at-risk communities. The life expectancy of folks is lower there in the Duwamish Valley. We need to build out more sustainable communities and more resilient communities. So I support things like - we also need to cut down the amount of greenhouse gases as quickly as possible. And part of that is, you know, we need to encourage and incentivize people using 100% electric vehicles. You can do that at the city level in part by building out our infrastructure and charging battery infrastructure to support that across the city. So that's part of my plan. Another part is we need to get people, again, out of those single-occupancy vehicles that are producing the most greenhouse gases and into public transit. And so we need to, therefore, expand our public transit options. And not only as we expand out options and service, we need to expand reliability and the quality, overall quality of the experience. And I do know, just having talked to a lot of people - 7,000+, knocked on 7,000+ doors personally in this district. My campaign has knocked on an additional 12,000 outside of that. You know, there are some people, a lot of people that want to take public trans and get out of their cars, but unfortunately they just don't feel safe. They don't feel safe when they're on the bus. Crystal, they don't feel safe when they're on the journey from their homes to the bus stop. They don't feel safe when they get off the bus to wherever the destination they're going, whether it's downtown or wherever they're going. And so we can build out and expand and drive reliability and predictability and accessibility and our transit options. But if no one's feeling comfortable to take the bus, it's a nice shiny object that's effectively akin to a art project. We need to make sure we create the experience that is in-line with people's expectations as well and making sure we're doing both things in parallel. And also, you know, we need to - and part of my plan includes - working collaboratively with labor organizations to find the best opportunities and build the pipeline for those jobs, working class jobs, in sustainable fields and making sure that those are well-funded. And, you know, we create - everyone is able to share in the benefits of a sustainable economy that's diverse. Also building out and improving our green building codes and sustainable building standards, environmental standards - strengthening those. Those are just some of the things that, you know, kind of how I view the opportunity at the Seattle City government level, from a policy standpoint, to make further progress and accelerate our impact on addressing the climate challenges we face. [00:28:08] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. So how would you look to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in your district? [00:28:17] Rob Saka: Yeah, so we need to - one's low-hanging fruit. One is bike safety. So we need to add more protective barriers to bike lanes where possible, where feasible. I think there's an opportunity for more bike lanes, but I think we're at a decent place there - we're better off in bike lanes today in this district than we are in pedestrian safety improvements and enhancements. I'll tell you - 7,000 doors I knocked on personally, Crystal, and all over this district - and I started right here in my own community in Delridge. And then I sort of branched off, fanned out to other parts of the district and, you know - Admiral and Fauntleroy and Alki. And then, you know, South Park. And for the last month before the primary, I came back home - came back home to Delridge and High Point and, you know, other more disadvantaged communities, historically underrepresented communities like South Park. And I was struck by a couple of things. 'Cause when I was at those, like the "more affluent" parts of the district - I was amazed, Crystal - like the potholes were few. When there were potholes, they were quickly patched and repaired. Amazingly, shocking - there were sidewalks on both sides of the streets. And then when I came back home, particularly to Delridge - more specifically, like when you get further east of Del, anywhere east of Delridge, you go, the Delridge corridor - Crystal, there's many neighborhoods and communities that don't - not only do they not have one sidewalk, they don't have any sidewalks, period. We need to build out our, like, and building out, investing in basic sidewalk infrastructure is a huge opportunity to address pedestrian safety in this district. And I plan to do just that. [00:30:22] Crystal Fincher: Well, I want to talk about public safety a bit, and starting with alternative response. While a number of jurisdictions, definitely around the country - but even in our own region, in the county - have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises, Seattle has stalled in implementing what is a widely-supported idea by voters and residents in the City. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues, and what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:30:54] Rob Saka: Yeah, so it's imperative. It's an essential part of my plan and my public safety package - to actually stand up, fund, and deliver this - and work collaboratively with my fellow council members and the mayor to do so. We've, sort of as you alluded to, Crystal - we've kind of languished a little bit, been in the sunken place a little bit, if you will - talking about this great opportunity, and we just can't seem to get unstuck and unblock ourselves. Meanwhile, you mentioned a few other jurisdictions right here in the county, across the state, that have done it - but some great comparators, I think from a population standpoint, geographic scope and size, are Denver and Albuquerque. We literally do not need to recreate the wheel here. Instead, we need to just humble ourselves and look to how, specifically, other jurisdictions have been successful. What works? Now, also, at the same time, understanding every single thing that they did well is not gonna port over, make a direct, logical, one-for-one - mean it'll automatically work out well here in Seattle, but we don't need to recreate the wheel. Let's look to what's been successful in other jurisdictions - I named a few that would be good comparators. With respect to, but that is an essential part of public safety, not the only part. Yeah, we need to hire more police officers and train them and make sure they have the tools and resources they need to be successful, set and enforce the highest standards of excellence and professionalism in the communities where they operate, and hold them accountable swiftly if they fail to carry out their duties in a just, equitable, constitutional manner. So that's also an essential part. But back to the first, the question here. Yes, I support these civilian-led responses. It's an urgent thing and we need to treat it as such. And for the co-response versus civilian-led response, I think that's gonna be a situation-dependent thing. I know they have various models in other jurisdictions. And if it's pretty clear, we need to develop some good, sharp, clear, consistent guidelines about what that response looks like. But I'll tell you, Crystal, when I - I volunteered for a 911 shift downtown, you know, at the call center downtown Seattle, and I was struck by two things. One, the mounting list of calls - queue of calls - that, like, deserves ordinarily some sort of police response of some sort, but because of staffing levels, no one was gonna get to it for hours, maybe some cases days. And also, I sat sitting side-by-side next to the frontline call center operator and listening to the calls, I definitely heard a few calls that someone was in a clear crisis situation and they needed a response of some sort, but a badge and a gun and armed response and a uniformed response was not at all what they need. We've seen how that's a formula for disaster. We, you know, we can train police officers - and yeah, we're gonna train them better, make them better, and hold them accountable, but we're not gonna train our way out of bad responses. Like, they don't need to be leading and frontlining a lot of these crises calls, especially when maybe the call earlier, someone might've been trying to take their life, that's conceivable, and then they respond to someone who just needs help. He needs a, they need a social worker or behavioral mental health crisis. We can't train our way out of that with uniformed gun-badge responses. So, but it's a situation-specific - to answer your question, you know, again, about the different models options. It's a situation-specific kind of analysis. [00:35:00] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. I wanna talk about victims - a lot, and we hear people talk about victims and oftentimes mischaracterize what victims say, but both from, you know, anecdotal conversations and numerous studies, victims overwhelmingly want two things - to make sure what happened to them doesn't happen to them or anyone else again, and help getting beyond their - support and help to get beyond and to restore what was lost or damaged or hurt. And we don't do a good job from a governmental standpoint, or as a community, supporting people who have been victimized. And so often that feeds into very unhealthy outcomes later on down the line. What can you do in your capacity as a City Councilperson to better support victims of crime? [00:35:55] Rob Saka: Yeah, so great, great question. I think the best - so all of these issues - highly complex, nuanced. So let's double click, dive a little deeper. So we talked about the imperative a moment ago to, you know, from my perspective, to hire more police, public safety, empower them, set and enforce the highest standards, and hold them accountable. Also the co-equal important policy plan that I have to stand up, fund and implement, you know, these civilian-led responses. But also a very, very important part of this whole equation is prevention - making sure that we don't have to, people don't have to experience crime to begin with. Making sure that people - that crime victims, if you will - you know, not only they don't feel the sentiment and have the experience of like, not wanting that to happen again to someone else, but also they don't feel the sense of like, we need to kind of restore and bring a sense of whole and completeness to whatever traumatic experience happened to them. So prevention is really important and crime prevention is really important. And why is there crime? Well, it's complex, not just one thing, but you know, rising inequality, lack of access to resources, unequal opportunities, poverty, you know, lack of mental behavioral health services and support. And I think building out programs and services anchored and oriented around addressing those root causes will go a long way in preventing crime to begin with and minimizing our impact. Because yes, we need effective prevention and address the root causes, if you will, but we also need to make sure that we have, you know, our whole like policy plans and funding strategy reflects, you know, making sure we can contemplate and resource the realities of today and have good interventions as well. So, you know, all of those things must and should coexist in parallel, in my view. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so I just wanted to clarify on that last one. I think your points about prevention and your plans to hire more police certainly speak to some other aspects, but specifically when it comes to supporting victims - people who have been - unfortunately, while you're working towards prevention and doing the other things, it is, there are going to be more people who are victimized unfortunately, even while we're reducing crime. But what could you do to better support victims, people who have been victimized, and people who do need help? [00:38:55] Rob Saka: Yeah, so great question. The number one thing is making sure we have effective intervention and response capabilities. And, you know, we do that in part through making sure we have well, you know, well-resourced, trained set of public safety apparatus - firefighters, police, paramedics - and to make sure that people have the responses that they need and expect. Making sure if someone has been like victimized by property crime or whatever it is, that, you know, they can reasonably expect an officer to show up and, you know, take a report, and hopefully investigate that, and follow up, and show up in a timely manner. But also, you know, depending on the nature of the victimization for crime victims, we also need to do a better job of making sure people have access to services and - like trauma response and support services - and they're better taken care of from a mental health perspective as well. And help them navigate and better help them navigate everything - like, you know, talking about crime in abstract, you know, without a specific like fact pattern, it's a little tricky. But I do think at a high level, there is a huge opportunity to better help people navigate the various systems, structures, services, and programs that currently exist today once - for victims - and then build out and expand those as well. [00:40:56] Crystal Fincher: I see. I wanna talk about housing and homelessness and in particular, one thing called out by experts as a barrier to the effectiveness of the homelessness response is frontline worker wages that don't cover the cost of living. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for our area, and how can you make that more likely with how the City bids for and contracts for services? [00:41:24] Rob Saka: Yeah, I think that is some of the most important work going on - in any profession, in any discipline, in any - like the direct frontline work that, you know, our professionals across a variety of disciplines are doing directly on a day-to-day basis with our unhoused neighbors. And inflation is rising exponentially. You know, wage increases haven't kept up just across the board, especially in government and in nonprofit contracted work. So yes, I support, you know, making sure they have living wages because as a policy matter, like you sort of, your priorities show up in what you support and what you fund. So that doesn't also mean at the same time, you know, wouldn't look for - in the issue of homelessness, for example - wouldn't look for opportunities to perform, you know, like initial or like regular ongoing systems checks to analyze performance and, you know, figure out what's working well and, you know, knock down barriers to success and, you know, things like that. But yeah, I mean, I, these workers have a tough job. So I support living wages. [00:43:03] Crystal Fincher: And I wanna talk about the larger economy - well, larger to the City and district, at least. And the City has a very, very vibrant business economy. Some of the largest corporations in the world headquartered here and nearby, as well as a really vibrant small business community that really spans the range across the board. But they have a number of challenges that they're trying to deal with and get beyond. So when it comes to your district, what can you do? I guess, one, what do you think the biggest challenges facing small businesses in your district are and how can you address those needs? [00:43:43] Rob Saka: Yeah, the biggest challenge is facing this district. You're right, like, to first address - kind of how you prefaced that question, I like that framing - yeah, we have a vibrant economy with companies and businesses of all sizes. And, you know, the only challenge is it's not - the benefits that provides our region, you know, aren't always equally shared and distributed and those opportunities aren't always equally shared. And look, I grew up in Kent, you know, and - in the valley in Kent, like I said - and my dad, if we know what we know about Kent, the economy runs on two things - agriculture and warehousing district. It's always been a warehousing district. Today, there's this big, fancy Amazon fulfillment center - it's like the crown jewel of the Kent warehousing district. And I'm glad it's there, personally. And great, you know, but before that was there and long after it, something else, maybe. It's always been a warehousing district, always will be. And my father was a frontline warehouse worker in Kent. And I found my path to other opportunities in tech, you know, through the military and law school and other things, but we need to make sure more people have access to those opportunities. But to answer, you know, that kind of follow-up question there about what can I do? What can I best do to support small businesses if elected? Well, one, I don't view my role as like prescribing, you know, setting forth prescriptive menu changes for a restaurant, for example. But where I can help, and I've talked to small businesses - small business owners, their workers, their customers - and the number one opportunity that I see to help support them and help make sure that they're successful is public safety. There, someone told me the other day - a small business owner with an office downtown told me the other day that their workers don't feel safe coming to downtown. So how can you impose these hybrid work requirements, which I generally support, as long as there's some - I also like the flexibility, especially, and value the flexibility as a parent of young kids to have, you know, like a couple of days to work from home, work remotely. But how can you impose these across the board, agnostic of whatever the attendant circumstances is, you know, requirements for working from the office based on some arbitrary number or some executive's gut feeling about what sparks innovation the most when people, when their workers don't even feel safe. And then their customers oftentimes don't feel safe. How are we going to stimulate the economy if people - we need to get more people, not just from this district, into these businesses across the district and across the city, but we need to get more people from, you know, South County and, you know, people from the Eastside and other parts of the state and like wanting to come here and spend their money and feel comfortable and invest here as well. So I think public safety is the number one opportunity that I see and I hear over and over and over again from small business owners, their workers, and customers. [00:47:30] Crystal Fincher: Right, and I wanna ask you about childcare, which is a challenge faced not only by people with kids, you know - challenge faced primarily with them - but the effects are felt throughout the entire community. It's people's largest expense next to housing, frequently. And now the annual cost of childcare tops that of college annually. So it's just an astronomical expense and sometimes just the accessibility - just is there childcare available near you - is a challenge. What can you do as a City councilmember to help families in your district with this? [00:48:10] Rob Saka: Yeah, it's a unique problem that I understand firsthand, not only as someone with childcare responsibilities - my number one job in life is the parent of these three kids - but also someone who experienced, you know, like pre-K childcare from a place of need in under-representation. And look, I mentioned I grew up in and out of foster care for the first nine years of my life - mostly in. And, you know, when I wasn't in foster care during that time, you know, sometimes I was in a, like a Head Start program or a funded program of some sort. Usually it was not being watched by whoever could watch me. And raised by soap operas. And I'm grateful, like I said, where I am today personally and professionally, not because of some of those, you know, lousy experiences, but I'm grateful because I am where I am despite some of those lousy circumstances. And you look at the research and you look at the data on people, on kids who have been exposed to like, like pre-K programs and preschool programs, been in those programs. And you look at their life outcomes. They perform generally better in school than their peers who don't have some sort of preschool program and are just sort of like, kind of how I was describing and how I grew up most of the time. Their graduation rates are higher, their college attendance rates are higher. Like their life outcomes are generally better. And so one opportunity that I see long-term - I got two terms in me if I win. One is not enough to get done what I intend to get done, and two is like just a sweet spot. I don't believe in mandatory term limits, but there's nothing wrong with self-imposed ones. So I have two terms - towards the end, I wanna actually build out and fund preschool program for all. And make sure that more people have that opportunity. And make sure more people have access to quality affordable childcare - and educational, like a learning environment that's gonna help them, and help communities, and help us long-term. So really, really urgent challenge. And also part of that, like childcare workers are some of the most underpaid folks too. And they do work, and they do work for us. And I know firsthand, a lot of them put their - they were some of the most unsung heroes during COVID. They, a lot of workers, but like talking about this specific question, a lot of them put their health and safety on the line for poor wages, uncertain working conditions - to make sure more people could work. And make sure more kids are able to be successful long-term. And so they're grossly underpaid. So there's been other jurisdictions that have been successful, at least in terms of like starting to think about, how to better pay and how to better fund universal preschool programs for all. And so I'm curious to figure out creative ways to do exactly that on Seattle City Council. [00:51:38] Crystal Fincher: And the last thing I just wanna touch on is - back to a budget issue - those Progressive Revenue Task Force recommendations that did come out, especially now before this revenue shortfall. So if dramatic cuts are to be avoided, there does need to be some new revenue in place. Do you support, or will you be advocating for any of the recommendations from the Progressive Revenue Task Force, or any other ideas you have? [00:52:11] Rob Saka: Yeah, thank you, Crystal. So, we talked a little bit about my, like kind of how I view the budget and operating with the existing - looking to additional government partners at all levels, and funding sources, and public-private partnerships - and then expanding, looking at new revenue sources. But you asked a question about potential new revenue sources. And from this report, I'm most keenly interested in learning more about the vacant home, vacant lot tax idea. That seems to be - potentially, I don't know - I would love to learn more and explore and closely study, examine the feasibility of that. But that seems to be just the most low-hanging fruit opportunity in terms of one, creating revenue. We shouldn't just create revenue for the sake of it. You know, it should have a purpose and an incentive and disincentive structure behind it. I think that will help address the affordability crisis, and making sure we have beneficial use of living space at all times, and incentivize people to actually use stuff. So, but, so that's one thing I'm keenly interested personally in learning more about and exploring. Yeah. [00:53:41] Crystal Fincher: Got it. In the last couple minutes we have here, there are people trying to make a decision between you and your opponent - and two new candidates, no incumbent in this open seat race - and people just searching for who best aligns with their values and who is best suited for this role. What do you tell voters who are trying to make up their minds? [00:54:04] Rob Saka: Yeah, so we have a very clear choice in this race. The contrasts have never been more clear. We can choose the business-as-usual approach and, or we have an opportunity to bring about some change. And I'm a strong Democrat, you know, make no apologies about that - matter of fact, I'm the strongest Democrat in this race 'cause I'm the only one that's been endorsed by our home local Democratic Party, the 34th District Dems, shout out to them. And I'm a strong progressive. And, you know, I also need to think we need to better incorporate progressive values, equity, and make sure things not only are equitable by design - I think we do that well in Seattle - but also equitable in implementation. And is it truly equitable in implementation? And being willing to humble ourselves and figure out if that's not the case, what's the solve? What's the fix? What's the solution? And the issue of public safety, there's - I've been entirely consistent about this whole time. We need to stand up civilian-led responses. We need to hire more police and empower them to carry out their public safety mandate and hold them accountable. We need to also focus on crime prevention in parallel. So that's my plan. There's complexity and there's nuance there. And, you know, despite some of the rising crime and gun violence in this district - South Park, someone was shot and I think killed earlier today. And the issue of gun violence isn't one shared equally across this city and across this district. Certain communities, including the one I live in - in Delridge, are more impacted and bearing the brunt of it more than others. So it's just remarkable to see that after all these shootings, my opponent still thinks that defunding the police by 50% was a good idea. I think it was a bad idea. And that doesn't mean we can't hold bad police accountable. I fought to do that. I fought to do exactly that at the county level and I'll continue to do that and accelerate that work. But yeah, the issue of public safety has never been, the contrast has never been clear. And look, if people like the current direction of the Seattle City Council - the current approach, the toxicity, the divisiveness, the performative ideological-based, you know, acts and gestures rather than a collaborative approach focused on solutions, I'm probably not their candidate. But I am here to bring about the change I think people so desperately want and need - a collaborative, responsive government that centers equity, progressive values, and a little healthy dose of common sense as well. So yeah. [00:57:23] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for your time and for sharing more about your candidacy with us today - much appreciated. [00:57:32] Rob Saka: Thank you, Crystal - appreciate you. [00:57:34] Crystal Fincher: 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 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 Primary Week re-air, Crystal chats with Sarah Reyneveld about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the experience she brings as a public sector attorney and community advocate, and her thoughts on addressing frontline worker wages and workforce issues, the need for upstream alternatives in the criminal legal system and substance use crisis, how to improve policy implementation, climate change and air quality, and budget revenue and transparency. 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 Sarah Reyneveld at @SarahReyneveld.   Resources Campaign Website - Sarah Reyneveld   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Hello, I'm so excited to be welcoming to the program today King County Council candidate, Sarah Reyneveld. Hello. [00:01:01] Sarah Reyneveld: Hello, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me today - I'm excited about the conversation. [00:01:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I guess just starting out - we have seen you run for State Legislature before. I'm wondering why you're choosing to run for the County now, and what do you hope to accomplish in that position? [00:01:18] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, I think that King County Council and the King County is really at a critical point in time, and I'm excited to bring my lived experience as a working parent, a Seattle Public School parent, a transit rider, a union organizer - I helped organize my union of Assistant Attorney Generals - and also my experience as a public sector attorney who has fought for workers and our environment, and as a community advocate working with communities across King County to really make transformative change for workers, working families, and our environment on the King County Council. So for some background - in 2016, I became King County Councilmember Kohl-Welles' appointment to the King County Women's Advisory Board where I had the opportunity to work with communities throughout King County and the King County Council to help advocate for and secure investments in affordable housing, in behavioral health, childcare, and services to support survivors of gender-based violence. I started this work and became the Chair of the King County Women's Advisory Board before the pandemic - and I had two young kids at the time - and we had struggled like so many parents with access to affordable childcare, and the board at that time decided to take up that issue. So we worked on recommendations to expand childcare access for working parents and were able to work together with communities across King County, and the Executive, and King County Council to help reinstate a childcare subsidy, to expand access to childcare for working families, and establish a wage provider boost to help increase pay for childcare providers who are disproportionately women and BIPOC women and immigrants. And then the pandemic hit and I continued to do this work and it really laid bare - staggering inequities and injustices in King County that disproportionately impacted women and our communities of color and immigrants and other marginalized communities, who are more likely to be on the forefront and were experiencing disproportionately - unemployment and financial loss and illness. So as I continue to work on these issues, I saw what an important role King County played in not just responding to the pandemic and now the shadow pandemic, but in really providing public health, and behavioral health, and public transit, and helping with food security and housing. So I'm running for King County Council because I've been doing this work with community and I think the status quo is no longer good enough. We need bold and transformative action to really meet the urgency of this moment. We have a really unique opportunity to create a more equitable economy and a sustainable future for all workers and working families in King County. And I think that King County can and must do more - and my priorities are to create more truly affordable housing to help better meet the behavioral health needs of our neighbors in crisis, to really tackle the climate crisis and protect our environment for future generations, to provide accessible and frequent public transit for all, and to really look at what we can do to reimagine our public safety and criminal legal system. So I'm excited about the opportunity. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: I see. Now you covered a lot there. In there, you mentioned caring for workers, addressing housing. One thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living. Do you think 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? [00:05:10] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, absolutely. I absolutely think that our nonprofits have a duty to pay more in terms of adequately funding - not just contracts - but ensuring that those contracts lead to an equitable living wage and union jobs. And that includes cost of living adjustments and other supports for workers. So right now we have a really high turnover rate for frontline workers and particularly those workers that the County contracts with - I've heard 40-60% turnover rate. And I think we need to address the underlying issue of why those workers are turning over. And the underlying issue - one of them is pay equity and not ensuring that we are paying, particularly our frontline workers, adequately or providing them with the supports that they need. So it's about equitable pay, it's about cost of living adjustments, and it's about ensuring that those workers have access to affordable housing and transit in King County as well - so they can really afford to live where they work. And so I see this issue as very intersectional and something that King County can do more to address. And I would just say, generally, I think we as a society tend to lift up certain sorts of workers - the CEOs of companies, for example. And those people that are really doing the real work of caring for our community - of building our housing, of connecting us through transit, of providing behavioral health services - we don't invest equitably or sufficiently in those workers. And so starting with contracting is critically important, but we need to do more to ensure that we're investing in living wage jobs, and workforce housing, and bonuses, and ensuring that these workers have the supports that they need. And that is part of my vision for building back better and creating a more equitable economy that really centers workers and working families in King County. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, would you have voted to approve the transfer of inmates to the SCORE jail to alleviate a lot of the issues plaguing the King County Jail, including overcrowding, lack of water, inadequate healthcare, illnesses, understaffing? Would you have voted in the same way that the King County Council did? [00:07:31] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's a great question. I want to start with just the conditions at the King County Jail. So the six deaths in 2022 in the downtown jail and kind of the subsequent ACLU lawsuit, I think, show that King County is failing too many criminally involved individuals, particularly our Black and Brown community members and those with chronic behavioral health and substance use issues. I am really concerned about what is happening in terms of inhumane conditions at the jail that include excessive use of solitary confinement, and lack of transportation to medical appointments and court appointments, and delays with mental health and other medical appointments. And I think King County, which is the oversight body of the King County Jail, needs to do more to address these concerns and ensure safety. And these really poor conditions at the jail didn't happen overnight. They are partially caused by lack of adequate staffing - that's been an issue for decades and was exacerbated since COVID. And also issues with an antiquated, really obsolete building. And lack of access to medical care and treatment, as I was stating. So on the King County Council, if elected, I want to work with disproportionately impacted communities and fellow King County Councilmembers to urgently address these issues. I think we need to invest more in restorative justice. And when the King County Council took that vote in terms of transferring those incarcerated folks to SCORE, I think they noted that we need to do more in terms of investing in restorative justice and upstream alternatives to really reimagine our criminal legal system. So first I think we need to prevent and reduce incarceration through investing in upstream - investments in youth and vulnerable adults. And that means doing more to expand effective diversion programs, such as the Law Assisted Diversion Program and Co-LEAD, which has been really effective in diverting folks out of the criminal legal system and out of the King County Jail to begin with. I think we also need to move towards actualizing King County Executive's vision and so many activists' vision of really closing the downtown jail and reimagining and reducing the size of the King County facilities. So in terms of the SCORE vote, I don't think either option were good options. The King County Council arrived at that vote because there had not been enough, really, work done on restorative justice and on the underlying issues around staffing and overcrowding at the jail. And I think keeping vulnerable incarcerated people in a downtown jail that had significant understaffing and overcrowding issues and a lack of access to medicine, or transferring incarcerated people to a facility that had potentially access-to-justice issues is not - neither one of those are good options. And so that's why I want to roll up my sleeves and ensure that we're really investing sufficiently in diversion programs and alternatives - to invest in folks to prevent them from becoming incarcerated in the first place and also move towards reimagining our system. And I will say that I don't think King County Council can address this issue alone. In 2022, there were over, I think, 100 people in King County Jail that were deemed to be incompetent to stand trial in King County that were awaiting a treatment bed. So if we work with our state partners to really fund mental health and ensure treatment for vulnerable populations like this, then we won't have to make these sort of decisions. [00:11:00] Crystal Fincher: So am I hearing that you would not vote - disagreeing with this vote? If in the future a vote were to come up to extend or expand this SCORE transfer or transfer to other jails, does that mean you're a No vote on that? [00:11:13] Sarah Reyneveld: I think that we need to, like I said, invest in alternatives and upstream alternatives to the criminal legal system. So like Councilmember Zahilay and Councilmember Kohl-Welles said - the transfer to SCORE was really not addressing the root cause of the issue. We need to be investing in upstream alternatives and staffing and ensuring that folks within our system are safe. [00:11:36] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now you talked about substance use disorder being so key in treating upstream issues to really address the root causes of what is leading people to criminal behavior. We're dealing with a conundrum. The governor just called a special session following our State Supreme Court invalidating personal substance possession as a crime. Our Legislature took action a couple of years ago to recriminalize it - that has a sunset provision. They were not able to decide on any statewide policy before the session ended, so they're going to be taking that up in a special session. There are conversations about - should drug use be criminalized at all? If it should, is it a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony? Where do you stand? Where should personal possession of substances be dealt with? How would you handle that? [00:12:27] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think this is an issue that the Legislature has been grappling with and it's really an important issue. And I think we need to be moving away from criminalization of drug possession. Specifically, we moved away from criminalization of drug possession for marijuana - we need to do the same thing with psychedelics and other sorts of drugs that have medicinal and other positive effects. I think when it comes to addressing our fentanyl and heroin crisis, I think that if I were a legislator, I'd probably move in the direction of ensuring that we're looking at the lesser of any sort of crime - which would be a misdemeanor - and looking at pathways to treatment for that use. And I think we have to think about how we can connect folks that are in crisis because of substance use disorder with services. And so to me, it's about what more can King County do - because I'm not sitting in the place of a legislator - to ensure that we're investing in upstream solutions and treatment. And so I think helping to implement the King County Crisis Care Center Levy and ensuring that folks that are in - particularly a substance use crisis, whether - we know that we have a fentanyl crisis. I have worked on litigation to sue Purdue Pharma and understand just the addictive effects of those drugs. And we need to make sure that there's - those folks are connected to Medicaid-assisted treatment on demand, that they're connected to services. And so looking at what more we can do to scale up the crisis centers in an equitable way and preserve and restore beds that are primarily aimed at treating the underlying causes - I think it's critically important. And so one of my priorities, if elected to the King County Council, will be to look at how we're implementing these crisis care centers, how I'm working potentially with the Legislature for additional treatment beds for substance use disorder. I have, as so many people have had, someone in my life that has experienced a substance use disorder issue. And I think it's so hard to navigate the system to even find detox or substance use treatment for someone like me that knows how to navigate systems, much less someone that could be either at-risk at being involved in the criminal legal system or becoming unhoused or dealing with a substance use crisis. And so finding ways in which we can ensure that those that are affected are obtaining treatment, I think is critically important. [00:15:07] Crystal Fincher: You raised a number of important issues there and you touched on helping to get the Crisis Care Centers Levy - which passed - implemented. [00:15:16] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes. [00:15:17] Crystal Fincher: There have been some criticisms and challenges with implementation of programs - at all levels of government, really, but including with the County - and issues of staffing that may not have been foreseen, or challenges run into, communication issues. Do you think there's an opportunity to improve implementation of policy and programs overall? And how do we need to do that? What needs to change in order for that to happen? [00:15:42] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent point. And I absolutely think there are opportunities to improve policy implementation at the County. One of the things that I really appreciate about King County's work and that I wanna bring as a lens to my work is that I do believe that the best public policy is made - I think Councilmember Zahilay says this in his views and paraphrasing him, but - by those that are closest to the injustice. And so we really need to invest in community-based solution to a lot of our largest challenges in King County. And so I appreciate that on all issues of County government and all levels of County government, whether it be addressing the gun violence crisis or the behavioral health crisis or childcare, we're really investing in community-based solutions. So I think that's critically important, but I think we also have to have a way to measure outcomes in terms of what is the County doing that's working and what is the County doing that's not working. And if we have, for example, a health through housing facility that we have stood up, but it's not being adequately staffed and we're not adequately utilizing it, and really ensuring that vulnerable populations can access housing and those services - we need to look at what more we can do to ensure that that is being used appropriately and we're really maximizing opportunities to make good use of public dollars. So I think we absolutely need to be working with communities and listening to communities and centering their voices. And then I think King County, as a body, needs to work with those communities to make sure that the investments that were being made are working on the community level and that we're really scaling up things that work. And I, as someone who's taught at the Evans School of Public Affairs and has been a policy wonk for years, am really interested in working with community and my fellow councilmembers in doing that work. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: So on almost every measure, we're behind our 2030 climate goals. You've talked about addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of that on people being one of your priorities. We've experienced the impacts from wildfires, heat and cold, floods, et cetera. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:17:59] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, thank you for that excellent question. As an Assistant Attorney General that works to protect our environment and public health, this is an issue that is critically important to me because of the urgency of action and the need to really address this challenge - centering communities in a just transition. So first, I think we need to electrify transportation and invest deeply in transit. We know that to meet our carbon reduction goals, we have to get people out of cars and into transit. And yet we have seen that Metro Transit service has languished since the pandemic and ridership has fallen by half. And those transit delays - I'm a transit rider to work, I take my little boy to daycare downtown with me - and they're disproportionately affecting transit riders, which are working families, BIPOC communities, low income communities, youth, seniors, and others that rely on transit. And it's a transit justice issue. So I have already been doing some of this work, but if elected to the King County Council, I want to continue this work by working with a coalition of transit riders and groups like the Transit Riders Union and Seattle Subway and The Urbanist and others to pass a county-wide transit revenue package to fund a King County Transportation Benefit District, which would supplant the city one and really help us restore an increased Metro Transit service to deliver faster, more frequent, reliable, and zero-emission service that connects all our community members. I think the measure should also ensure that transit is free to those who are cost-burdened. Right now, one of our impediments to increasing transit service and getting people out of cars is the shortage of transit operators and mechanics. And part of this funding package, or looking at other funding sources, has to be to address that issue of recruiting and retaining Metro bus drivers. And that has to include a living wage and additional incentives and supports, including safety supports, to build the workforce of Metro operators. Now, I just spoke to Metro operators at ATU last week, and they told me they're facing significant workplace safety and pay and other challenges that are really contributing to job stress and attrition. So we have to address that underlying issue if we're gonna get people out of cars and into transit. I also think we need to do more to decarbonize our built environment, which is probably the largest carbon emission in King County, through the adoption and strengthening of commercial building codes that will require communities to reduce energy use and also center communities in initiatives such as the Climate Equity Capital Pool to electrify their homes, for electric appliances and retrofits and solar panels. I think there's a lot of opportunities that we can leverage on the federal level to use grants and incentives and rebates to really update the building codes - and achieve these energy efficiencies and decarbonize our environment and our built environment - while bringing workers along. And I think we need to look at passing stronger provisions and incentives to transition off natural gas in a way that brings people and workers along and hastens this just transition to a clean energy economy - because we know that natural gas use in commercial and residential buildings accounts for a really large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. I would also say that we need to do more to sustainably manage our forests and our working lands to ensure climate-friendly forest management and farming to mitigate climate change impacts and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and look at how we can promote carbon storage in soils and increase the use of green space. I would also say, probably lastly, a large percentage of the carbon emissions in King County result from our food system. So I wanna lead in ensuring that all communities have opportunities to become food producers, to access urban and rural farmland, and that we're really centering disproportionately impacted communities and empowering them to become farmers - particularly in food deserts and ensuring that tribes have access to their traditional food sources and cultural resources. And I've talked a lot to labor about this, and I would say that I believe that we can work towards a just transition to a clean energy economy that really centers workers and equitable pathways to green jobs and apprenticeships, but it's gonna take us building a coalition. And I'm committed to really rolling up my sleeves and working with our labor partners and folks that are disproportionately impacted and our community members to build that just transition towards a clean energy economy and a sustainable community that addresses our climate crisis. [00:23:01] Crystal Fincher: You talked about needing to address the staffing issues in our public transportation department, certainly an issue in Metro that is urgently in need of addressing. We've seen in several other departments - with sheriffs, certainly with municipal police departments in the County - that they're giving retention bonuses, hiring bonuses to help attract people. And what we've seen is - although they are on record saying that that isn't really moving the needle and may not, there are a lot of people in other departments saying that would absolutely move the needle here. Do you support retention bonuses and hiring bonus and some of the things that we've seen for folks working in public safety for other workers? [00:23:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. I think we really need to listen to workers, and my platform is all about lifting up and centering and listening to workers. And to me, hiring bonuses are not gonna address the root cause of the issue. And the root cause of the issue is really living wages and supports for drivers. But if hiring bonuses will help certain segments of workers - I did talk to, for example, an ATU bus operator that said that they had hiring bonuses in Pierce County and that they had not yet received any sort of retention or hiring bonus. And so if that's something that's going to help workers feel valued, I think that we do have to look at that as an option. However, it doesn't really address the root cause. And that is we need to support our frontline workers and give them a living wage. So we need to increase base pay for workers. We need to give them benefits - adequate benefits - flexibility, and the working conditions that they deserve. And for some frontline workers, that's gonna mean more investment in safety measures or hazard pay. And for other frontline workers, that may include a bonus. But I think we need to listen to workers, we need to center workers, and we really need to give them living wages, benefits, and the working conditions they deserve. I think you are absolutely right to say that the workforce issue is huge in King County, and we have to do more to address it. When I talk to workers - everyone from grocery store workers to our bus operators, to behavioral health workers - they're really struggling to make a living wage to afford to live in King County, and save for retirement, and raise their kids. And they're really the sheroes and heroes of, I think, responding to the pandemic or the shadow pandemic, but also just of taking care of our communities. And they're really bearing the brunt of our crises - our unhoused crisis, the opioid crisis, the behavioral health crisis. So we at King County have to do better to support them, and that includes living wages, benefits, and working conditions. And I am interested and very committed to doing that work to center workers. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and you're completely correct that they are bearing the brunt of that. Another issue that kind of delves both into addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of it and public health is air and clean air within buildings. And this has been increasingly talked about - especially as we've learned more about airborne pathogens, and as we've dealt more with wildfire smoke, and how much we've learned about how pollutants and pollution impact health, impact life expectancy. There are areas in Seattle that have life expectancies years shorter than other areas in the same city. Does the County have a responsibility to provide clean and safe air within its buildings and to try and incentivize that throughout other privately owned buildings and businesses in the County? [00:26:45] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I absolutely think the County has a responsibility - working with our state regulators as well as our federal regulators and policymakers - to ensure that everyone has access to clean air. I see this as an environmental justice issue - you pointed out that disproportionately - communities that live in areas with higher rates of pollution and that are more impacted, disproportionately impacted by climate change are experiencing poor air quality. And I think we have seen through the effects of climate change and really rampant wildfires and other issues, that these are disproportionately impacting our frontline communities and communities that are already overburdened. So I think that one thing that we can do at the King County level is really urgently lead on addressing the climate crisis. And our air quality is just gonna get worse as the climate crisis and the impacts increase. And so I think we need someone that's gonna really roll up their sleeves and provide strong leadership to really address these underlying issues around air and water pollution and to address the climate crisis. And so I wanna do that work with disproportionately impacted communities, and part of that work is really getting people out of cars and into transit. So really think having a strong vision for what that looks like and how to center frontline communities is really critically important. [00:28:18] Crystal Fincher: Looking at the state of this race, you're in a competitive race this time - you were last time, too - but this time you're part of a competitive race. What do your endorsements say about you, and what are you most proud of? [00:28:33] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think I am - just to get back to my roots - I am a public sector attorney, I am a working parent, I am a community advocate, and I have lived in the 4th Council District for 25 years, and really have dedicated my 15-year public service career to advancing progressive policy, legal, and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges. And I have worked in community to drive progressive policies forward, and I think my endorsements reflect the work that I've done in community. I have endorsements from five members of the King County Council, including Councilmember Kohl-Welles and Councilmember Zahilay, who I've worked with directly around securing access to more childcare, to addressing gender-based violence, to doing more for affordable housing. And I think my endorsements really speak to the depth of work and the way that I have worked to elevate community voices in community and doing that work. I would say that one of the endorsements I'm most proud of is Councilmember Kohl-Welles' endorsement because she's been a mentor to me and I have worked with her on a number of issues to improve the lives of women in disproportionately impacted communities in King County. And I'm also proud of the endorsement from my boss, A.G. Bob Ferguson. I have dedicated my career to being on the frontlines, to helping enforce workers' rights to fair wages to equal pay, to protect our environment. And I've done this work in the Attorney General's office and the fact that I have the support of my boss as I'm running for King County Council, just like he ran for King County Council, and that he's been helping me out on the campaign trail. And ensuring that I'm running a strong grassroots campaign really means the world to me. [00:30:20] Crystal Fincher: Now, we've also talked about how important it is to enact a lot of policy, to take care of people - obviously, we need to address staffing. All of the things that we've talked about today - a lot of them require revenue. We just ran a big levy because we needed the revenue. The list of things that everyone says is necessary, evidently costs more than we have in the budget, so new revenue is needed. What progressive revenue options exist at the County level today, and will you pursue any of them? [00:30:50] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, so I have a long history of advocating for progressive revenue, including the capital gains tax as a citizen advocate and board member of Washington's Paramount Duty. And so I have fought with, alongside a coalition of folks that are really pushing for progressive revenue reform at the state level. I still think there's so much more we can do and look forward to being a strong partner in that work. King County is projected to face revenue shortfalls and has constrained revenue sources. I do wanna fight against austerity budgets and look really critically at how we can obtain authority from the Legislature to pass truly progressive revenue sources that center working people. I think we also need to look at potentially lifting the 1% property tax lid if we can provide exemptions for homeowners and fixed income seniors. But I think the kind of frustrating thing about the County is it is revenue-constrained and that we need to work hard both on the County Council and in partnership with communities to figure out what more we can do to obtain authority to pass truly progressive revenue sources, whether or not that's taxing business or looking at more progressive revenue sources other than property tax and sales tax and some of these use fees. So I'm dedicated to doing that work in partnership with community and I'm really looking forward to that. [00:32:26] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. And with the budget, King County does incremental budgeting making it difficult for the public to understand - making it difficult for some people in government to understand, but especially the public - to understand how King County funds are allocated in the base budget. What can be done to make the budget easier for the public to understand and influence? [00:32:47] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. We need more transparency in the budget process and we need more participation from community at the County level in the budget process. I have testified, for example, funding for the mental health counselors under MIDD. I have testified for affordable housing. I've testified for more childcare funding. And sometimes it's difficult, as the budget comes over from the Executive, to know what's different about the budget, right? And so I find generally that through this work as a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board and as a citizen advocate that King County budgets are not as accessible, for example, as legislative budgets. And more needs to be done to ensure that they're more transparent and accessible, and also that we're ensuring that the public is engaged in the budgeting process and understands it. So I think one of the things that we can do, and Councilmember Zahilay has done such a great job of this, is just explaining the King County budget process - how the budget comes over from the Executive, what the budget looks like, and how to understand the budget. I think another thing we could do is helping to really center folks that historically have not had a seat at the table in the budget process and have been excluded from power structures in developing policy and budgetary proposals - so that those folks are actually involved in the collaboration process through working groups and meetings and collaboration so that we're moving more towards participatory budget models, where constituents are not just involved in testifying, but really involved and actively involved every step of the process and ultimately in the decisions that impact them. So I'm really interested in working with all communities, and particularly frontline communities that are disproportionately impacted by these issues, and to really look to see what we can do towards more participatory budgeting. But first, of course, we have to make that process more transparent. [00:34:49] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we said before, you have at least one opponent now - the filing deadline isn't for a few weeks, couple weeks, few weeks here. So as you're talking to people who are considering who they're gonna vote for in this race, why should they vote for you over your opponents? [00:35:08] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you. I'm running because I wanna continue the work that I've done with community and elevate community voices here in the 4th Council District and beyond to advance bold and transformative action for workers, for working families, and our environment on the King County Council. And as I said before, I think we're in a critical moment of time, and I am really committed to working with our most impacted communities to ensure that we are building back better and really creating equitable economic recovery that centers workers and working families and leads to a more sustainable future. Like many in our district, I'm a working parent, I'm a public school parent, transit rider, community organizer, and I have really dedicated my career to advancing progressive legal policy and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges - and I think we've really gotten results. As a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board, I have worked in partnership with community and the King County Council to secure investments in affordable housing, behavioral health, childcare, and services for survivors of gender-based violence. And I really wanna build on that track record. And I think I have the skills to do so - to really center community voices and to advance really bold, progressive solutions. I think there's three things that I would highlight to voters about why they should choose me in a competitive race. One is community - I'm running for the community and have demonstrated a history of leadership in my community, which is really reflected in our campaign's range of endorsements from elected officials to community leaders and labor. And I have lived experience as a mom and union member and transit rider that is not only reflective of my district, but I feel can be valuable on the King County Council. And lastly, I have a demonstrated history of leadership in my community working to build coalitions to deliver on progressive policies for workers and working families. And I think I've demonstrated that I'm unafraid to grapple with and do the real work of really advancing transformative solutions that are necessary at this critical moment in time. And I really look forward to the conversation on the campaign and hopefully to working with my community to ensure equitable economic recovery that really centers workers and working families and creates a more sustainable future for all. [00:37:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:37:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you so much for having me. [00:37:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Primary Week re-air, Crystal chats with Becka Johnson Poppe about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the skill set 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. 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 Becka Johnson Poppe at @votebecka.   Becka Johnson Poppe Becka has been putting progressive ideas into action across our region's largest public entities for more than a decade. Currently, Becka oversees half of King County's $16 billion budget and leads a team that works to advance environmental, transportation, and racial justice priorities. Previously, at the University of Washington, she promoted equitable access to higher education and led state budget and policy analysis as the Director of Policy, Planning & State Operations. Becka volunteers as a Director on the Board of YouthCare, working to end youth homelessness, and chairs the Race Equity Justice Committee.  She also volunteers on the Board of Doney Coe Pet Clinic, supporting the animal companions of people experiencing homelessness. Becka is an elected Precinct Committee Officer, a member of the Jackson Foundation Leadership Council, and has served on the King County Democrats Endorsement Committee.  She previously worked in mental health research for Stanford University and has mentored students from diverse communities over the last two decades. In her free time, Becka enjoys traveling with her spouse and their cat, Edgar, as well as spending time outdoors and cheering on the Mariners.   Resources Campaign Website - Becka Johnson Poppe   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I'm very pleased to have King County Council candidate Becka Johnson Poppe joining us today. Welcome to the show. [00:01:01] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you so much, Crystal. It's really nice to be here. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Great to be here with you. So I guess just starting off - what made you choose to run for this King County Council position? [00:01:12] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you. Yeah, so I've lived in District 4 for over a decade. I was born and raised here in the Puget Sound region. I'm the granddaughter of two veterans, daughter of two public servants - and they really taught me what it meant to be tough and what it meant to serve the community. Growing up, I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do, but I knew that I wanted to take care of my community. I studied biology and psychology in college and spent a couple of years doing mental health research at Stanford after that. While I was there, I volunteered as an after-school program leader in a low-income community - and between my work and my volunteering - I saw a lot of challenges that people were facing with navigating mental health issues, economic injustice, the first effects of climate change, and really all the societal structures and policies that do an unfortunately impressive job of inhibiting social mobility and access to basic services. In many cases, the only thing keeping people afloat was having a supportive community around them. And that really hit home for me - I realized I wanted to get back to my community and work on these issues back at home. I am honored to be part of this community in District 4 and in King County. There are a lot of incredibly dedicated, creative, supportive people who have made careers out of finding ways to make the world a better place - and like I said, the community that you have around you can really make all the difference. A dear friend of mine was living out of their car in King County not that long ago, and I think about them when I think about the 50,000 people who were unhoused in King County last year. I think that there are moments in life that many of us have had where you can see how close you are to going from making it work to not making it work. For a little while, I was working three jobs and had a bank account with two digits. I had tons of support around me, so I was fine - but I was in a precarious spot and if I hadn't had that support, it could have looked really different. I think that there is so much work that needs to be done to create communities that truly support each other. I think we can all agree we have a housing crisis, a behavioral health crisis, a climate crisis - and to take on these issues, we need someone who can bring people together and make progress right out of the gate. So over the last decade, I've led budgets and policy development for some of the region's largest public entities. I've gone from a bank account with two digits to overseeing half of King County's $16 billion budget. Really, a budget is about our values - it's about our priorities and how we make those real, and that's a unique skill set that I bring. I really see three priorities connecting everything that the County does - protecting the environment, advancing equity, and stimulating the economy. These three E's - the environment, equity, and the economy - all intersect, and I'm really committed to centering our community's voices and our community's needs, because I've seen firsthand what that looks like and what that can do. I think we really have an opportunity to show the state and the rest of the nation what it means to be a community that is diverse and inclusive and dedicated to solving the most complex issues. King County is bigger than 15 states, and so we have the opportunity and the responsibility to lead in taking on the existential threat of climate change, and creating more housing that's affordable for more people, in delivering universal childcare, improving our transportation experience. And all of this is going to take centering the voices of people most affected, creating accessible career pathways with family-sustaining wages, moving big capital initiatives faster and more equitably, and making sure that everyone feels safe, respected, and supported. And I've spent my career turning progressive ideas into progressive action - with the voices and votes of our community, I'm really excited to hit the ground running. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: All right - you talked about the three E's. Those three E's are absolutely impacted, as you talked about, by housing and homelessness and how accessible or not those are to people. One thing called out by experts that's a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline workers are short-staffed, they're overworked, and their wages are not covering the cost of living for this area. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages, and how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services? [00:05:32] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thanks Crystal. So there was a recent UW research study that showed that social service staff are underpaid by 37%. And with a combination of lagging wages, rising cost of living, and just the really challenging work that folks have to do in these spaces - that's created a real workforce crisis in the human services sector. In King County and Seattle, this kind of work is primarily performed by nonprofits, like you pointed out, in contracts with government agencies. So we really need to make sure that, as a government, that we are using the tools that are available to us to make sure that nonprofits have the ability to pay their employees more. And where we're really seeing this hit home is for social workers, for people working with youth, for intake specialists, for people who are doing that really tough human services work. Women account for - it was 79% of all human services workers in King County. And that same UW study showed that it's workers of color who are overrepresented in the lowest paid human services job, including frontline care work. So when we're looking at what we can be doing as a county to make sure that nonprofits can increase the minimum pay for folks, to be providing inflationary wage adjustments, to be improving non-wage benefits - that's all gonna come down to how we as a government can be supporting that work. So I think we absolutely need to be doing this, not just for the sake of our work in our homelessness communities, but for the sake of work in so many different spaces. [00:07:05] Crystal Fincher: Public safety is top of mind for so many people - and just what it means to be safe, what comprehensive public safety means. And a focus on addressing root causes - really getting to the heart of people being victimized and reducing it - people have been asking for that for quite some time. Part of this process and part of what King County is responsible for is operating multiple jails, really. And the main jail has been having a number of problems - from overcrowding, they had a lack of water for a while, inadequate healthcare, shortages. Would you have voted to approve the transfer of inmates to the SCORE jail to try and alleviate the issues plaguing the King County Jail, or would you have a different plan? [00:07:51] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, so a close family member of mine was incarcerated, and this is something that is really near and dear to my heart. I think the human experience in our jails is something that we really have to focus on. We didn't prioritize, the County didn't prioritize COVID vaccines for this population. And we are seeing a behavioral health problem that's manifesting in our jails with the suicide numbers. This is really concerning. I am worried about the fact that SCORE doesn't have options for in-person visitation. I'm worried about folks in our jails not being able to access their legal representation, support from behavioral health professionals. I'm worried about the experience for people who are trying to do that critical work to support their clients - who need interpreters, who need that in-person access to just do basic things like pass documents back and forth. And what this really comes down to is making sure that we are keeping folks out of jail in the first place - that we're looking at equitable, human-centered, criminal legal strategies. And these takes the form of things like community courts, community diversion programs, and scaling that up is really critical. It is a fact that we don't have enough staff to fill our jails right now. We don't have enough people to even escort folks from the front desk to meet with their clients, and that is - that's really unacceptable. We need to be looking at those staffing shortages and making sure that we are being efficient with our resources. If we're paying people to do work but they aren't even able to access their clients, that's not efficient - let alone the human experience that's going on for the people in our jails. So investing in those holistic solutions to keep people out of jail in the first place is a big part of this, and I'm hopeful that the behavioral health levy that was recently passed is going to be part of this solution. I think we also need to be looking at our community courts - and one thing that I want to spend more time looking at is misdemeanor cases, which are not currently eligible for community court. Just really making sure that we are taking a step back and paying attention to the human experience and also how to keep people from being in that situation in the first place. [00:09:57] Crystal Fincher: Should we close the King County Jail? [00:09:59] Becka Johnson Poppe: I think that we should absolutely be moving toward that - and doing that in concert with all of these holistic services, and making sure that we are having alternatives to that jail that are going to be better suited to the community needs. [00:10:14] Crystal Fincher: And I may have just missed it, so would you have also voted to - you talked about a number of other things that were absolutely crucial and critical, and people who are incarcerated having connections to the outside is critical to lower chances of recidivism and them able to integrate back in the community successfully. Would you have voted to approve that SCORE contract? [00:10:35] Becka Johnson Poppe: I would not have voted to approve that SCORE contract. [00:10:38] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and so I assume that if it comes back, which some people think that it will - and need to be extended or expanded - that you would be a No vote on that too. [00:10:46] Becka Johnson Poppe: That's right. [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. So we talked about homelessness, affordable housing, about the need to increase pay for frontline workers and that being crucial to being able to solve this response. What are your top priorities for taking action to reduce homelessness and increase the affordability of housing? [00:11:06] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thank you. So I mentioned earlier that a good friend of mine was living out of their car in King County not that long ago and so this hits home for me. And I've also been working to end youth homelessness as a volunteer for . YouthCare, and as a volunteer for a really small nonprofit that provides care to the animal companions of people who are experiencing homelessness. And one of the things that I've observed is that we really need to be leveraging partnerships to support the needs of the community and making sure that we are not missing handoffs. We need to make sure that we are communicating between the systems, making sure that we're providing a safety net for the community. And the fact is a lot of our contracts right now don't allow for resources to be used flexibly for wraparound support. So that's one thing I want to work on. And as we were talking about, keeping the team is really critical. When I'm volunteering for YouthCare, it's our frontline staff who make all the difference for our unhoused young people. I've advocated for wage increases because it's the right thing to do - and because the bottom line is if we don't take care of our people, we lose them and we lose the vital individual connections that make the work matter. I think in order to take care of our community, we really need to take care of our people. And whether you care about any of that or not, which I hope you do - I know that you do, Crystal, and I hope that all of our listeners do here - if we are constantly losing people and having to navigate that turnover, it's just really inefficient from a resource standpoint. Those hiring processes - going through that over and over - that's tapping into scarce resources that we could be using for so many other important things. So it's about leveraging those partnerships, it's about keeping the team together. And then how we pair this with affordable housing - it is really hard for people to afford to live here and rents are at all-time highs, housing prices are really tough. Having a comprehensive approach that addresses zoning, affordability, that links housing with transportation - it's not only going to be critical to help with equity, to help with the economy, but also with the environment - getting back to those three E's - to make sure that we have diverse communities while we're mitigating the impacts of climate change by pairing housing where transportation is. I'm really for making sure that we have more housing that's affordable to more people, and doing that with what I would consider a 'Yes, And' approach. So making sure that we have mixed-use development where housing is built alongside commercial and retail spaces, making it easier to build with permitting, with design review - really taking a look at those processes - finding ways to support first-time home buyers as well. And I get kind of excited about this, but talking about the full life cycle of these projects - everything from land acquisition - the timing of land acquisitions with our budget processes, that is a big challenge right now. Building capacity in the community to do these projects so that we have culturally competent developers, making sure that we move construction faster and more equitably to get these affordable housing units created, making sure that we have green building features that are part of this construction and these plans from the start, thinking about the jobs that we're creating - good union jobs as part of this. And incentivizing the creation of affordable housing that isn't just tiny units - that is available for multi-generational households, which are often folks from immigrant communities. And all of this is going to get back to those multi-benefits of how we are supporting the environment, equity, and the economy simultaneously. I could nerd out here a little bit talking about a program at the County around transfer of development rights, which is something that we use to preserve open space by transferring the development potential of that land to areas where we can have more density because the services and utilities are available to support that. And this is something that I think is really cool because the revenue that we generate by selling these development credits allows us to then purchase more open space, and be preserving those open spaces. So these multi-benefits, I think, are where things can get really cool. And how we can be using those incentives to make sure that we have green building features, and even access to childcare services where people live and not just wherever it makes sense to build them otherwise. This is going to make everyone's lives easier, healthier, and better. So I get really excited about this stuff. [00:15:30] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Now, drug decriminalization is a big topic of discussion locally and at the state legislative level right now. We had our legislators working on legislation to try and establish a new policy for personal possession of substances, after our State Supreme Court invalidated the law that criminalized that. Legislature did that, but put a sunset provision in the first go-round that they did - after they made it a misdemeanor, tried to fund some infrastructure across the state for treatment and diversion, those types of programs. But they weren't able to come to a new agreement in this session. Governor Inslee recently called a new special session to address this, and we'll see if they come up with a solution after that. But if not, it's going to be up to counties, cities, and towns to figure out what policy is the right policy for them. Should we be criminalizing simple possession of substances? And if not, what should the plan be? [00:16:31] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thanks Crystal. We need to be making sure that folks are getting the help that they need rather than punishment. Historically, we have just not seen evidence that shows that punishment works, and it's disproportionately affecting Black and Brown communities. There needs to be a fix that happens at the state level because I don't think that it's a great solution to have 40 different rules with 40 different jurisdictions - where people have to wonder if they step across one line, if they're going to be treated differently than if they're hopping over here. And so I'm really hopeful that the state comes through with a fix. If they don't, we really need to be focusing again back on the root issues. What is resulting in people having substance abuse disorder, having these challenges in the first place? Possession - drug possession is not the biggest public safety threat facing our communities right now. And we have scarce resources to devote to public safety so prioritizing that differently is an imperative, while recognizing that substance abuse is a big problem. Fentanyl death rates are growing year over year, we've already exceeded the 2022 death rates so far - and we're only a few months into 2023 - but we absolutely cannot prosecute our way out of the problem. Prevention, treatment, long-term care - these are all critical pieces - and data gathering to support that. Another really important thing that I've noticed is that this is hitting the people who are experiencing homelessness the hardest. I think we need a healthcare team that is really dedicated to supporting people who are experiencing homelessness. And recognizing that if people refuse treatment - that's part of the disease, that is part of the process. So we still need to have that treatment available - we need to help folks work through that part of the disease that presents as refusal, and not just giving up on folks. So I am really hopeful that the state comes through with a fix - and I think at the County level, we need to be prioritizing our scarce resources in a way that is going to help people, rather than try to prosecute them. [00:18:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely makes sense. Now, you talked about another one of your Es, the environment. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals but we're experiencing impacts from climate change more than we ever have before, whether it's extreme weather events with heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:19:02] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, it's really important to be recognizing that climate change is a threat multiplier that burdens communities already facing public health and economic disparities. I think that we can be looking at ways to center community voices in how we are working to address climate change, and this is something that I've had direct experience with. A couple years ago, I created the County's first Climate Equity Bond - it's a $20 million pool of funds - and in doing so, had the honor to sit with frontline communities experiencing the first and worst consequences of climate change. I met with them for seven months and found a way to make their priorities a reality. I really want to scale up that work at the County and do even more of this - and make sure that we are not being performative about the way that we are involving community voices, but really doing that deliberately - and balancing that need to move quickly, but making sure that we are not leaving folks behind. Another really critical piece to this is moving our big construction initiatives faster by breaking down barriers to delivering on those initiatives. So much of what we need to do to address climate change is going to come down to how we can deliver on our capital projects - whether it's installing electric vehicle infrastructure, whether it is creating big solar fields, affordable housing that's close to transportation - these large-scale energy projects, these large-scale construction initiatives are gonna be key. This is something that I've been working on at the County - is figuring out how to break down the barriers that all of our construction initiatives are facing right now, which are around permitting, procurement, supply chains, labor shortages. And this is something that I'm really excited about because there are things that we can be doing to break down those barriers and move these projects faster and more equitably for the sake of the environment. Another thing that I've been working on related to our big capital projects is making sure that when we are making decisions, we are doing that in a way that recognizes the carbon emissions from our buildings will harm future generations. This is called social cost of carbon. It's a real dollar amount that we can actually be applying to calculations about which alternatives we should pursue when we're looking at different construction projects and construction options - and bringing that into our decision-making is really critical. We also need to be going after federal and state funding. There are huge opportunities right now. The Inflation Reduction Act, Federal Infrastructure Bill, Climate Commitment Act, Clean Fuel Standard, the EPA has a $5 billion grant option opportunity for climate pollution reduction. We have a huge opportunity right now to be going after those dollars in a coordinated manner that those grant opportunities - actually, in some cases, demand that we be coordinated across the region. And the County - one of the biggest things that the County can do is bring people together to bring that coordination. And then a huge part of this is transportation. We need to have a coordinated plan for installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure, working with our neighboring jurisdictions and private entities. We need to be electrifying our bus fleet, but recognizing that if no one is riding our buses, it doesn't really matter if they're electric if everyone's using their cars instead. So we need to be bringing people back to our buses, and if it's reliable, accessible, and safe, people are going to use it. [00:22:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, one related item is the air that we breathe - you talked about reducing the pollution there. Certainly, air quality impacts everything about our lives - from life expectancy, to whether we're experiencing asthma, heart disease, lung disease, many things like that. What role does the County have to play, or what responsibility does the County have, to ensure that clean air and appropriate ventilation happens in public buildings? But also, we're seeing a lot of new construction - just passed some legislation that will probably spur construction of housing units. How should the County be enforcing air standards, or should it? [00:23:05] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, well, to start off here, a really critical piece of this is transportation, because the biggest source of emissions in the County is emissions from transportation. So to expand on that a little bit, we really need to be bringing people back to our buses. And as I was saying, if it's reliable, accessible, safe, people are going to use it. Right now, our buses are arriving late, on reduced schedules, too many of our neighbors who are in crisis are having episodes on buses completely unsupported. And I think if we asked a big room of people - how many of us have had an uncomfortable experience on a bus - we'd probably all raise our hands. So to be reducing our emissions, we need to bring people back to our buses. And I think we can do that by making our experience safer, by having an on-demand care team, where our Metro operators who have such a tough job already - my neighbor actually is a Metro operator, he's in his 80s, he is one of the toughest people that I know - and we can make a system where those Metro operators can flag down a care team to meet them en route and provide human-oriented holistic support to people who are in crisis on our buses. We also need to recognize that the traditional commute isn't the main reason that people are using buses anymore. So to get people to transition away from single-occupancy vehicles, we need to have transportation that's available around the clock and not just in those traditional commute hours. We have the Metro Connects vision to help us move toward that vision, but there's a big funding gap and it was put together in 2016. So we need to refresh that data with post-pandemic data to make sure that we're moving toward the right solutions and the right targets here. We have a lot of one-time funding that we can be using right now to make sure that we are staffed up with Metro, to make sure that we're improving that safety and that ridership experience. We also need to be pursuing long-term solutions. So I think all of this is going to be really key to improving our air quality and making sure that we have better air quality for everyone. And in terms of our buildings, it gets back to those choices that we're making about how we construct and factoring those emissions - those long-term emissions - and the effects of those into our decision-making. We also can be making sure that, when we have these wildfire incidents and smoke, that we have spaces for people to go where they can escape that. There are not enough places right now where people can be safe from the effects of our wildfire season, which is really what it is right now, unfortunately - it's a season of the year that we've become pretty familiar with. There are things called - I might mispronounce this here - Corsi–Rosenthal Boxes, which are quick ways to clean the air for folks. It cleans the air by up to 60%. And that's something that we can use in a lot of different settings to essentially retrofit spaces that aren't already constructed in ways that allow folks to be able to breathe clean air. And we really need to be engaging people at every stage of the process in conversations about indoor air quality. We've learned this through COVID - we can be leveraging those same learnings to move forward and be ensuring that as the climate continues to warm and as we continue to have more wildfire smoke, that we are not having that impact all of us. But really that - if we look at the maps of air pollution where folks are most affected by this, it's the same regions of the County that are disproportionately impacted by existing public health disparities, by economic disparities, by gun violence, by so many different things. And recognizing where needs are greatest is going to be key in making sure that we are improving the air quality in meaningful ways. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, you manage half of the County budget. You talked about how huge the County is - it is large, it is formidable - so that is quite the undertaking that you have. But when it comes to that budget, King County does incremental budgeting - making it really difficult for people to understand how funds are allocated in the base budget. Being that this is one of your strengths and an area you are very familiar with, what can be done to make the budget easier for the public to understand and influence? [00:27:15] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, this is something I get really excited about. Few things are more important than how we use our resources and transparency from a lot of different angles is critical - the funding sources, how that funding is being used, how communities are being involved in those choices, and in the implementation of things that get funded. I've been working on this at the County and on the campaign trail so far - just demystifying the budget process. It doesn't have to be complicated. Everyone understands income coming in, expenses going out. We budget for ourselves individually in ways that align with our values and priorities. If you really care about cooking, maybe you're going to spend a little bit more on the supplies that you're using or the ingredients that you're using. Those are your priorities reflected in your own personal budget. And that same thing happens at the County. There are opportunities that we're using - that I've been using right now - to really try to make this easier for folks to be involved in and to understand. And part of this is meeting people where they're at. It's great to have town halls, it's great to have office hours, it's great to have presentations - but thinking about the timing and location of those is really critical. If we're holding space for folks to engage with these processes at 3 p.m. on a Tuesday, you're going to get a very different set of people than if you have it at 7 p.m. And it's - for me, one of the most fun parts of the campaign so far has been knocking on doors and literally engaging with folks where they're at - at their home, where they don't have to go anywhere. They can just share their thoughts with me when I come up and ask for a few minutes of their time. But I think the bottom line here is - it doesn't have to be complicated. There are ways that we can be putting that information online to make this more accessible to folks, to make it easier to understand. It's not about sharing more data - that can just be overwhelming, that can be more cumbersome. It's about presenting that data in ways that people can access and understand, and really going to people to make sure that they have their voices heard in the process. [00:29:23] Crystal Fincher: Now, the list of things that everyone says is necessary and a lot of the things that we've talked about today cost more money than we appear to have in the budget, so new revenue is needed. What progressive revenue options exist at the County level and will you pursue any of them? [00:29:39] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, we are unfortunately heading into lean times at the County. The state did not pass a revenue fix that we really needed. So as a little bit of background - right now, so the General Fund for the County is our most flexible source of revenue that funds a lot of the critical things that the County does. The biggest source of funding for the General Fund is property tax revenue. And right now, revenue from our property tax is capped - the growth of that revenue is capped at 1% per year, plus the cost of new construction. This comes out to essentially about 2% per year, or a little bit more. And I think we've all seen that inflation has been going up by way more than 2% per year. So we have more money going out the door than we have coming in. And this means that to even just sustain the level of service that we have now, we are going to need way more than that 2%. So we're headed into lean times because the state did not lift that cap on property tax revenue growth. And I think that voters deserve someone who has the budget experience to think creatively about how to avoid cuts and maximize the dollars that we have. So as I mentioned - as you mentioned - over the last few years, I've been overseeing half of the County's budget and this has given me some insight into some of the tools that we can be using. We talked earlier about going after big federal dollars - that's an opportunity that we have to help shore up the work that we're doing. We have opportunities to be multiplying the dollars that we have with matching funds, with pilot projects that make the County competitive for larger dollars. We can also be getting more aggressive with our bonding strategy. So right now the County has a AAA rating, which is great. And you don't need to know anything about bonds to know that AAA is the best - it's really freaking good. We can be taking that down a notch - and still getting pretty much all of the benefits that we have at our AAA - with something that's just a smidge lower than that, but freeing up a lot of dollars to meet urgent needs now. These needs are only going to get more expensive the longer that they're left unaddressed, so this is actually a fiscally responsible solution. If we use that bonding authority right now to get more dollars right now, that's gonna help in the long run. And then base budget. So you mentioned earlier that we budget at the County on an incremental basis, and this is absolutely true. This is true of a lot of local jurisdictions. And what this means essentially is that when we have new money coming in, we decide what to do with those new dollars, but we don't take a lot of time to dig back into the resources that were decided upon in the past. And those resources were guided by different values and priorities than we have now. We're talking decades of decisions. And that means that the values and priorities that we have now - that are really intentionally centering racial justice and equity - that's great for the way that we're using our resources now, but that's not what was guiding resource decisions in the past. So we have a huge opportunity to not only free up dollars and reprioritize those dollars to help as we're headed into lean times, but to also undo systemic racism by reevaluating the way that we have used resources in the past and reassigning those dollars to meet where needs are greatest. We need to keep getting dollars out into the community and recognizing that King County taxpayers can't be the only ones to shoulder this burden in perpetuity, but we can be the ones to model this work and how we can do this correctly and creatively - to then work with our colleagues at the state and federal levels to find sustainable progressive funding solutions for the long-term. [00:33:21] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and anyone who knows me in real life has probably had a conversation with me about how crucial and important bonding is - and using it in times like now is to be able to solve problems at the scale that we're experiencing them. Now, you're in a competitive race. This position - District 4 is a contested race. The filing deadline is May 19th, so who knows if anyone else is gonna get in the race. But at this point in time, people are trying to evaluate the differences between candidates and who you are, and how you may vote. What do your endorsements say about you, and what are you most proud of? [00:33:59] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thank you. I am really proud to be endorsed by a lot of folks who really represent the community - small business owners, nonprofit leaders, people who are out there doing the work in the community. I'm also proud to be endorsed by State Representative Liz Berry, State Representative Kristine Reeves, County Councilmember Joe McDermott - these are folks who I really respect because of the way that they've led our community toward progressive solutions to some of the most complex issues. And I recognize that I haven't been working toward a specific elected office for a long period of time, and so - I have, though, been operating in the community, connecting with my community, and I think that my endorsements really reflect that. [00:34:50] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now another thing that you covered was talking about - with the budget - that how we deliver projects is as important as the overall goal of it, and can influence the quality of it. This has been a continued issue that we've seen at many levels of government, including the County, where great policy is passed that's gonna help a lot of people, but it experiences some challenges in the implementation. What can we do to improve how we implement policy at the County level? [00:35:19] Becka Johnson Poppe: That is such a big question, and I really appreciate that question. There is so much that we can be doing to improve how we implement policy - it is really up to our elected officials and our governments. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to be undoing the status quo and replacing it with something better, to be centering the voices of people most affected, to be understanding the racial justice impact of policies and programs by using data carefully and intentionally - and this really factors into how we roll out those policies. As a County Councilmember, part of my job will be recognizing the maps showing where needs are greatest - whether it's gun violence, public health disparities, urban heat - and making sure that we are involving the voices of folks in those areas where needs are greatest. We need to be forming partnerships to be implementing our policies effectively - partnerships with frontline workers, partnerships with labor, partnerships with nonprofit organizations - and really paying attention to the experience of people who are doing the work and the expertise of people who are doing that work. We were talking about moving big capital initiatives faster. So much of what the County does is constructing things, building things - and so I've seen firsthand the importance of our capital design and our construction work. And if we move capital projects faster, we create more jobs, more union jobs, we sustain those jobs, and we get that value out into the communities faster. As I mentioned, our big capital initiatives are facing barriers around permitting, procurement, supply chains, labor shortages. We need to be paying attention to that because those problems probably aren't going away, but there are ways that we can be breaking that down by really making sure that we are using all of the tools in the toolbox. With procurement, for example, there are alternative processes with design-bid-build, that - and a whole bunch of different options here - where we can be staffing in a way that allows us to be creative, that will actually save us more money in the long run if we staff up in ways that will allow for that creativity. And sometimes this work is going to be more complex at the outset, but it's going to save us money and save us time in the long run, and so thinking about those trade-offs and thinking about how we can be making fiscally responsible investments, investments and policy implementation plans that really involve people at every step of the way - it's all going to end up being better for us in the long run. This is such a big question. I feel like there's so many things that we could talk about here, but this is really critical to the work that the County does. [00:38:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, as we conclude today - as we talked about - there are lots of voters and residents in this community who are trying to figure out not only what's happening, but who you guys are and where you stand, what the differences are, and how to make their decision on who they're going to vote for. When you talk to people like that, what do you tell them? [00:38:25] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, I tell them - I've spent my career turning progressive ideas into progressive action. And whoever gets elected is going to have a lot to navigate. We have 50,000 unhoused neighbors, we have public safety issues, we have land conservation challenges, transportation issues, backlogs in our criminal legal system. If we are going to take on the biggest, most urgent issues in the region, we need someone who can make progress right out of the gate. We're headed into lean times at the County, and I think voters deserve someone who has the budget experience to think creatively about how to avoid cuts, how to maximize the dollars that we have. And I have that experience, and that's a unique skillset that I bring. I'm excited to bring my experience not only with budgets, but with moving construction projects faster and more equitably, with centering community voices, and turning those asks and those values into tangible outcomes. My experience doing mental health research - understanding data and science - my experience volunteering working with our unhoused neighbors. As I said earlier, King County is bigger than 15 states. We can show the rest of the state and the rest of the nation what it means to be a community that is diverse and inclusive, and solving the most complex issues. We can lead in taking on the existential threat of climate change, in creating more housing that's affordable to more people, in delivering universal childcare, improving our transportation experience. And I'm really committed to this community - to the region I grew up in - and I'm really excited to hit the ground running. [00:39:53] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Becka Johnson Poppe, candidate for King County Council District 4, for spending this time with us and helping us get to know you better today. Really appreciate it. [00:40:02] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you so much for having me here, Crystal. I am a huge fan, and this is a huge honor. Thank you. [00:40:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Primary Week re-air, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. 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 Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a 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.

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 midweek show, Crystal chats with Sarah Reyneveld about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the experience she brings as a public sector attorney and community advocate, and her thoughts on addressing frontline worker wages and workforce issues, the need for upstream alternatives in the criminal legal system and substance use crisis, how to improve policy implementation, climate change and air quality, and budget revenue and transparency. 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 Sarah Reyneveld at @SarahReyneveld.   Resources Campaign Website - Sarah Reyneveld   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Hello, I'm so excited to be welcoming to the program today King County Council candidate, Sarah Reyneveld. Hello. [00:01:01] Sarah Reyneveld: Hello, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me today - I'm excited about the conversation. [00:01:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I guess just starting out - we have seen you run for State Legislature before. I'm wondering why you're choosing to run for the County now, and what do you hope to accomplish in that position? [00:01:18] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, I think that King County Council and the King County is really at a critical point in time, and I'm excited to bring my lived experience as a working parent, a Seattle Public School parent, a transit rider, a union organizer - I helped organize my union of Assistant Attorney Generals - and also my experience as a public sector attorney who has fought for workers and our environment, and as a community advocate working with communities across King County to really make transformative change for workers, working families, and our environment on the King County Council. So for some background - in 2016, I became King County Councilmember Kohl-Welles' appointment to the King County Women's Advisory Board where I had the opportunity to work with communities throughout King County and the King County Council to help advocate for and secure investments in affordable housing, in behavioral health, childcare, and services to support survivors of gender-based violence. I started this work and became the Chair of the King County Women's Advisory Board before the pandemic - and I had two young kids at the time - and we had struggled like so many parents with access to affordable childcare, and the board at that time decided to take up that issue. So we worked on recommendations to expand childcare access for working parents and were able to work together with communities across King County, and the Executive, and King County Council to help reinstate a childcare subsidy, to expand access to childcare for working families, and establish a wage provider boost to help increase pay for childcare providers who are disproportionately women and BIPOC women and immigrants. And then the pandemic hit and I continued to do this work and it really laid bare - staggering inequities and injustices in King County that disproportionately impacted women and our communities of color and immigrants and other marginalized communities, who are more likely to be on the forefront and were experiencing disproportionately - unemployment and financial loss and illness. So as I continue to work on these issues, I saw what an important role King County played in not just responding to the pandemic and now the shadow pandemic, but in really providing public health, and behavioral health, and public transit, and helping with food security and housing. So I'm running for King County Council because I've been doing this work with community and I think the status quo is no longer good enough. We need bold and transformative action to really meet the urgency of this moment. We have a really unique opportunity to create a more equitable economy and a sustainable future for all workers and working families in King County. And I think that King County can and must do more - and my priorities are to create more truly affordable housing to help better meet the behavioral health needs of our neighbors in crisis, to really tackle the climate crisis and protect our environment for future generations, to provide accessible and frequent public transit for all, and to really look at what we can do to reimagine our public safety and criminal legal system. So I'm excited about the opportunity. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: I see. Now you covered a lot there. In there, you mentioned caring for workers, addressing housing. One thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living. Do you think 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? [00:05:10] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, absolutely. I absolutely think that our nonprofits have a duty to pay more in terms of adequately funding - not just contracts - but ensuring that those contracts lead to an equitable living wage and union jobs. And that includes cost of living adjustments and other supports for workers. So right now we have a really high turnover rate for frontline workers and particularly those workers that the County contracts with - I've heard 40-60% turnover rate. And I think we need to address the underlying issue of why those workers are turning over. And the underlying issue - one of them is pay equity and not ensuring that we are paying, particularly our frontline workers, adequately or providing them with the supports that they need. So it's about equitable pay, it's about cost of living adjustments, and it's about ensuring that those workers have access to affordable housing and transit in King County as well - so they can really afford to live where they work. And so I see this issue as very intersectional and something that King County can do more to address. And I would just say, generally, I think we as a society tend to lift up certain sorts of workers - the CEOs of companies, for example. And those people that are really doing the real work of caring for our community - of building our housing, of connecting us through transit, of providing behavioral health services - we don't invest equitably or sufficiently in those workers. And so starting with contracting is critically important, but we need to do more to ensure that we're investing in living wage jobs, and workforce housing, and bonuses, and ensuring that these workers have the supports that they need. And that is part of my vision for building back better and creating a more equitable economy that really centers workers and working families in King County. [00:07:13] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now, would you have voted to approve the transfer of inmates to the SCORE jail to alleviate a lot of the issues plaguing the King County Jail, including overcrowding, lack of water, inadequate healthcare, illnesses, understaffing? Would you have voted in the same way that the King County Council did? [00:07:31] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's a great question. I want to start with just the conditions at the King County Jail. So the six deaths in 2022 in the downtown jail and kind of the subsequent ACLU lawsuit, I think, show that King County is failing too many criminally involved individuals, particularly our Black and Brown community members and those with chronic behavioral health and substance use issues. I am really concerned about what is happening in terms of inhumane conditions at the jail that include excessive use of solitary confinement, and lack of transportation to medical appointments and court appointments, and delays with mental health and other medical appointments. And I think King County, which is the oversight body of the King County Jail, needs to do more to address these concerns and ensure safety. And these really poor conditions at the jail didn't happen overnight. They are partially caused by lack of adequate staffing - that's been an issue for decades and was exacerbated since COVID. And also issues with an antiquated, really obsolete building. And lack of access to medical care and treatment, as I was stating. So on the King County Council, if elected, I want to work with disproportionately impacted communities and fellow King County Councilmembers to urgently address these issues. I think we need to invest more in restorative justice. And when the King County Council took that vote in terms of transferring those incarcerated folks to SCORE, I think they noted that we need to do more in terms of investing in restorative justice and upstream alternatives to really reimagine our criminal legal system. So first I think we need to prevent and reduce incarceration through investing in upstream - investments in youth and vulnerable adults. And that means doing more to expand effective diversion programs, such as the Law Assisted Diversion Program and Co-LEAD, which has been really effective in diverting folks out of the criminal legal system and out of the King County Jail to begin with. I think we also need to move towards actualizing King County Executive's vision and so many activists' vision of really closing the downtown jail and reimagining and reducing the size of the King County facilities. So in terms of the SCORE vote, I don't think either option were good options. The King County Council arrived at that vote because there had not been enough, really, work done on restorative justice and on the underlying issues around staffing and overcrowding at the jail. And I think keeping vulnerable incarcerated people in a downtown jail that had significant understaffing and overcrowding issues and a lack of access to medicine, or transferring incarcerated people to a facility that had potentially access-to-justice issues is not - neither one of those are good options. And so that's why I want to roll up my sleeves and ensure that we're really investing sufficiently in diversion programs and alternatives - to invest in folks to prevent them from becoming incarcerated in the first place and also move towards reimagining our system. And I will say that I don't think King County Council can address this issue alone. In 2022, there were over, I think, 100 people in King County Jail that were deemed to be incompetent to stand trial in King County that were awaiting a treatment bed. So if we work with our state partners to really fund mental health and ensure treatment for vulnerable populations like this, then we won't have to make these sort of decisions. [00:11:00] Crystal Fincher: So am I hearing that you would not vote - disagreeing with this vote? If in the future a vote were to come up to extend or expand this SCORE transfer or transfer to other jails, does that mean you're a No vote on that? [00:11:13] Sarah Reyneveld: I think that we need to, like I said, invest in alternatives and upstream alternatives to the criminal legal system. So like Councilmember Zahilay and Councilmember Kohl-Welles said - the transfer to SCORE was really not addressing the root cause of the issue. We need to be investing in upstream alternatives and staffing and ensuring that folks within our system are safe. [00:11:36] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Now you talked about substance use disorder being so key in treating upstream issues to really address the root causes of what is leading people to criminal behavior. We're dealing with a conundrum. The governor just called a special session following our State Supreme Court invalidating personal substance possession as a crime. Our Legislature took action a couple of years ago to recriminalize it - that has a sunset provision. They were not able to decide on any statewide policy before the session ended, so they're going to be taking that up in a special session. There are conversations about - should drug use be criminalized at all? If it should, is it a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony? Where do you stand? Where should personal possession of substances be dealt with? How would you handle that? [00:12:27] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think this is an issue that the Legislature has been grappling with and it's really an important issue. And I think we need to be moving away from criminalization of drug possession. Specifically, we moved away from criminalization of drug possession for marijuana - we need to do the same thing with psychedelics and other sorts of drugs that have medicinal and other positive effects. I think when it comes to addressing our fentanyl and heroin crisis, I think that if I were a legislator, I'd probably move in the direction of ensuring that we're looking at the lesser of any sort of crime - which would be a misdemeanor - and looking at pathways to treatment for that use. And I think we have to think about how we can connect folks that are in crisis because of substance use disorder with services. And so to me, it's about what more can King County do - because I'm not sitting in the place of a legislator - to ensure that we're investing in upstream solutions and treatment. And so I think helping to implement the King County Crisis Care Center Levy and ensuring that folks that are in - particularly a substance use crisis, whether - we know that we have a fentanyl crisis. I have worked on litigation to sue Purdue Pharma and understand just the addictive effects of those drugs. And we need to make sure that there's - those folks are connected to Medicaid-assisted treatment on demand, that they're connected to services. And so looking at what more we can do to scale up the crisis centers in an equitable way and preserve and restore beds that are primarily aimed at treating the underlying causes - I think it's critically important. And so one of my priorities, if elected to the King County Council, will be to look at how we're implementing these crisis care centers, how I'm working potentially with the Legislature for additional treatment beds for substance use disorder. I have, as so many people have had, someone in my life that has experienced a substance use disorder issue. And I think it's so hard to navigate the system to even find detox or substance use treatment for someone like me that knows how to navigate systems, much less someone that could be either at-risk at being involved in the criminal legal system or becoming unhoused or dealing with a substance use crisis. And so finding ways in which we can ensure that those that are affected are obtaining treatment, I think is critically important. [00:15:07] Crystal Fincher: You raised a number of important issues there and you touched on helping to get the Crisis Care Centers Levy - which passed - implemented. [00:15:16] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes. [00:15:17] Crystal Fincher: There have been some criticisms and challenges with implementation of programs - at all levels of government, really, but including with the County - and issues of staffing that may not have been foreseen, or challenges run into, communication issues. Do you think there's an opportunity to improve implementation of policy and programs overall? And how do we need to do that? What needs to change in order for that to happen? [00:15:42] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent point. And I absolutely think there are opportunities to improve policy implementation at the County. One of the things that I really appreciate about King County's work and that I wanna bring as a lens to my work is that I do believe that the best public policy is made - I think Councilmember Zahilay says this in his views and paraphrasing him, but - by those that are closest to the injustice. And so we really need to invest in community-based solution to a lot of our largest challenges in King County. And so I appreciate that on all issues of County government and all levels of County government, whether it be addressing the gun violence crisis or the behavioral health crisis or childcare, we're really investing in community-based solutions. So I think that's critically important, but I think we also have to have a way to measure outcomes in terms of what is the County doing that's working and what is the County doing that's not working. And if we have, for example, a health through housing facility that we have stood up, but it's not being adequately staffed and we're not adequately utilizing it, and really ensuring that vulnerable populations can access housing and those services - we need to look at what more we can do to ensure that that is being used appropriately and we're really maximizing opportunities to make good use of public dollars. So I think we absolutely need to be working with communities and listening to communities and centering their voices. And then I think King County, as a body, needs to work with those communities to make sure that the investments that were being made are working on the community level and that we're really scaling up things that work. And I, as someone who's taught at the Evans School of Public Affairs and has been a policy wonk for years, am really interested in working with community and my fellow councilmembers in doing that work. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: So on almost every measure, we're behind our 2030 climate goals. You've talked about addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of that on people being one of your priorities. We've experienced the impacts from wildfires, heat and cold, floods, et cetera. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:17:59] Sarah Reyneveld: Yes, thank you for that excellent question. As an Assistant Attorney General that works to protect our environment and public health, this is an issue that is critically important to me because of the urgency of action and the need to really address this challenge - centering communities in a just transition. So first, I think we need to electrify transportation and invest deeply in transit. We know that to meet our carbon reduction goals, we have to get people out of cars and into transit. And yet we have seen that Metro Transit service has languished since the pandemic and ridership has fallen by half. And those transit delays - I'm a transit rider to work, I take my little boy to daycare downtown with me - and they're disproportionately affecting transit riders, which are working families, BIPOC communities, low income communities, youth, seniors, and others that rely on transit. And it's a transit justice issue. So I have already been doing some of this work, but if elected to the King County Council, I want to continue this work by working with a coalition of transit riders and groups like the Transit Riders Union and Seattle Subway and The Urbanist and others to pass a county-wide transit revenue package to fund a King County Transportation Benefit District, which would supplant the city one and really help us restore an increased Metro Transit service to deliver faster, more frequent, reliable, and zero-emission service that connects all our community members. I think the measure should also ensure that transit is free to those who are cost-burdened. Right now, one of our impediments to increasing transit service and getting people out of cars is the shortage of transit operators and mechanics. And part of this funding package, or looking at other funding sources, has to be to address that issue of recruiting and retaining Metro bus drivers. And that has to include a living wage and additional incentives and supports, including safety supports, to build the workforce of Metro operators. Now, I just spoke to Metro operators at ATU last week, and they told me they're facing significant workplace safety and pay and other challenges that are really contributing to job stress and attrition. So we have to address that underlying issue if we're gonna get people out of cars and into transit. I also think we need to do more to decarbonize our built environment, which is probably the largest carbon emission in King County, through the adoption and strengthening of commercial building codes that will require communities to reduce energy use and also center communities in initiatives such as the Climate Equity Capital Pool to electrify their homes, for electric appliances and retrofits and solar panels. I think there's a lot of opportunities that we can leverage on the federal level to use grants and incentives and rebates to really update the building codes - and achieve these energy efficiencies and decarbonize our environment and our built environment - while bringing workers along. And I think we need to look at passing stronger provisions and incentives to transition off natural gas in a way that brings people and workers along and hastens this just transition to a clean energy economy - because we know that natural gas use in commercial and residential buildings accounts for a really large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. I would also say that we need to do more to sustainably manage our forests and our working lands to ensure climate-friendly forest management and farming to mitigate climate change impacts and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and look at how we can promote carbon storage in soils and increase the use of green space. I would also say, probably lastly, a large percentage of the carbon emissions in King County result from our food system. So I wanna lead in ensuring that all communities have opportunities to become food producers, to access urban and rural farmland, and that we're really centering disproportionately impacted communities and empowering them to become farmers - particularly in food deserts and ensuring that tribes have access to their traditional food sources and cultural resources. And I've talked a lot to labor about this, and I would say that I believe that we can work towards a just transition to a clean energy economy that really centers workers and equitable pathways to green jobs and apprenticeships, but it's gonna take us building a coalition. And I'm committed to really rolling up my sleeves and working with our labor partners and folks that are disproportionately impacted and our community members to build that just transition towards a clean energy economy and a sustainable community that addresses our climate crisis. [00:23:01] Crystal Fincher: You talked about needing to address the staffing issues in our public transportation department, certainly an issue in Metro that is urgently in need of addressing. We've seen in several other departments - with sheriffs, certainly with municipal police departments in the County - that they're giving retention bonuses, hiring bonuses to help attract people. And what we've seen is - although they are on record saying that that isn't really moving the needle and may not, there are a lot of people in other departments saying that would absolutely move the needle here. Do you support retention bonuses and hiring bonus and some of the things that we've seen for folks working in public safety for other workers? [00:23:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. I think we really need to listen to workers, and my platform is all about lifting up and centering and listening to workers. And to me, hiring bonuses are not gonna address the root cause of the issue. And the root cause of the issue is really living wages and supports for drivers. But if hiring bonuses will help certain segments of workers - I did talk to, for example, an ATU bus operator that said that they had hiring bonuses in Pierce County and that they had not yet received any sort of retention or hiring bonus. And so if that's something that's going to help workers feel valued, I think that we do have to look at that as an option. However, it doesn't really address the root cause. And that is we need to support our frontline workers and give them a living wage. So we need to increase base pay for workers. We need to give them benefits - adequate benefits - flexibility, and the working conditions that they deserve. And for some frontline workers, that's gonna mean more investment in safety measures or hazard pay. And for other frontline workers, that may include a bonus. But I think we need to listen to workers, we need to center workers, and we really need to give them living wages, benefits, and the working conditions they deserve. I think you are absolutely right to say that the workforce issue is huge in King County, and we have to do more to address it. When I talk to workers - everyone from grocery store workers to our bus operators, to behavioral health workers - they're really struggling to make a living wage to afford to live in King County, and save for retirement, and raise their kids. And they're really the sheroes and heroes of, I think, responding to the pandemic or the shadow pandemic, but also just of taking care of our communities. And they're really bearing the brunt of our crises - our unhoused crisis, the opioid crisis, the behavioral health crisis. So we at King County have to do better to support them, and that includes living wages, benefits, and working conditions. And I am interested and very committed to doing that work to center workers. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and you're completely correct that they are bearing the brunt of that. Another issue that kind of delves both into addressing climate change and mitigating the impacts of it and public health is air and clean air within buildings. And this has been increasingly talked about - especially as we've learned more about airborne pathogens, and as we've dealt more with wildfire smoke, and how much we've learned about how pollutants and pollution impact health, impact life expectancy. There are areas in Seattle that have life expectancies years shorter than other areas in the same city. Does the County have a responsibility to provide clean and safe air within its buildings and to try and incentivize that throughout other privately owned buildings and businesses in the County? [00:26:45] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I absolutely think the County has a responsibility - working with our state regulators as well as our federal regulators and policymakers - to ensure that everyone has access to clean air. I see this as an environmental justice issue - you pointed out that disproportionately - communities that live in areas with higher rates of pollution and that are more impacted, disproportionately impacted by climate change are experiencing poor air quality. And I think we have seen through the effects of climate change and really rampant wildfires and other issues, that these are disproportionately impacting our frontline communities and communities that are already overburdened. So I think that one thing that we can do at the King County level is really urgently lead on addressing the climate crisis. And our air quality is just gonna get worse as the climate crisis and the impacts increase. And so I think we need someone that's gonna really roll up their sleeves and provide strong leadership to really address these underlying issues around air and water pollution and to address the climate crisis. And so I wanna do that work with disproportionately impacted communities, and part of that work is really getting people out of cars and into transit. So really think having a strong vision for what that looks like and how to center frontline communities is really critically important. [00:28:18] Crystal Fincher: Looking at the state of this race, you're in a competitive race this time - you were last time, too - but this time you're part of a competitive race. What do your endorsements say about you, and what are you most proud of? [00:28:33] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think I am - just to get back to my roots - I am a public sector attorney, I am a working parent, I am a community advocate, and I have lived in the 4th Council District for 25 years, and really have dedicated my 15-year public service career to advancing progressive policy, legal, and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges. And I have worked in community to drive progressive policies forward, and I think my endorsements reflect the work that I've done in community. I have endorsements from five members of the King County Council, including Councilmember Kohl-Welles and Councilmember Zahilay, who I've worked with directly around securing access to more childcare, to addressing gender-based violence, to doing more for affordable housing. And I think my endorsements really speak to the depth of work and the way that I have worked to elevate community voices in community and doing that work. I would say that one of the endorsements I'm most proud of is Councilmember Kohl-Welles' endorsement because she's been a mentor to me and I have worked with her on a number of issues to improve the lives of women in disproportionately impacted communities in King County. And I'm also proud of the endorsement from my boss, A.G. Bob Ferguson. I have dedicated my career to being on the frontlines, to helping enforce workers' rights to fair wages to equal pay, to protect our environment. And I've done this work in the Attorney General's office and the fact that I have the support of my boss as I'm running for King County Council, just like he ran for King County Council, and that he's been helping me out on the campaign trail. And ensuring that I'm running a strong grassroots campaign really means the world to me. [00:30:20] Crystal Fincher: Now, we've also talked about how important it is to enact a lot of policy, to take care of people - obviously, we need to address staffing. All of the things that we've talked about today - a lot of them require revenue. We just ran a big levy because we needed the revenue. The list of things that everyone says is necessary, evidently costs more than we have in the budget, so new revenue is needed. What progressive revenue options exist at the County level today, and will you pursue any of them? [00:30:50] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, so I have a long history of advocating for progressive revenue, including the capital gains tax as a citizen advocate and board member of Washington's Paramount Duty. And so I have fought with, alongside a coalition of folks that are really pushing for progressive revenue reform at the state level. I still think there's so much more we can do and look forward to being a strong partner in that work. King County is projected to face revenue shortfalls and has constrained revenue sources. I do wanna fight against austerity budgets and look really critically at how we can obtain authority from the Legislature to pass truly progressive revenue sources that center working people. I think we also need to look at potentially lifting the 1% property tax lid if we can provide exemptions for homeowners and fixed income seniors. But I think the kind of frustrating thing about the County is it is revenue-constrained and that we need to work hard both on the County Council and in partnership with communities to figure out what more we can do to obtain authority to pass truly progressive revenue sources, whether or not that's taxing business or looking at more progressive revenue sources other than property tax and sales tax and some of these use fees. So I'm dedicated to doing that work in partnership with community and I'm really looking forward to that. [00:32:26] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. And with the budget, King County does incremental budgeting making it difficult for the public to understand - making it difficult for some people in government to understand, but especially the public - to understand how King County funds are allocated in the base budget. What can be done to make the budget easier for the public to understand and influence? [00:32:47] Sarah Reyneveld: Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. We need more transparency in the budget process and we need more participation from community at the County level in the budget process. I have testified, for example, funding for the mental health counselors under MIDD. I have testified for affordable housing. I've testified for more childcare funding. And sometimes it's difficult, as the budget comes over from the Executive, to know what's different about the budget, right? And so I find generally that through this work as a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board and as a citizen advocate that King County budgets are not as accessible, for example, as legislative budgets. And more needs to be done to ensure that they're more transparent and accessible, and also that we're ensuring that the public is engaged in the budgeting process and understands it. So I think one of the things that we can do, and Councilmember Zahilay has done such a great job of this, is just explaining the King County budget process - how the budget comes over from the Executive, what the budget looks like, and how to understand the budget. I think another thing we could do is helping to really center folks that historically have not had a seat at the table in the budget process and have been excluded from power structures in developing policy and budgetary proposals - so that those folks are actually involved in the collaboration process through working groups and meetings and collaboration so that we're moving more towards participatory budget models, where constituents are not just involved in testifying, but really involved and actively involved every step of the process and ultimately in the decisions that impact them. So I'm really interested in working with all communities, and particularly frontline communities that are disproportionately impacted by these issues, and to really look to see what we can do towards more participatory budgeting. But first, of course, we have to make that process more transparent. [00:34:49] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we said before, you have at least one opponent now - the filing deadline isn't for a few weeks, couple weeks, few weeks here. So as you're talking to people who are considering who they're gonna vote for in this race, why should they vote for you over your opponents? [00:35:08] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you. I'm running because I wanna continue the work that I've done with community and elevate community voices here in the 4th Council District and beyond to advance bold and transformative action for workers, for working families, and our environment on the King County Council. And as I said before, I think we're in a critical moment of time, and I am really committed to working with our most impacted communities to ensure that we are building back better and really creating equitable economic recovery that centers workers and working families and leads to a more sustainable future. Like many in our district, I'm a working parent, I'm a public school parent, transit rider, community organizer, and I have really dedicated my career to advancing progressive legal policy and budgetary solutions to some of our most pressing challenges - and I think we've really gotten results. As a member of the King County Women's Advisory Board, I have worked in partnership with community and the King County Council to secure investments in affordable housing, behavioral health, childcare, and services for survivors of gender-based violence. And I really wanna build on that track record. And I think I have the skills to do so - to really center community voices and to advance really bold, progressive solutions. I think there's three things that I would highlight to voters about why they should choose me in a competitive race. One is community - I'm running for the community and have demonstrated a history of leadership in my community, which is really reflected in our campaign's range of endorsements from elected officials to community leaders and labor. And I have lived experience as a mom and union member and transit rider that is not only reflective of my district, but I feel can be valuable on the King County Council. And lastly, I have a demonstrated history of leadership in my community working to build coalitions to deliver on progressive policies for workers and working families. And I think I've demonstrated that I'm unafraid to grapple with and do the real work of really advancing transformative solutions that are necessary at this critical moment in time. And I really look forward to the conversation on the campaign and hopefully to working with my community to ensure equitable economic recovery that really centers workers and working families and creates a more sustainable future for all. [00:37:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us today. [00:37:40] Sarah Reyneveld: Thank you so much for having me. [00:37:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-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.

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Becka Johnson Poppe about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the skill set 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. 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 Becka Johnson Poppe at @votebecka.   Becka Johnson Poppe Becka has been putting progressive ideas into action across our region's largest public entities for more than a decade. Currently, Becka oversees half of King County's $16 billion budget and leads a team that works to advance environmental, transportation, and racial justice priorities. Previously, at the University of Washington, she promoted equitable access to higher education and led state budget and policy analysis as the Director of Policy, Planning & State Operations. Becka volunteers as a Director on the Board of YouthCare, working to end youth homelessness, and chairs the Race Equity Justice Committee.  She also volunteers on the Board of Doney Coe Pet Clinic, supporting the animal companions of people experiencing homelessness. Becka is an elected Precinct Committee Officer, a member of the Jackson Foundation Leadership Council, and has served on the King County Democrats Endorsement Committee.  She previously worked in mental health research for Stanford University and has mentored students from diverse communities over the last two decades. In her free time, Becka enjoys traveling with her spouse and their cat, Edgar, as well as spending time outdoors and cheering on the Mariners.   Resources Campaign Website - Becka Johnson Poppe   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I'm very pleased to have King County Council candidate Becka Johnson Poppe joining us today. Welcome to the show. [00:01:01] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you so much, Crystal. It's really nice to be here. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Great to be here with you. So I guess just starting off - what made you choose to run for this King County Council position? [00:01:12] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you. Yeah, so I've lived in District 4 for over a decade. I was born and raised here in the Puget Sound region. I'm the granddaughter of two veterans, daughter of two public servants - and they really taught me what it meant to be tough and what it meant to serve the community. Growing up, I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do, but I knew that I wanted to take care of my community. I studied biology and psychology in college and spent a couple of years doing mental health research at Stanford after that. While I was there, I volunteered as an after-school program leader in a low-income community - and between my work and my volunteering - I saw a lot of challenges that people were facing with navigating mental health issues, economic injustice, the first effects of climate change, and really all the societal structures and policies that do an unfortunately impressive job of inhibiting social mobility and access to basic services. In many cases, the only thing keeping people afloat was having a supportive community around them. And that really hit home for me - I realized I wanted to get back to my community and work on these issues back at home. I am honored to be part of this community in District 4 and in King County. There are a lot of incredibly dedicated, creative, supportive people who have made careers out of finding ways to make the world a better place - and like I said, the community that you have around you can really make all the difference. A dear friend of mine was living out of their car in King County not that long ago, and I think about them when I think about the 50,000 people who were unhoused in King County last year. I think that there are moments in life that many of us have had where you can see how close you are to going from making it work to not making it work. For a little while, I was working three jobs and had a bank account with two digits. I had tons of support around me, so I was fine - but I was in a precarious spot and if I hadn't had that support, it could have looked really different. I think that there is so much work that needs to be done to create communities that truly support each other. I think we can all agree we have a housing crisis, a behavioral health crisis, a climate crisis - and to take on these issues, we need someone who can bring people together and make progress right out of the gate. So over the last decade, I've led budgets and policy development for some of the region's largest public entities. I've gone from a bank account with two digits to overseeing half of King County's $16 billion budget. Really, a budget is about our values - it's about our priorities and how we make those real, and that's a unique skill set that I bring. I really see three priorities connecting everything that the County does - protecting the environment, advancing equity, and stimulating the economy. These three E's - the environment, equity, and the economy - all intersect, and I'm really committed to centering our community's voices and our community's needs, because I've seen firsthand what that looks like and what that can do. I think we really have an opportunity to show the state and the rest of the nation what it means to be a community that is diverse and inclusive and dedicated to solving the most complex issues. King County is bigger than 15 states, and so we have the opportunity and the responsibility to lead in taking on the existential threat of climate change, and creating more housing that's affordable for more people, in delivering universal childcare, improving our transportation experience. And all of this is going to take centering the voices of people most affected, creating accessible career pathways with family-sustaining wages, moving big capital initiatives faster and more equitably, and making sure that everyone feels safe, respected, and supported. And I've spent my career turning progressive ideas into progressive action - with the voices and votes of our community, I'm really excited to hit the ground running. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: All right - you talked about the three E's. Those three E's are absolutely impacted, as you talked about, by housing and homelessness and how accessible or not those are to people. One thing called out by experts that's a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline workers are short-staffed, they're overworked, and their wages are not covering the cost of living for this area. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages, and how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services? [00:05:32] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thanks Crystal. So there was a recent UW research study that showed that social service staff are underpaid by 37%. And with a combination of lagging wages, rising cost of living, and just the really challenging work that folks have to do in these spaces - that's created a real workforce crisis in the human services sector. In King County and Seattle, this kind of work is primarily performed by nonprofits, like you pointed out, in contracts with government agencies. So we really need to make sure that, as a government, that we are using the tools that are available to us to make sure that nonprofits have the ability to pay their employees more. And where we're really seeing this hit home is for social workers, for people working with youth, for intake specialists, for people who are doing that really tough human services work. Women account for - it was 79% of all human services workers in King County. And that same UW study showed that it's workers of color who are overrepresented in the lowest paid human services job, including frontline care work. So when we're looking at what we can be doing as a county to make sure that nonprofits can increase the minimum pay for folks, to be providing inflationary wage adjustments, to be improving non-wage benefits - that's all gonna come down to how we as a government can be supporting that work. So I think we absolutely need to be doing this, not just for the sake of our work in our homelessness communities, but for the sake of work in so many different spaces. [00:07:05] Crystal Fincher: Public safety is top of mind for so many people - and just what it means to be safe, what comprehensive public safety means. And a focus on addressing root causes - really getting to the heart of people being victimized and reducing it - people have been asking for that for quite some time. Part of this process and part of what King County is responsible for is operating multiple jails, really. And the main jail has been having a number of problems - from overcrowding, they had a lack of water for a while, inadequate healthcare, shortages. Would you have voted to approve the transfer of inmates to the SCORE jail to try and alleviate the issues plaguing the King County Jail, or would you have a different plan? [00:07:51] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, so a close family member of mine was incarcerated, and this is something that is really near and dear to my heart. I think the human experience in our jails is something that we really have to focus on. We didn't prioritize, the County didn't prioritize COVID vaccines for this population. And we are seeing a behavioral health problem that's manifesting in our jails with the suicide numbers. This is really concerning. I am worried about the fact that SCORE doesn't have options for in-person visitation. I'm worried about folks in our jails not being able to access their legal representation, support from behavioral health professionals. I'm worried about the experience for people who are trying to do that critical work to support their clients - who need interpreters, who need that in-person access to just do basic things like pass documents back and forth. And what this really comes down to is making sure that we are keeping folks out of jail in the first place - that we're looking at equitable, human-centered, criminal legal strategies. And these takes the form of things like community courts, community diversion programs, and scaling that up is really critical. It is a fact that we don't have enough staff to fill our jails right now. We don't have enough people to even escort folks from the front desk to meet with their clients, and that is - that's really unacceptable. We need to be looking at those staffing shortages and making sure that we are being efficient with our resources. If we're paying people to do work but they aren't even able to access their clients, that's not efficient - let alone the human experience that's going on for the people in our jails. So investing in those holistic solutions to keep people out of jail in the first place is a big part of this, and I'm hopeful that the behavioral health levy that was recently passed is going to be part of this solution. I think we also need to be looking at our community courts - and one thing that I want to spend more time looking at is misdemeanor cases, which are not currently eligible for community court. Just really making sure that we are taking a step back and paying attention to the human experience and also how to keep people from being in that situation in the first place. [00:09:57] Crystal Fincher: Should we close the King County Jail? [00:09:59] Becka Johnson Poppe: I think that we should absolutely be moving toward that - and doing that in concert with all of these holistic services, and making sure that we are having alternatives to that jail that are going to be better suited to the community needs. [00:10:14] Crystal Fincher: And I may have just missed it, so would you have also voted to - you talked about a number of other things that were absolutely crucial and critical, and people who are incarcerated having connections to the outside is critical to lower chances of recidivism and them able to integrate back in the community successfully. Would you have voted to approve that SCORE contract? [00:10:35] Becka Johnson Poppe: I would not have voted to approve that SCORE contract. [00:10:38] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and so I assume that if it comes back, which some people think that it will - and need to be extended or expanded - that you would be a No vote on that too. [00:10:46] Becka Johnson Poppe: That's right. [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. So we talked about homelessness, affordable housing, about the need to increase pay for frontline workers and that being crucial to being able to solve this response. What are your top priorities for taking action to reduce homelessness and increase the affordability of housing? [00:11:06] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thank you. So I mentioned earlier that a good friend of mine was living out of their car in King County not that long ago and so this hits home for me. And I've also been working to end youth homelessness as a volunteer for . YouthCare, and as a volunteer for a really small nonprofit that provides care to the animal companions of people who are experiencing homelessness. And one of the things that I've observed is that we really need to be leveraging partnerships to support the needs of the community and making sure that we are not missing handoffs. We need to make sure that we are communicating between the systems, making sure that we're providing a safety net for the community. And the fact is a lot of our contracts right now don't allow for resources to be used flexibly for wraparound support. So that's one thing I want to work on. And as we were talking about, keeping the team is really critical. When I'm volunteering for YouthCare, it's our frontline staff who make all the difference for our unhoused young people. I've advocated for wage increases because it's the right thing to do - and because the bottom line is if we don't take care of our people, we lose them and we lose the vital individual connections that make the work matter. I think in order to take care of our community, we really need to take care of our people. And whether you care about any of that or not, which I hope you do - I know that you do, Crystal, and I hope that all of our listeners do here - if we are constantly losing people and having to navigate that turnover, it's just really inefficient from a resource standpoint. Those hiring processes - going through that over and over - that's tapping into scarce resources that we could be using for so many other important things. So it's about leveraging those partnerships, it's about keeping the team together. And then how we pair this with affordable housing - it is really hard for people to afford to live here and rents are at all-time highs, housing prices are really tough. Having a comprehensive approach that addresses zoning, affordability, that links housing with transportation - it's not only going to be critical to help with equity, to help with the economy, but also with the environment - getting back to those three E's - to make sure that we have diverse communities while we're mitigating the impacts of climate change by pairing housing where transportation is. I'm really for making sure that we have more housing that's affordable to more people, and doing that with what I would consider a 'Yes, And' approach. So making sure that we have mixed-use development where housing is built alongside commercial and retail spaces, making it easier to build with permitting, with design review - really taking a look at those processes - finding ways to support first-time home buyers as well. And I get kind of excited about this, but talking about the full life cycle of these projects - everything from land acquisition - the timing of land acquisitions with our budget processes, that is a big challenge right now. Building capacity in the community to do these projects so that we have culturally competent developers, making sure that we move construction faster and more equitably to get these affordable housing units created, making sure that we have green building features that are part of this construction and these plans from the start, thinking about the jobs that we're creating - good union jobs as part of this. And incentivizing the creation of affordable housing that isn't just tiny units - that is available for multi-generational households, which are often folks from immigrant communities. And all of this is going to get back to those multi-benefits of how we are supporting the environment, equity, and the economy simultaneously. I could nerd out here a little bit talking about a program at the County around transfer of development rights, which is something that we use to preserve open space by transferring the development potential of that land to areas where we can have more density because the services and utilities are available to support that. And this is something that I think is really cool because the revenue that we generate by selling these development credits allows us to then purchase more open space, and be preserving those open spaces. So these multi-benefits, I think, are where things can get really cool. And how we can be using those incentives to make sure that we have green building features, and even access to childcare services where people live and not just wherever it makes sense to build them otherwise. This is going to make everyone's lives easier, healthier, and better. So I get really excited about this stuff. [00:15:30] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Now, drug decriminalization is a big topic of discussion locally and at the state legislative level right now. We had our legislators working on legislation to try and establish a new policy for personal possession of substances, after our State Supreme Court invalidated the law that criminalized that. Legislature did that, but put a sunset provision in the first go-round that they did - after they made it a misdemeanor, tried to fund some infrastructure across the state for treatment and diversion, those types of programs. But they weren't able to come to a new agreement in this session. Governor Inslee recently called a new special session to address this, and we'll see if they come up with a solution after that. But if not, it's going to be up to counties, cities, and towns to figure out what policy is the right policy for them. Should we be criminalizing simple possession of substances? And if not, what should the plan be? [00:16:31] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thanks Crystal. We need to be making sure that folks are getting the help that they need rather than punishment. Historically, we have just not seen evidence that shows that punishment works, and it's disproportionately affecting Black and Brown communities. There needs to be a fix that happens at the state level because I don't think that it's a great solution to have 40 different rules with 40 different jurisdictions - where people have to wonder if they step across one line, if they're going to be treated differently than if they're hopping over here. And so I'm really hopeful that the state comes through with a fix. If they don't, we really need to be focusing again back on the root issues. What is resulting in people having substance abuse disorder, having these challenges in the first place? Possession - drug possession is not the biggest public safety threat facing our communities right now. And we have scarce resources to devote to public safety so prioritizing that differently is an imperative, while recognizing that substance abuse is a big problem. Fentanyl death rates are growing year over year, we've already exceeded the 2022 death rates so far - and we're only a few months into 2023 - but we absolutely cannot prosecute our way out of the problem. Prevention, treatment, long-term care - these are all critical pieces - and data gathering to support that. Another really important thing that I've noticed is that this is hitting the people who are experiencing homelessness the hardest. I think we need a healthcare team that is really dedicated to supporting people who are experiencing homelessness. And recognizing that if people refuse treatment - that's part of the disease, that is part of the process. So we still need to have that treatment available - we need to help folks work through that part of the disease that presents as refusal, and not just giving up on folks. So I am really hopeful that the state comes through with a fix - and I think at the County level, we need to be prioritizing our scarce resources in a way that is going to help people, rather than try to prosecute them. [00:18:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely makes sense. Now, you talked about another one of your Es, the environment. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals but we're experiencing impacts from climate change more than we ever have before, whether it's extreme weather events with heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 goals? [00:19:02] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, it's really important to be recognizing that climate change is a threat multiplier that burdens communities already facing public health and economic disparities. I think that we can be looking at ways to center community voices in how we are working to address climate change, and this is something that I've had direct experience with. A couple years ago, I created the County's first Climate Equity Bond - it's a $20 million pool of funds - and in doing so, had the honor to sit with frontline communities experiencing the first and worst consequences of climate change. I met with them for seven months and found a way to make their priorities a reality. I really want to scale up that work at the County and do even more of this - and make sure that we are not being performative about the way that we are involving community voices, but really doing that deliberately - and balancing that need to move quickly, but making sure that we are not leaving folks behind. Another really critical piece to this is moving our big construction initiatives faster by breaking down barriers to delivering on those initiatives. So much of what we need to do to address climate change is going to come down to how we can deliver on our capital projects - whether it's installing electric vehicle infrastructure, whether it is creating big solar fields, affordable housing that's close to transportation - these large-scale energy projects, these large-scale construction initiatives are gonna be key. This is something that I've been working on at the County - is figuring out how to break down the barriers that all of our construction initiatives are facing right now, which are around permitting, procurement, supply chains, labor shortages. And this is something that I'm really excited about because there are things that we can be doing to break down those barriers and move these projects faster and more equitably for the sake of the environment. Another thing that I've been working on related to our big capital projects is making sure that when we are making decisions, we are doing that in a way that recognizes the carbon emissions from our buildings will harm future generations. This is called social cost of carbon. It's a real dollar amount that we can actually be applying to calculations about which alternatives we should pursue when we're looking at different construction projects and construction options - and bringing that into our decision-making is really critical. We also need to be going after federal and state funding. There are huge opportunities right now. The Inflation Reduction Act, Federal Infrastructure Bill, Climate Commitment Act, Clean Fuel Standard, the EPA has a $5 billion grant option opportunity for climate pollution reduction. We have a huge opportunity right now to be going after those dollars in a coordinated manner that those grant opportunities - actually, in some cases, demand that we be coordinated across the region. And the County - one of the biggest things that the County can do is bring people together to bring that coordination. And then a huge part of this is transportation. We need to have a coordinated plan for installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure, working with our neighboring jurisdictions and private entities. We need to be electrifying our bus fleet, but recognizing that if no one is riding our buses, it doesn't really matter if they're electric if everyone's using their cars instead. So we need to be bringing people back to our buses, and if it's reliable, accessible, and safe, people are going to use it. [00:22:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, one related item is the air that we breathe - you talked about reducing the pollution there. Certainly, air quality impacts everything about our lives - from life expectancy, to whether we're experiencing asthma, heart disease, lung disease, many things like that. What role does the County have to play, or what responsibility does the County have, to ensure that clean air and appropriate ventilation happens in public buildings? But also, we're seeing a lot of new construction - just passed some legislation that will probably spur construction of housing units. How should the County be enforcing air standards, or should it? [00:23:05] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, well, to start off here, a really critical piece of this is transportation, because the biggest source of emissions in the County is emissions from transportation. So to expand on that a little bit, we really need to be bringing people back to our buses. And as I was saying, if it's reliable, accessible, safe, people are going to use it. Right now, our buses are arriving late, on reduced schedules, too many of our neighbors who are in crisis are having episodes on buses completely unsupported. And I think if we asked a big room of people - how many of us have had an uncomfortable experience on a bus - we'd probably all raise our hands. So to be reducing our emissions, we need to bring people back to our buses. And I think we can do that by making our experience safer, by having an on-demand care team, where our Metro operators who have such a tough job already - my neighbor actually is a Metro operator, he's in his 80s, he is one of the toughest people that I know - and we can make a system where those Metro operators can flag down a care team to meet them en route and provide human-oriented holistic support to people who are in crisis on our buses. We also need to recognize that the traditional commute isn't the main reason that people are using buses anymore. So to get people to transition away from single-occupancy vehicles, we need to have transportation that's available around the clock and not just in those traditional commute hours. We have the Metro Connects vision to help us move toward that vision, but there's a big funding gap and it was put together in 2016. So we need to refresh that data with post-pandemic data to make sure that we're moving toward the right solutions and the right targets here. We have a lot of one-time funding that we can be using right now to make sure that we are staffed up with Metro, to make sure that we're improving that safety and that ridership experience. We also need to be pursuing long-term solutions. So I think all of this is going to be really key to improving our air quality and making sure that we have better air quality for everyone. And in terms of our buildings, it gets back to those choices that we're making about how we construct and factoring those emissions - those long-term emissions - and the effects of those into our decision-making. We also can be making sure that, when we have these wildfire incidents and smoke, that we have spaces for people to go where they can escape that. There are not enough places right now where people can be safe from the effects of our wildfire season, which is really what it is right now, unfortunately - it's a season of the year that we've become pretty familiar with. There are things called - I might mispronounce this here - Corsi–Rosenthal Boxes, which are quick ways to clean the air for folks. It cleans the air by up to 60%. And that's something that we can use in a lot of different settings to essentially retrofit spaces that aren't already constructed in ways that allow folks to be able to breathe clean air. And we really need to be engaging people at every stage of the process in conversations about indoor air quality. We've learned this through COVID - we can be leveraging those same learnings to move forward and be ensuring that as the climate continues to warm and as we continue to have more wildfire smoke, that we are not having that impact all of us. But really that - if we look at the maps of air pollution where folks are most affected by this, it's the same regions of the County that are disproportionately impacted by existing public health disparities, by economic disparities, by gun violence, by so many different things. And recognizing where needs are greatest is going to be key in making sure that we are improving the air quality in meaningful ways. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, you manage half of the County budget. You talked about how huge the County is - it is large, it is formidable - so that is quite the undertaking that you have. But when it comes to that budget, King County does incremental budgeting - making it really difficult for people to understand how funds are allocated in the base budget. Being that this is one of your strengths and an area you are very familiar with, what can be done to make the budget easier for the public to understand and influence? [00:27:15] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, this is something I get really excited about. Few things are more important than how we use our resources and transparency from a lot of different angles is critical - the funding sources, how that funding is being used, how communities are being involved in those choices, and in the implementation of things that get funded. I've been working on this at the County and on the campaign trail so far - just demystifying the budget process. It doesn't have to be complicated. Everyone understands income coming in, expenses going out. We budget for ourselves individually in ways that align with our values and priorities. If you really care about cooking, maybe you're going to spend a little bit more on the supplies that you're using or the ingredients that you're using. Those are your priorities reflected in your own personal budget. And that same thing happens at the County. There are opportunities that we're using - that I've been using right now - to really try to make this easier for folks to be involved in and to understand. And part of this is meeting people where they're at. It's great to have town halls, it's great to have office hours, it's great to have presentations - but thinking about the timing and location of those is really critical. If we're holding space for folks to engage with these processes at 3 p.m. on a Tuesday, you're going to get a very different set of people than if you have it at 7 p.m. And it's - for me, one of the most fun parts of the campaign so far has been knocking on doors and literally engaging with folks where they're at - at their home, where they don't have to go anywhere. They can just share their thoughts with me when I come up and ask for a few minutes of their time. But I think the bottom line here is - it doesn't have to be complicated. There are ways that we can be putting that information online to make this more accessible to folks, to make it easier to understand. It's not about sharing more data - that can just be overwhelming, that can be more cumbersome. It's about presenting that data in ways that people can access and understand, and really going to people to make sure that they have their voices heard in the process. [00:29:23] Crystal Fincher: Now, the list of things that everyone says is necessary and a lot of the things that we've talked about today cost more money than we appear to have in the budget, so new revenue is needed. What progressive revenue options exist at the County level and will you pursue any of them? [00:29:39] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, we are unfortunately heading into lean times at the County. The state did not pass a revenue fix that we really needed. So as a little bit of background - right now, so the General Fund for the County is our most flexible source of revenue that funds a lot of the critical things that the County does. The biggest source of funding for the General Fund is property tax revenue. And right now, revenue from our property tax is capped - the growth of that revenue is capped at 1% per year, plus the cost of new construction. This comes out to essentially about 2% per year, or a little bit more. And I think we've all seen that inflation has been going up by way more than 2% per year. So we have more money going out the door than we have coming in. And this means that to even just sustain the level of service that we have now, we are going to need way more than that 2%. So we're headed into lean times because the state did not lift that cap on property tax revenue growth. And I think that voters deserve someone who has the budget experience to think creatively about how to avoid cuts and maximize the dollars that we have. So as I mentioned - as you mentioned - over the last few years, I've been overseeing half of the County's budget and this has given me some insight into some of the tools that we can be using. We talked earlier about going after big federal dollars - that's an opportunity that we have to help shore up the work that we're doing. We have opportunities to be multiplying the dollars that we have with matching funds, with pilot projects that make the County competitive for larger dollars. We can also be getting more aggressive with our bonding strategy. So right now the County has a AAA rating, which is great. And you don't need to know anything about bonds to know that AAA is the best - it's really freaking good. We can be taking that down a notch - and still getting pretty much all of the benefits that we have at our AAA - with something that's just a smidge lower than that, but freeing up a lot of dollars to meet urgent needs now. These needs are only going to get more expensive the longer that they're left unaddressed, so this is actually a fiscally responsible solution. If we use that bonding authority right now to get more dollars right now, that's gonna help in the long run. And then base budget. So you mentioned earlier that we budget at the County on an incremental basis, and this is absolutely true. This is true of a lot of local jurisdictions. And what this means essentially is that when we have new money coming in, we decide what to do with those new dollars, but we don't take a lot of time to dig back into the resources that were decided upon in the past. And those resources were guided by different values and priorities than we have now. We're talking decades of decisions. And that means that the values and priorities that we have now - that are really intentionally centering racial justice and equity - that's great for the way that we're using our resources now, but that's not what was guiding resource decisions in the past. So we have a huge opportunity to not only free up dollars and reprioritize those dollars to help as we're headed into lean times, but to also undo systemic racism by reevaluating the way that we have used resources in the past and reassigning those dollars to meet where needs are greatest. We need to keep getting dollars out into the community and recognizing that King County taxpayers can't be the only ones to shoulder this burden in perpetuity, but we can be the ones to model this work and how we can do this correctly and creatively - to then work with our colleagues at the state and federal levels to find sustainable progressive funding solutions for the long-term. [00:33:21] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and anyone who knows me in real life has probably had a conversation with me about how crucial and important bonding is - and using it in times like now is to be able to solve problems at the scale that we're experiencing them. Now, you're in a competitive race. This position - District 4 is a contested race. The filing deadline is May 19th, so who knows if anyone else is gonna get in the race. But at this point in time, people are trying to evaluate the differences between candidates and who you are, and how you may vote. What do your endorsements say about you, and what are you most proud of? [00:33:59] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, thank you. I am really proud to be endorsed by a lot of folks who really represent the community - small business owners, nonprofit leaders, people who are out there doing the work in the community. I'm also proud to be endorsed by State Representative Liz Berry, State Representative Kristine Reeves, County Councilmember Joe McDermott - these are folks who I really respect because of the way that they've led our community toward progressive solutions to some of the most complex issues. And I recognize that I haven't been working toward a specific elected office for a long period of time, and so - I have, though, been operating in the community, connecting with my community, and I think that my endorsements really reflect that. [00:34:50] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now another thing that you covered was talking about - with the budget - that how we deliver projects is as important as the overall goal of it, and can influence the quality of it. This has been a continued issue that we've seen at many levels of government, including the County, where great policy is passed that's gonna help a lot of people, but it experiences some challenges in the implementation. What can we do to improve how we implement policy at the County level? [00:35:19] Becka Johnson Poppe: That is such a big question, and I really appreciate that question. There is so much that we can be doing to improve how we implement policy - it is really up to our elected officials and our governments. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to be undoing the status quo and replacing it with something better, to be centering the voices of people most affected, to be understanding the racial justice impact of policies and programs by using data carefully and intentionally - and this really factors into how we roll out those policies. As a County Councilmember, part of my job will be recognizing the maps showing where needs are greatest - whether it's gun violence, public health disparities, urban heat - and making sure that we are involving the voices of folks in those areas where needs are greatest. We need to be forming partnerships to be implementing our policies effectively - partnerships with frontline workers, partnerships with labor, partnerships with nonprofit organizations - and really paying attention to the experience of people who are doing the work and the expertise of people who are doing that work. We were talking about moving big capital initiatives faster. So much of what the County does is constructing things, building things - and so I've seen firsthand the importance of our capital design and our construction work. And if we move capital projects faster, we create more jobs, more union jobs, we sustain those jobs, and we get that value out into the communities faster. As I mentioned, our big capital initiatives are facing barriers around permitting, procurement, supply chains, labor shortages. We need to be paying attention to that because those problems probably aren't going away, but there are ways that we can be breaking that down by really making sure that we are using all of the tools in the toolbox. With procurement, for example, there are alternative processes with design-bid-build, that - and a whole bunch of different options here - where we can be staffing in a way that allows us to be creative, that will actually save us more money in the long run if we staff up in ways that will allow for that creativity. And sometimes this work is going to be more complex at the outset, but it's going to save us money and save us time in the long run, and so thinking about those trade-offs and thinking about how we can be making fiscally responsible investments, investments and policy implementation plans that really involve people at every step of the way - it's all going to end up being better for us in the long run. This is such a big question. I feel like there's so many things that we could talk about here, but this is really critical to the work that the County does. [00:38:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, as we conclude today - as we talked about - there are lots of voters and residents in this community who are trying to figure out not only what's happening, but who you guys are and where you stand, what the differences are, and how to make their decision on who they're going to vote for. When you talk to people like that, what do you tell them? [00:38:25] Becka Johnson Poppe: Yeah, I tell them - I've spent my career turning progressive ideas into progressive action. And whoever gets elected is going to have a lot to navigate. We have 50,000 unhoused neighbors, we have public safety issues, we have land conservation challenges, transportation issues, backlogs in our criminal legal system. If we are going to take on the biggest, most urgent issues in the region, we need someone who can make progress right out of the gate. We're headed into lean times at the County, and I think voters deserve someone who has the budget experience to think creatively about how to avoid cuts, how to maximize the dollars that we have. And I have that experience, and that's a unique skillset that I bring. I'm excited to bring my experience not only with budgets, but with moving construction projects faster and more equitably, with centering community voices, and turning those asks and those values into tangible outcomes. My experience doing mental health research - understanding data and science - my experience volunteering working with our unhoused neighbors. As I said earlier, King County is bigger than 15 states. We can show the rest of the state and the rest of the nation what it means to be a community that is diverse and inclusive, and solving the most complex issues. We can lead in taking on the existential threat of climate change, in creating more housing that's affordable to more people, in delivering universal childcare, improving our transportation experience. And I'm really committed to this community - to the region I grew up in - and I'm really excited to hit the ground running. [00:39:53] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Becka Johnson Poppe, candidate for King County Council District 4, for spending this time with us and helping us get to know you better today. Really appreciate it. [00:40:02] Becka Johnson Poppe: Thank you so much for having me here, Crystal. I am a huge fan, and this is a huge honor. Thank you. [00:40:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. 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 Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a 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.

Alexander Jay waited for nearly a year behind bars at the King County Jail before being transported on March 3 to Western State Hospital for mental health treatment.State law, as well as federal and superior court orders mandate inmates like Jay who are deemed incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness must be moved to a state psychiatric facility within seven days. In Jay's case, it was 299 days since King County Superior Court Judge Johanna Bender signed the order for treatment.Jay is charged with assaulting a Harborview nurse at a Seattle light rail station in March, 2022, and then stabbing a woman at a Seattle bus stop the same day. In August, Jay was charged with murdering a man with a piece of rebar on Capitol Hill hours after assaulting the two strangers.Jay's case underscores a problem uncovered by the KING 5 Investigators in the series Mentally Ill, Waiting in Jail – hundreds of people with serious mental illness stuck in jails across Washington without access to trial or treatment.The case gained more attention after Judge Bender ruled the state agency responsible for providing the psychiatric help, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), was in contempt of court for the delays. Bender sanctioned DSHS $250 per day for “willful failure” to “timely admit Mr. Jay to inpatient competency restoration treatment.” Bender ruled the money should be paid to Jay, with a responsible party as a custodian, until being transported to Western State.The total for Jay added up to approximately $75,00Support the showSign Up For Exclusive Episodes At: https://reasonabletv.com/LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. https://www.youtube.com/c/NewsForReasonablePeople

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy! Crystal and Nicole discuss a number of news items this week, including new data showing a change in commute patterns for Seattle workers, as well as a new poll showing Republican Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeier and Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson as the two leading candidates to succeed Jay Inslee as governor, should Inslee decide against seeking an unprecedented fourth term. They also delve into the details of the ACLU lawsuit against King County over Seattle jail conditions and examine the rising demand for the state's 988 hotline, how important non-police responses are for public safety, and the potential for new funding to help support mental health resource. Following Tacoma's State of the City address by Mayor Victoria Woodards, Crystal and Nicole also note the progress Tacoma is making in a more holistic approach to public safety with a Behavioral Health Crisis Response Team and an unarmed Community Services Officer Program, which would increase the level of response and bring support to non-emergency situations that are not an active threat to life or property. They review an encouraging update from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority about their work with the Right of Way Safety Initiative moving a total of 189 previously unsheltered people inside to a shelter or housing option that meets their needs. They also discuss a contentious debate surrounding the location of a new Sound Transit station. The conversation wraps up with a discussion of the recent train derailment on the Swinomish Reservation and the tribe's upcoming court case against the railway company for allegedly running trains in violation of a 1991 easement agreement that the tribe says limited the length of trains allowed to pass through. 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, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy at @NTKallday.   Resources How Highway 99 Removal Would Reconnect South Park with Mike McGinn and Coté Soerens from Hacks & Wonks    “Your old workweek is extinct, Commute Seattle data shows” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times   “Bruce Dammeier (R), Bob Ferguson (D) lead hypothetical 2024 gubernatorial field in WA” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “The Exodus of Inmates from the King County Jail Continues” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “ACLU-WA, Director of Public Defense Call Out Conditions in King County Jail” by Alison Jean Smith from South Seattle Emerald   “ACLU sues King County over Seattle jail conditions” by Sydney Brownstone from The Seattle Times   “Washington state may boost 988 hotline funding as demand grows" by Taija PerryCook from Crosscut   “New facility will provide crisis response services for Washingtonians in north King County” by Shane Ersland from State of Reform   “‘Our best days are ahead of us.' Mayor Woodards relays optimism in State of the City” by Liz Moomey from The News Tribune   “Safety, homelessness, recovery top priorities in Tacoma State of the City address” from KIRO 7 News   “Identification Documents Open Doors” | King County Regional Homelessness Authority   “Constantine Backs ‘North of CID' Light Rail Station, Bypassing Chinatown and Midtown” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Incomplete Analysis Overlooks Rider Delay Caused by Skipping Union Station Hub” by Stephen Fesler from The Urbanist   Coalition Letter opposing 4th & 5th Ave locations: WSBLE station location in the Chinatown International District    “Balducci Wants a Good Transit Option for Chinatown” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “BNSF train derails on Swinomish Reservation as tribe readies court case against railway company” by Isabella Breda and Vonnai Phair 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 shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I'm joined by Mike McGinn of America Walks and Coté Soerens of Reconnect South Park to learn more about their work with the Freeway Fighters Network. Mike shares a broad overview of the movement's efforts to remove crumbling highway infrastructure while addressing the climate, health, and equity issues that these concrete structures have caused. As a resident of Seattle's South Park, Coté reflects on the throughline of Highway 99 running through the middle of her community - connecting a history of redlining, displacement, and racism to the present-day impacts on the neighborhoods' livability, pollution exposure, and life expectancy. Mike and Coté call out the lack of imagination exhibited by the country's attachment to the highways, to our highways, and paint a compelling vision that replaces underutilized thoroughfares with vibrant, connected communities. But today we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with our co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: defense attorney, abolitionist, and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. [00:01:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hi, thanks for having me. It's always - [00:01:57] Crystal Fincher: Hey, love having you - happy to have you back. We've got a bunch of news to cover today. One interesting story - starting out - was just new data showing new commute trends. We are not traveling in the same way that we did before the pandemic. What did you take from this report? [00:02:17] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: It seems that no matter how much some want everyone to come back to the office Monday through Friday, office workers don't wanna do that. And it looks like Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is the day that people are primarily coming into the office. And it sounds like they're working remotely mostly Mondays and Fridays. [00:02:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that has shaped and changed our commute patterns. Lots of people have noticed they're different - certainly midweek has the biggest impact. There continues to be this push to get people back to the office. We've seen Seattle's mayor, other people celebrate a return there. Certainly a lot of businesses that provide services and amenities to people who have traditionally worked downtown are happy to see increased traffic. Do you think we're ever gonna get back to a time where people are doing a regular Monday through Friday workday again? [00:03:11] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I hope not - that's just my personal opinion. But people don't get paid for their commute time. And if you live in Snohomish County, or if you live - housing prices are so high right now that more and more people are forced to live outside of the City's core and travel in, which is part of our traffic problem, but it's also a quality of life issue. If people can work three days a week in the office and essentially get the same benefits that they would be for working five days a week in the office, why would we be trying to get people in there more? Obviously there are benefits felt by those workers, and I think reducing traffic is a huge issue. I understand that it doesn't necessarily benefit downtown businesses, but times have changed, things have changed, technology changes things, and I hope we don't get back to five days a week of intense and horrifying traffic. [00:04:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I do also wanna mention that - being one of the people who does not have to commute every single day and can work from home, there is privilege attached to that. There are people predominantly in lower wage jobs, a lot of service jobs that don't have the option to not come into the office. Or people doing manual labor, which is every bit as skilled and takes all the talent that all the other types of jobs have, but they oftentimes are not able to have the flexibility to work from home or to take advantage of the saved commute time, which is really significant. If someone handed you back an hour, an hour and a half every day - there's so much more that can be done, or so much more rest that could be had, or just spending time with your family - it doesn't necessarily have to be productive in the way that we view work. But people finding balance is an important thing. So that's interesting and that has changed. Other interesting news that we saw this week - there was a poll fielded by the Northwest Progressive Institute that they wrote about in The Cascadia Advocate, their news publication, that showed if Governor Inslee happened to decide against seeking an unprecedented fourth term - which he has not announced any plans about - if that were to happen though, Bob Ferguson, our current Attorney General is viewed as the leading Democrat for the governor's race and Bruce Dammeier is the leading Republican. How did you view this? [00:05:38] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Polls are always interesting, right - we all wanna know what the future holds. But it's always who is responding to polls, what sort of choices or wording - which I think that poll actually went into a little bit, which is great - but at this point, I don't think a Republican is gonna poll all the Democrat votes. So it looks like they're even, based on the responses by - the people who respond - based on the people who responded to the poll. [00:06:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely - a situation where Democrats are splitting the vote. And to be clear, it showed if Jay Inslee were not to run again, who people were asked who they'd vote for, Bruce Dammeier - and I always forget whether it's Dammeier or Dammeier, so if I'm mispronouncing his name, I apologize - got 35%, Bob Ferguson 21%, Dow Constantine and Hilary Franz both polled at 7%, with 30% of the respondents not being sure. So really interesting to see the response to this. They also had breakdowns of the different regions of the state - notable there was Dammeier's home turf is in Pierce County, but he basically polled about the same there as he did for a statewide percentage. So there wasn't necessarily the kind of advantage that we normally see there. And swing turf continues to be swing turf. But really interesting as we move closer to the time where people expect to hear more from Jay Inslee about what his plans are or are not. Certainly a fourth term would be unprecedented - doesn't mean that he can't go for it - but certainly there's a lot of people waiting in line to figure out what's gonna happen and who's gonna be on the ballot. [00:07:20] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, it'll be interesting. [00:07:22] Crystal Fincher: Will be very interesting. Also this week, we see the ACLU suing King County over Seattle jail conditions. What's happening here? [00:07:32] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So there was a decision - I can't remember how long ago - it was about conditions in the jail that was won by the ACLU. I think it was maybe in the late 80s? And basically the ACLU is saying is that they are not living up to the terms of that decision. There's also community groups that are not happy about what is going on in the jail. There's an astronomical suicide rate, especially compared to the national average in the downtown jail. It's old, it's antiquated, it makes it difficult for attorneys to see their clients. There's just a lot of elevated risk there. And Constantine said in 2020 that he recognized all of those things and wanted to shut it down. And so between the ACLU lawsuit and community groups' pressure, we are seeing a little bit of movement - but instead of finding alternatives to incarceration, what's happening is they moved 50 people from the downtown jail to the RJC [Regional Justice Center] in Kent. And now those people are double-bunked, so they took one thing and made another problem over here. Or the other thing that I think is being sought by the executive is a contract with SCORE, which is the South County Correctional Regional [South Correctional Entity] - I don't remember what it stands for - but which is really well understood to be the worst of our three jails here in King County. And so he wants to move people to SCORE, which obviously - people with the ACLU, with community groups are not excited about that because it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. It just moves it around. [00:09:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And to your point, the other facilities that they're moving inmates to already had their own pre-existing problems in this area that are being made worse with these additional inmates. It is just really a challenge and they are not, have not been able, willing or able - probably both - to adequately staff this. And so you can't just keep shoving people into this facility - that you're completely in control of - that is inadequately staffed, that doesn't have appropriate medical care, that has escalating rates of illness and suicide, where the corrections officers themselves have reached out and communicated via letter to the Executive to say - Hey, we are not staffed enough to keep our own selves safe and we're asking you to reduce the population because it's also unsafe for the corrections officers and staff that are there. Just this isn't working for anyone. And it seems like it's absolutely reasonable and appropriate for the ACLU to seek a court remedy for this. [00:10:17] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely. Something needs to be done. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Right - and this also goes to the larger conversation we're having about public safety, about policing, about whether we want to return to more punitive, punishment-focus-based public safety where we're just locking up everybody - without realizing that that requires staffing, that requires administration. There is a cost to what we're doing and we don't even seem to be reaping any benefits in terms of increased public safety because of this. It is just a money suck that is harmful to everyone involved with the system and then makes us less safe on the other side. It just doesn't seem like this is working in any way, shape, or form. [00:11:04] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, it's true. And I think part of the problem is it's such a political question at this point. So many people have absorbed the idea that the only way for us to have public safety is to be as punitive as humanly possible. And we have mass incarceration in this country - we incarcerate more than any country in the world and we are not the safest. So clearly that isn't working, but I think that that's a - it's an easy flashpoint, fear sell to people that is actually making us less safe. And there's a lot of people that are pushing for alternatives, but it is an uphill battle. But it's being waged and I have a lot of hope that we will get there eventually, just hopefully sooner than later. [00:11:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And there are a lot of individual cities, organizations making progress in this area. In fact, this week we saw a story that the state's demand for the 988 hotline is increasing and they may receive new funding - this is an alternative response to just sending police out to every single call solo. And thinking that we can solve calls related to homelessness, or someone feeling uncomfortable with someone in their neighborhood, or someone going through a behavioral health crisis - which we see turn out tragically in so many other situations - to say maybe a more appropriate response to this, that if someone is having a behavioral health crisis, there are responders that maybe don't need a gun and a badge, but they're experts in handling this type of mental health crisis situation. This is what we're trying to get at. This is what poll after poll shows the residents know is necessary and want. And so we might be increasing capacity for that. How do you see the 988 hotline, the demand for it, and what's possible through it? [00:12:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: When I was a public defender, I constantly had family members, people in the community asking - who can I call when my uncle, or my son, or someone in the community - who can I call that's not just a police officer? Because a lot of times the people that are forced - they don't have a choice - something is happening and they need to call, they need help, but it's always been a police officer. And I've seen so many mothers have to call, and then their sons get locked up, and they have no contact orders with the mom. And it just becomes this whole mushrooming problem that makes everything significantly worse and - if not deadly. And so I have seen community, directly affected community asking for this for years. And I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. It's really encouraging that people know about it, that people are using it. I think that once that becomes more of a normalized thing, we can keep pushing in that direction because there's so little - police always say that they don't wanna be social workers, they don't wanna be mental health counselors, they don't wanna be domestic violence experts, but we have to build those alternatives - because it can't just be cops or nothing. So it's really encouraging to me to see these alternatives being built up. I hope they keep moving in the direction they are because a lot of times services like this end up getting co-opted for different means, where, it'll be like - oh, we didn't have police come to this X amount of calls and now we have police coming to every calls because that's something that they lobbied for. And so I hope that they can stay and keep moving in an independent direction because it is so necessary. So yeah, I think it's encouraging. [00:14:30] Crystal Fincher: Definitely encouraging. And I should note that the 988 system doesn't absolutely guarantee that there's not going to be a police person involved in the response - that is still a possibility. There may be frontline people who come and if they happen to call for backup, that could happen - some places like in Seattle, as we've seen, police are wanting to respond to every overdose call - even though that is not a public safety call in many, if not most, jurisdictions, that seems out of line with many practices, certainly best practices. It can happen, but as you say, building out these alternative responses are absolutely necessary. And I think the more we do that, the better, the more we accelerate moving on to more effective solutions that keep us all safer. Because you hear this - Well, if we get rid of cops, then what next? We call 911 and no one comes, and there's anarchy and wild stuff in the streets. And that's not it. Being a progressive stance on public safety and understanding that it takes a comprehensive approach and addressing root causes, or else we wind up with this revolving door situation that doesn't address any problems that we're trying to solve - accountability is a progressive value. We don't want to escape accountability. We just want it to be effective and productive, and the end result to be that the entire community is safer and people are victimized less often. And we have data from experts who study this. And by the way, police are not necessarily public safety experts - they're not paid to do that or be that in any kind of way - but there are a lot of criminologists, a lot of people who actually do study this, who have identified several more effective approaches. And so it would be just really good to see us getting this stood up and see how we can actually work through these models and processes to make us safer. 'Cause we do need that. Crime is bad - there is not anyone who disagrees with that. People being victimized is bad, but it happens - the context in which we discuss it just through policing, the things that we've decided to make it illegal or focus on enforcing is just such a tiny percentage of the story of how safe people are. And whether it's sexual assault and harassment, or theft, or wage theft - those kinds of things - there are some that make the headlines, there are some don't, there are some that just slip by unnoticed even though it's harmful to a lot of people. And the more we can get at that, the better off we will all be. And a bill is still alive in the Legislature to increase funding for that 988 system and help to further build it out. Also saw this week, Tacoma's State of the City from Mayor Victoria Woodards, there in Tacoma. A lot of the standard stuff that you would expect to see there and focusing on public safety. But I think one thing that I found notable about the State of the City address, in Tacoma and so many other cities, is how the City of Seattle sometimes it's thought - well, it's progressive - and people just say that and assume it's true, and so all the most progressive policy must be coming out of Seattle. And Seattle is actually behind a lot of other cities in the state on really crucial issues - on homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety - because we saw Tacoma talking about something that Seattle seems to not be very interested in. They're running behind on their alternate response plans. Mayor Harrell committed that he would be standing up alternatives to a police response and is behind his stated timelines on that. And now people continue to ask - Hey, where's that coming? You said public safety was one of your top priorities and this major piece of it is still going unaddressed that's really up to him to implement. And Tacoma is talking about implementing those. Certainly they're talking about incentives for new officers, but they're also talking about standing up alternative response programs, investing in youth violence prevention, and addressing root causes. And it seems like they're taking at least a more holistic approach, or moving forward, than Seattle in the region. And it just underscores to me that this really, to your point, shouldn't be a political conversation. It should just be about what makes more people more safe. And was pretty happy to see that Tacoma seems serious about investing in some of those things. [00:19:13] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I think it's a really positive direction. When people talk about police - in Seattle we always talk about 911 response times without really looking at what, all the factors that influence those things. But one thing - if we wanted to actually increase the speed at which police responded, one thing we could do instead of hiring more officers - 'cause there's an officer shortage all over the country - is to take some things off their plate. They have said - We don't wanna do substance abuse counseling, we don't wanna do this. So fine - let's take that off. Why are they being asked to do those things anyway? And there has been a fundamental shift over the last, I would say 40 years, but also just - there's always a fundamental shift with the passage of time. But a lot of things that police officers do now are not things that we asked them to do when I was a kid in the '80s, or something like that. And there's a complaint that we have to do all these things now, and it's just - Okay, how about we listen to you and take some things off your plate? And that's one way to meet both the stated goals of each party - you want faster 911 response times, we want actual public safety or things that actually work. And that really building out those other services and other ways to respond to things, other than just an armed officer, really meets all of the goals. So it's encouraging, and I think Seattle definitely has a tendency to give lip service to things. And then when no one's looking, there's a slow walk. And that's what I'm seeing right now is - Oh yeah, definitely, we should do these things. And then we look away and it's just a casual, just slinking away without really doing anything, or without making any specific promises, or really having a plan. And so I really like that Tacoma is - Yeah, we're not gonna do that. [00:20:59] Crystal Fincher: Yes - not that I have no bones to pick with decisions that they make in Tacoma - but it really does seem like they are interested in moving the needle on more comprehensive responses that get closer to addressing root causes. And investing real money into doing that, because that really is the bottom line. If there is nothing invested in there, if it's not in the budget, then it's clearly not a priority. And it's so interesting, especially having you on the program with unique insight and insight beyond what most people have into the criminal legal system - also reminds me of talking to former Mayor Mike McGinn, who enjoyed one of the lowest crime rates in the past 40 years, but making a very similar point that you did in - Hey, okay, so they say we have a shortage - which I could go on a whole rant about - but okay, so say that there really is a shortage, which everyone is experiencing. Police keep saying that it's actually not a financial problem, that this is something that has to do with the perceptions of the culture and the perceptions of just the profession - the job of being a police officer - that lots of people have. And until that gets more effectively addressed, until there's more trust built there, that this is going to be a problem that continues. But since everyone is having a hiring problem, if you're pinning all your hopes on once we can get enough police officers hired - which no one seems to be able to do these days - then it'll be safe. So is everyone just supposed to sit around and accept not being safe until years down the line when there are enough officers - even when an officer gets into the system, a lot of times it's a year before they're actually deployed on the street. They've got to go through training and all that kind of stuff. So we have to stand up these other things if we're going to make a dent in public safety, if we're gonna keep people safer. And it really is confounding to me that we have police determined to respond to every overdose call, but they also made the decision that they were too short-staffed to investigate sexual assaults of adults. How does this make sense? If the goal is to keep people safe, if the goal is to take the "bad guys" off of the street, then would we be doing more investigating? Would we want to spend more time doing that stuff than accompanying EMT on an overdose call where no other cities - other cities are not doing this. Why are we utilizing these resources in this way? Why do they still want to keep parking enforcement? Why do they still want to keep doing these things and accompany encampment sweeps, where they're essentially just watching Parks Department? It just doesn't make sense anyway you look at it, even if you grant everything that they're saying, even if you agree with, "We need more cops," and, "They help keep people safe," and all that, then why aren't you doing the things to utilize them more effectively? I don't know, but it is frustrating. [00:24:04] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: It is frustrating because no matter how you look at it - if you're going to listen to police say, "We don't want to do these things," then you have to weigh that against the fact that they are actively fighting to do those things. Or if you're gonna believe that a reactionary police force is what's going to keep us safe, then why are they not reacting to things that are threats to public safety? And if you're gonna believe that they don't want to - yeah, I don't know - there's a lot to it, but there is a lot of, I think, talking out of both sides of things. But the bottom line is we've had fully staffed police before. We still have crime. They only react. Why don't we focus on prevention? I would like to see less crime. I don't want to be the victim of a crime. I don't want my daughter to be the victim of a crime. I would rather that didn't happen rather than have someone respond to it after it happened. And that's what I would like to see for myself, my family, my neighbors, this community - is that not only do we just feel safer maybe because we're told we should, but that we are actually safer, that we're not experiencing these traumatic things. And there's no guesswork in it. We are the only country that does things this way. There's been a million studies saying it doesn't work, or at least not the way it's proposed that it works. But we also have so many other countries that have taken different avenues towards public safety that have been far more successful than we are. So it's really not - there's no guesswork in it. It's just a matter of - can we get past this ridiculous narrative that we've all been fed in order to enact real solutions? And so people are working on it. I'm hoping we're getting there. More and more people are being open to the idea that it's not - the one cure-all solution for everything is more police. [00:25:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And for these alternative responses, like this 988 hotline - seems like there was pent-up demand for it. People have been waiting for something like this and wanting to use it. It's had a 25% to 30% increase in calls just since last July. 90% of calls are answered within 30 seconds. 95% of calls are resolved over the phone. Fewer than 2% of the calls end up involving the police or an EMS responder. And for the 5% of calls not able to be resolved over the phone, the speed of that response is critical - and that's what that bill in the Legislature is trying to target. It would increase funding for rapid-response teams. It passed the House and is now being considered by the Senate. It looks like the Legislature is trying to be responsive to their communities and their residents, certainly expressing that this is something that they want. Information is showing that it's being used, and so we will see there. Also, this week we got a press release from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, and they're making progress. It took a bit to get spun up. They had to basically start from scratch in building a brand-new office that took a little bit more time than originally anticipated. But since they've been up and running, what they have been doing seems like it has been working and in line with the vision of the KCRHA. So they just announced 30 people previously unsheltered at First and Michigan are now inside. They've been working in conjunction with the Seattle, with the Washington Department of Transportation - our State Department of Transportation - to remove people from rights of way. Sometimes you see people camping under freeways or in other similar rights of way - and we talked last year about legislation and funding passed to try and address this. And it looks like it's going to good use - 30 people moved inside from one that a lot of people have seen there at First and Southwest Michigan. 41 people moved inside from sites in the Chinatown International District, in the CID - 27 people matched with shelter or housing options will be moving inside soon. Two weeks ago, they had an event with state partners to ensure that people had the IDs necessary for housing and all the paperwork, because there's a lot that goes into being able to qualify for housing, and so making sure that other stuff was done. They also resolved five encampment sites under the same Right of Way Safety Initiative, with a total of 189 people previously unsheltered having moved inside to a shelter housing option that meets their needs, according to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And other sites remain in progress - there's a contract to open an additional 113 units of emergency housing that's just about done. So they seem to be moving forward. Lots of talk about their recent five-year plan and the budget request attached to it, which is big and robust, but we're also trying to address this problem that is tied to so many other problems in our community. So how do you see this and the work that they're doing overall? [00:29:13] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Obviously, it's a step in the right direction. There was the homelessness - declared a crisis in the Ed Murray years - it's a clear step in the right direction. I think one thing that I often notice is that a lot of these different groups will be stepping on each other all of the time - not really not meaning to but the county is doing this, but the City Attorney is also putting people in jail for sleeping under an awning - which means then they lose their ID, then they lose everything they have, and then they're back to square one. Or, the City does encampment sweeps where same things happen - people lose all of the things that they need in order to get housing. They're back to zero. Then they have to go back to DESC, get a new tent - blah, blah, blah - it just is this compounding thing. So I'm encouraged by what they're doing, and my hope in the future is to not - we spend so much time and money getting one step ahead and then pulling it back two steps. And so I like that there's a coordinated effort. I hope that the City can get more on board with that because nobody likes it. The people who live outside don't like it. The people who don't live outside don't like it. It's a thing I think we can all agree on. And so my hope is that they can continue their work, but that that work isn't impeded by constantly enacting actions that have a detrimental effect on people's ability to stay sheltered - because obviously the problem is not going to go away unless we address it. So I'm happy to see that they are taking those steps. [00:30:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I agree. Also making news this week is something that has flown under the radar for a while, but seems to be garnering a lot of attention now and with a flurry of new activity. It's a new station that will be built that - the Sound Transit Board of Directors is going to be making a decision on on March 23rd - about some new Sound Transit stations, or a new Sound Transit station, in Seattle. For quite some time, they have been looking at a 4th Avenue alignment - that has had a lot of support from various groups for a long time - that would connect with existing infrastructure, have a Union Station transit hub that also helps with connectivity with the existing stations, the Sounder station, just kind of everything going on in that area in terms of just pure transit connection time and ease of use of the transit system in terms of speed for a lot of people around the neighborhood. However, there's a new alternative or some new alternatives that have popped up recently in response to concerns from many people in the CID saying, "No, actually, there are lots of problems with the proposed alignment that will create, once again, significant impacts and challenges for the CID, that could potentially displace a lot of people in businesses, and just create a lot of havoc on the streets after they have dealt with a lot of havoc over the past decade with challenges from dealing with everything from the deep bore tunnel to other Sound Transit stations. And a historical challenge that has been there for a while has been - as we've seen and talked about on the show forever - government entities' lack of engaging communities, especially BIPOC and lower-income communities, when it comes to alignments of light rail and other regional transit options through the City and region. This has been a long-standing issue, and even way back on the first segments that were entered, that were built, people from the CID have been saying - Hey, you have not been listening to us, and we're paying the price, and we're displacing a really important community. We're not considering the importance of landmarks to the community that are part of - some of them are saying they're part of our heritage. These landmarks are as important as the people. This is our community. All of the elements of it make our community. And yes, we can talk about how quick transit connection would be otherwise, but is it fair and equitable to only pay attention to that and disregard the needs of the community that exists there, or should we be looking at mitigating that impact, that - no, this may not be the first choice of a lot of people, and it may even come with some harmful outcomes that may need to be mitigated otherwise, but that is what this work really involves if you're doing it right. It's talking to everybody, considering all of those, and trying to come up with a solution that kind of, first off, doesn't seek to harm or destroy anything that can't be rebuilt. And I think that's the crux of where a lot of people are coming from. If you're trying to destroy a part of our community that can't be rebuilt or can't be reclaimed or is just going to be lost if you do that. I personally don't have a dog on the hunt, really, for preferred alignment. My interest is in making sure that the community is heard - and not astroturf efforts, not people seeking to use this to further a pre-existing political argument, or to just oppose development or oppose transit like some people reflexively do. If someone is at risk for displacement, if someone is part of a community that has been displaced and has seen a lot of what they have built and have been able to maintain despite historic attempts to destroy it in a variety of ways, that that's something that we shouldn't dismiss. That doesn't, that's not the same thing as a NIMBY opposing transit. These are people who are at risk of displacement and who are at risk at losing important parts of their culture potentially, and that should be listened to and valued. [00:35:02] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely. I think that BIPOC and low-income communities have always borne the brunt of this sort of utilitarian approach to transit, and I'm happy to see people speaking up and I would expect that. And I think you make a really good point. This isn't the regular sort of NIMBY - I don't want it, I don't want people in my neighborhood, I don't care about this, I drive every day or whatever. That there's different solutions being proposed here. And I think that's a really important distinction and the solutions are not do it in another neighborhood. The solutions are - yes, we want this here. We recognize the necessity of it, but how about we go about it in a way that considers our culture and what we've built here and the people who already live here. And I hope that conversation can be had and there's something that can be worked out with the actual input of the community that's going to be affected because that's really - it's the bottom line with everything really. [00:36:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I don't know everything that went into the support of this - of some new alignments by, particularly the King County Executive Dow Constantine and Mayor Bruce Harrell. But I will point out that they have received frequent criticism, including from me, about not listening to residents of the CID - whether it's from previous Sound Transit alignments with light rail, or the deep bore tunnel, or homelessness service provisions and access. And again, it's not to say that these things shouldn't happen, but they certainly shouldn't happen without the input and participation of the people who live there. And that hasn't happened in a while, so a charitable reading of this late proposal and support for some alternative alignments - could charitably be read as responding to the desires of the community after hearing and taking criticism and admitting to falling short sometimes before. So I hope that that is genuinely what is going on. And we will see - obviously a lot to follow there. I know there was actually a Transit Riders Union meeting last night where they were discussing it, which I missed, but there are lots of people - I know people who have strong feelings on both sides of this. And again, my interest isn't necessarily in just the alignment, but in making sure that we don't discount the voice of the community as just wanting to oppose this, but we can dismiss it and keep moving on. These concerns should be listened to. They are valid. And if we can find a workaround, even if that means that it's not purely the fastest alignment from transit, then let's figure that out. To me, it feels very similar to people who are really focusing on - everything that you're doing is anti-car and this is anti-car if it slows me down five minutes to get to my destination, even if that five minutes means that other people will literally live instead of being killed by cars on streets that are designed and used dangerously. And just saying - It's not the fastest for me, therefore it is inefficient and bad. There are other considerations and we have to consider the whole community. I don't know how this is gonna end up. I don't know who's gonna wind up supporting what, but it seems like there are valid concerns all the way around that no one should dismiss. Also looking at other news this week, we saw another train derailment - this time on the Swinomish reservation - which on the heels of the East Palestine train derailment in Ohio, certainly people are paying more attention. Hear a lot of people saying - There are like a thousand derailments every year, this is normal, it's not a big deal. Something being normal and not a big deal are not always the same thing. Yes, it happens frequently. No, it should not be happening and we should be paying more attention to this and it should be bothering us more than it has, I think. And this is another example why - it's something that is considered to a lot of people that doesn't get a lot of attention, that perhaps this is a small source of contamination from this freight train that derailed. But this is their land, this is their water supply, and they have never consented to having that be spoiled and they knew the risk of this. In fact, there's a trial set to begin on Monday over a lawsuit that the tribe filed in 2015, alleging that BNSF trespassed when it ran thousands of trains filled with highly combustible crude oil over the reservation without the tribe's consent. The tribe says that the railroad was knowingly violating an easement agreement the two parties made in 1991, that the tribe has limited the length of trains allowed to pass through. And it looks like BNSF just ignored that, decided to put through longer trains, and now the things that they were warned could and would happen are happening. And this is just happening everywhere and we should be paying more attention. [00:40:06] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, absolutely. I grew up in a railroad family. My dad worked for Santa Fe, later at BNSF - and derailments weren't considered a "Heh, like they just happen" type thing. They shouldn't be happening. And do accidents happen? Yes, of course, sometimes they do, but it's not something that we should just be like, "Oh yeah, huh." It's not normal and it's not healthy. And I think one of the things that's really dangerous is that not only are we in a place where people who work on trains are saying, "Hey, it's not safe. We are not safe. We're not healthy. We're not well. We are put in danger. We're told to ignore danger," which was such a - to me, when I read things like, "Oh, they say just go ahead and run it even if a wheel bearing is." - just growing up the way I grew up with my dad - that was such a wild concept to be like, "Hey, there's something unsafe. We'll just go ahead and do it anyway." That is not how things have been done historically with the railroads. So we're seeing already this shift between worker safety and train safety and community safety. But the thing that's really scary too is that the railroads wanna keep moving in this direction. They want less staff on train, they want half of what they used to have on trains because they think it's gonna be automated and it's gonna be cheaper. And they want to move towards even more intense scheduling. And at the same time, benefits for workers have eroded. The union power has eroded - as we saw, the government step in and end the strike that was happening. And I think that there's, we're seeing the convergence of all of those things at once - and not just things are bad now, but they're going to get significantly worse if we don't pay attention to this problem. So I'm happy to see that there is coverage of these things. And I wish that we didn't have to do this thing where the Swinomish said "Hey, we're in danger of this." and they're like, "Whatever, do it anyway." And then the dangerous thing happens. We know what's going to happen. There's no need to have these constant reminders that are material harms that validate the concerns of the community that's there. And it's the same, not the same, but it's similar to what we were talking about with the CID. There has been communities - historically, communities of color, low-income communities, Indigenous communities - that have borne the brunt of utilitarian transportation design. And they are saying, "Hey, we don't want that anymore." And that's something that should be valued. Of course, I think it should be valued, but I hope to see some movement and I hope - I wish them well on their legal pursuits on that. But I think that we need to be - I don't care if there's 100 derailments every day. They need to be something that we should be paying attention to because we shouldn't just be settling for that. [00:42:57] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And there's a problem with just railroad regulation. And the problem is that they are subject to so little of it. It's absurd. And I don't think most people realize how much latitude we give railroad companies. It is almost obscene. I don't think most people realize that. So I live in Kent - the reason why I'm a little bit more familiar with railroad problems and policies because - Kent has two railroad lines crossing right through its downtown, which I live in the middle of, which is why sometimes you hear train horns if you're listening. But cities are actually not allowed to touch train tracks. They're actually not allowed to touch crossing arms and stuff, and so we have two separate railroad companies who have been so horrible about maintaining railroad crossings. If people are residents of Kent, they have been stuck behind, in a humongous traffic jam, on some of Kent's biggest thoroughfares that are just cut off by railroad track crossing arms that get stuck, or don't go down, or they're malfunctioning. That's been happening for years. And so many people are like, "Why doesn't the city do something about this?" And it turns out - yeah, the city is legally prohibited from touching the railroad tracks. The railroad company has to respond. The railroad companies don't share what hazardous material is on there and you basically have to wait for the railroads and the companies to show up and decide how they're gonna handle it, decide what they're gonna disclose, decide what the timeline is - and people have no control. And when you think about having no control over potentially hazardous substances going through your communities - these railroad lines are adjoining neighborhoods, schools, playgrounds - and it's just by chance that there's not a situation like in Swinomish and in East Palestine - this is what we're all signing up for and we shouldn't be, we should not be. Unfortunately, this is something that these lawsuits - I'm glad that the Swinomish tribe filed this lawsuit. This may be some of the only recourse we have aside from Congressional action to pare this down and to demand some accountability. Railroad companies don't even have to tell you if something highly flammable, highly hazardous, highly toxic is traveling through cities so that people can appropriately prepare emergency and hazmat responses. Cities can't even prepare for the type of damage that railroads can do, so we just need to change. I am glad a lot more people are paying attention and I hope people continue to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire, but particularly our Senators and Congresspeople, to actually take some action to regulate and rein in the control and domination that these railroad companies have - that is really putting people at risk and that these companies haven't shown anywhere close to the type of responsibility, accountability to cleaning up these things or to being able to handle the type of world that they're putting us all into. So it's a challenge. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, March 17th, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was defense attorney, abolitionist, and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Thank you for joining us - always a good time. [00:46:27] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Always a good time. [00:46:27] Crystal Fincher: Yes! You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you prefer to get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can find Nicole Thomas-Kennedy on Twitter @NTKAllDay. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me @finchfrii, it's two I's at the end. 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.

Today Trae taps in with Sadé Smith. We'll learn some basics about the Michael Rowland case and some issues that continue to persist in the King County Jail. Tune in to get informed y'all!

Note: In light of the growing body of news and evidence that the King County Jail is dangerous and ineffective at improving safety, the Hacks & Wonks team decided to re-air this illuminating episode about the harm that jail and the current bail system causes our community.   On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Chanel Rhymes, Director of Advocacy at the Northwest Community Bail Fund, joins Crystal Fincher to discuss our desperate need for bail reform. The NCBF is dedicated to ending cash bail and pretrial detention in Washington state. They do advocacy for reform, court watching to hold the system accountable, and they raise funds to provide bail for people who can't afford it on their own. Chanel explains the difficulties that jailing people prior to a conviction causes for people before they're even convicted of a crime, and dispels criticisms of bail funds as being dangerous for the community, rather than being a correction against systemic inequality. Crystal and Chanel also breakdown recent data on bail reform that shows that bail reform and eliminating pretrial detention for misdemeanors actually reduces crime in the long run, and doesn't negatively impact whether people show up to court. You can find information on the Northwest Community Bail Fund and resources for its court watching program in the links below. Chanel Rhymes Chanel Rhymes is the Director of Advocacy for the Northwest Community Bail Fund. Prior to joining the Northwest Community Bail fund, Chanel served as the Court Program Analyst for the Washington Supreme Court Minority and Justice Commission, executing the mission of ensuring that all courts in the state of Washington remain free of bias so that justice might be adjudicated in a neutral and fair manner. Previously, she was a Program Manager for the Freedom Education Project of Puget Sound where she developed and coordinated college courses for women seeking to attain their AA degrees while incarcerated at the Washington Correction Center for Women.   Chanel has worked with the Council of State Governments Justice Center, supporting their work on national criminal justice reform. She also has legislative experience as a Political Field Organizer and as a Legislative Liaison for the Washington Student Association, where she lobbied for the interests of students in higher education around issues of affordability, administration transparency, and accessibility. Chnel was raised in Tacoma, Washington, and received her BA from Evergreen State College with a focus in Law and Government Policy. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii, find the Northwest Community Bail Fund on Twitter at @NWCBailFund.   Resources Northwest Community Bail Fund website   NCBF - Court Watch Resources and sign-up   “The Effects of Misdemeanor Bail Reform” from Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice   “No More Police: A Case for Abolition” by Mariame Kaba & Andrea J. Ritchie   Washington state court's Criminal Rule 3.2   “A Seattle man began the night in crisis. Then, a sudden death in restraint” by Sydney Brownstone and Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “In a Sign of Worsening Conditions, Understaffed King County Jail Has Lacked Water for a Week” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Public Defenders Union Joins Jail Guards' Call to Address COVID Crisis” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On the 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. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm very excited about this show, where we get to talk with Chanel Rhymes, who is the director of advocacy at Northwest Community Bail Fund. Thank you so much for joining us. [00:00:51] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you for having me. I'm really excited to be here. [00:00:54] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you on. Have been a follower of the organization for quite some time. Obviously, this has been a topic across the country, and really globally. We're behind a lot of the globe on this. But in our country, a topic especially in the past few years, and looking at just what we're doing in terms of our criminal legal system, all of the challenges within it, and what can be done to make our communities more safe, keep our communities more safe, and really move towards a world and communities where we meet basic needs and we don't choose punishment over healing injustice. So I guess starting out, can you tell me just what the Northwest Community Bail Fund is and does, and what brought you to this work? [00:01:46] Chanel Rhymes: The Northwest Community Bail Fund is a nonprofit organization. We post bail for those during pre-trial detention. A lot of folks cannot afford to access the services of a bail bond agency, whether they don't have the means or collateral, so we are here to fill in those gaps. Ultimately we would hope to see an end to pre-trial detention and cash bail, but, because we know that is gonna take time, in the meantime we work to reduce harm. So we post bail as well as just, make sure that the community is not harmed and folks can fight their cases from a position of freedom, which they're entitled to through the constitution and the Washington state constitution. [00:02:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. [00:02:34] Chanel Rhymes: I myself came to this work in- I've been doing criminal justice reform work for a long- or, excuse me, criminal punishment reform work, for a long time. I, myself, am formally incarcerated. I am very passionate about those that have done their time and served their time be- the opportunity to go back into society and be a contributing member. I personally believe, though, that we need to stop trying to fix things after and start things from the beginning. Kind of like the, the babies in the river. I'm not gonna keep taking the babies out. I'd rather let's not put the babies in. So I'm trying to, we, myself and our organization, is trying to work to so that folks are just not incarcerated. And a lot of times folks are incarcerated just because of not having means. [00:03:25] Crystal Fincher: And this is such an important conversation. One, just as we talk about right now, we're sitting here in the midst of a crisis as defined by our public defenders, staff at jails. We had a historic letter earlier this year where both public defenders and corrections officers are saying, "hey, we can't handle the population here at the King County jail. It's unsafe. It's beyond what we can tolerate." And I don't think a lot of people realize that a lot of people who are in jail have not been convicted of anything. This is a pre-trial detention. They've not been sentenced. They're not serving a crime. They've not been found guilty of anything. It is simply because of a financial reason that they are sitting in jail and all of the challenges that, that presents. What does it mean and what kind of challenges does it pose when we detain people before their trials? [00:04:25] Chanel Rhymes: Oh, plethora. You could risk losing your housing. You can lose your children, custody of your children. You can lose your employment. And with all that comes, a rippling effect of other things, whether that be financial instability, just the trauma itself of going to jail. A lot of people that, say "lock them up," or "they just need to go to jail," never seen the inside of a jail. It's one of the most horrific places. On top of, with us being in a pandemic, you could potentially die, ultimately, from sitting in jail because there are still COVID outbreaks in jails every week. And so ultimately you could lose your life for something you haven't even been convicted of yet. And that's no way to bake it. That's not the way our system is designed. It's not supposed to be set up that way. Or at least they say that. [00:05:24] Crystal Fincher: At least they say that. It is certainly not what we've been sold. And so it's such a challenge. It is very destabilizing. And even in the case that someone does wind up pleading guilty or serving time, we're relying on them having the means to pay whatever fines they're going to be charged to do all that. And so if they don't have a job, if they have lost, as a result of being detained, all of the ability to fulfill the terms of whatever punishment they've been handed, that's a challenge in and of itself. And the bottom line is, a lot of people think putting people in jail makes us safer. If we didn't have this, they would be out committing crimes. And every now and then there's a case that gets publicized where they say, see, look, this is- bail reform caused this. Is that the case? [00:06:24] Chanel Rhymes: It's not the case. Number one, judges decide what bail is. Number two folks have a constitutional right to bail. The purpose of bail - and our Washington Supreme Court has said this - the state is not in the primary interest of collecting bail bond forfeitures. It is more concerned with folks showing up to court. That is what the purpose is. That, whether somebody is released or not, does not make us safer. There are tons of people who are arrested for violent crimes and don't spend a day in jail because they have the means to bail themselves out. Where are the folks asking about them? I think it's very interesting that bail reform and, nonprofits, people who don't make money off of this business, are the ones under the microscope, but yet bail bond agencies make millions of dollars every day bailing people out that sometimes do go on to commit new crimes. We don't hear about those in the news. We only hear about the less fortunate, which is those folks that are coming to a community bail fund or, mutual aid fund, and it's because we demonize poverty in this society. And it's just bizarre to me, in a sense, that we've gotten to this point. As if folks don't understand that wages have been stagnant for 40 years. The cost of living is going up. People can't make it can't survive. And so putting them in jail, and then if they are convicted or plead guilty just to get out, they now have a criminal conviction. So then that creates barriers to getting employment. And the other thing that you need, housing, that is the first, one of the major things that disqualifies most folks for housing, is a criminal conviction. So if we're also criminalizing homelessness, locking people up, then convicting them, and then they get out and they can't rent anywhere, and then we're like, "why are you homeless?" We are just creating this cycle and it's really a cycle of abuse. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and one really has to ask is the offense that people really are in jail for whatever they've been accused of, or is it just that they're poor and can't afford bail? And even just the issue of bail overall, for some reason, we have landed in a place where we think that a dollar amount is indicative of whether or not someone is in danger or is safe regardless of what they have been accused of, regardless of what kind of flight risk someone may be deemed to be. Hey, if you have enough money to, if you're rich, and and you can pay for whatever, it really doesn't matter. You're not gonna be in jail. And, we have seen several examples of people who are, just a small misdemeanor accusation which, often can result in dropped charges overall for lack of evidence, for just not being worth it to pursue in the system, yet they have been in jail and have experienced, like you talked about, the loss of job, the loss of housing, and that being destabilizing. And in fact that increasing the chance that someone is likely to be involved in their criminal legal system in the future, as opposed to if they were able to maintain their connections in community. And then also on the back end, just about everyone we're sending into jail is going to come out on the other end. So don't we have an interest in making sure that we are doing all we can to set people up for success and to not drop them into another pit, which it seems this just sets up people to do. What do you tell people when they're like, "it's there to make sure they come back and if they don't have bail, then they won't come back. So bail is necessary and if they can't afford it, then you know, they could just leave and never come back anyway?" what do you tell people who just say bail is necessary to get people to show up? [00:10:48] Chanel Rhymes: They can find us anywhere. The world we live in now, if they wanna find you, they really can find you. But, ultimately, most people do wanna get this resolved. Nobody wants this hanging over their head. A lot of times people don't show up, not on purpose. People, don't FTA, or Failure to Appear, on purpose. Life happens. There's life circumstance. Also, too, people wanna get it taken care of because they probably didn't do it. People aren't really decking and dodging. I will add though that even if we have a lot of folks saying people they need to go to jail or they need to do this, a misdemeanor? It's max fine, like 90 days in jail. So I think too, people have a misconception of what our punishments, our sentencing structure is, and the difference between jail and the difference between prison, and misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies. Even with our gross misdemeanor, the max jail time is a year, up to a year, but after that, okay, they serve their time, they're back out, what are we going to do to help folks? What I tell people is how is this solving anything? Why would you want your tax dollars just to be wasted to keep doing this? And wouldn't you want your tax dollars to be used to help people. So they're not back in this situation? The amount of money that we spend on criminal punishment and police is just ridiculous when you compare it to what we spend on education. So if we really wanted to make changes, we would be investing our money in education, healthcare, mental healthcare, reproductive rights, all of those things. Never in our 40 years of plus doing this whole drug war or anything, have cops, police, arrest helped make us any safer or do any type of harm reduction. There's tons of studies out there that show when you reinvest that many within the community and provide people's services, recidivism goes down. I think it's odd that we just keep having to have this conversation over and over again, because we obviously know what's not working, but we are very, afraid to try what some people or some municipalities and governments have done that work. [00:13:11] Crystal: Well. And it feels like, for people who've looked into this, for the people who are the loudest on this issue on either side, they do know what the data says. They do know that the evidence shows conclusively, repeatedly - there was just a new study that came out and reiterated this just last month - that bail reform, not relying on bail and releasing people pre-trial, not subjecting them to all of the harms that result from that, doesn't hurt people appearing in court over people who have been detained, doesn't hurt their likelihood of committing a crime again, over people who have been in bail. So there is actually no advantage safety-wise. There's no advantage in the court system. It's not, "hey, a lot of people were failing to appear - weren't failing to appear - now they are with bail reform. It is actually the opposite. This is working to keep people safer. This is working to help people show up and we are not contending with how expensive this is to us as a society financially and in terms of just our safety and our health within the community. My goodness, courts are expensive to run and administer. Prisons and jails are so expensive to run and administer. All of the staff, all of everything required to do that is so costly. We're sitting here talking about upcoming budget shortfalls here in, the city of Seattle, throughout the state in different cities, yet when you look at the city's budget, such a huge percentage of it and their county's budget, such a huge percentage is dedicated to locking people up. And especially pre-trial, what benefit are we getting out of it? Why do you think people are so resistant to saying, "wow. Number one, we aren't getting the results that we want from our current system. It would actually save us money that we could invest in areas that we all know need it." Yet, lots of people still aren't there. Why do you think that is? [00:15:22] Chanel Rhymes: Because people are being misinformed, and fear-mongered by their local news and reporters, who I'm shocked at the things that they write and put out. And it's clear that a lot of reporters locally here have no clue about criminal law or criminal procedure. They are flat out lying to the public. And so then folks see that on TV, they read it in their newspapers, they read it online and they think that the sky is falling. Everything is super dangerous. I also think poverty is a lot more visible now. So people, their senses seem to think "oh, it's bad, it's more." And it's no, just more people are hurting and you're seeing it more. It's not hidden. It's coming into your neighborhoods. I truly believe it's miseducation, misinformation, and 30 years of watching Law and Order that people think they know the system and how things work. I blame our media to be quite honest, because they're just not being truthful. And most of the information that, it seems to me, that they're getting are coming either straight from prosecutors or straight from police. They are refusing to talk to anybody from the other side. [00:16:42] Crystal Fincher: And even, not from either, quote unquote side, there are actual experts on crime. They're called criminologists. We have lots of them at our wonderful universities, research universities here in the area, who are able to speak on what the evidence and research shows is and is not effective and useful and working in terms of keeping people safe, keeping people from committing crimes. And over again, they are coming up with data that says detaining people pre-trial just because they cannot afford to get out of jail does not keep us safer. Does not do anything to help our system to help reduce crime. It just doesn't do that. In fact if it had, if it has, any effect, it's the opposite effect. It actually makes outcomes worse. It makes people more likely to do that because they have been made more unstable and put in a more precarious position because of that. So if you were to talk to a lot of the local media, what would you advise that they do? [00:17:53] Chanel Rhymes: Educate themselves on the way that criminal law, that criminal procedure, works before just going with conjecture and their feelings and how they feel. There are laws, there are court rules, reasons why things are done. Ultimately too, the fact that they're saying, "okay, so we're holding people because they can't afford it." If they were so dangerous, no bail would be set. Obviously, a bail has been set, so that judge has deemed them safe enough to go back into the community once they pay that money. So you can't have it both ways either, it's completely they're there because they're a danger or is it really they're there because they can't afford it? Because if they were such a danger, then why is there a dollar amount that they could pay that says they're not dangerous? It just doesn't make any sense. I mean the argument of it makes us safer- it just doesn't. And I just think we've just been recycling the same thing over and over again. And then also, too, people, the internet, your phone, every social media, people are getting lots of just different images and things like things are horrible. "Seattle is dying, oh my gosh, they've closed my Starbucks." And it's really like people are homeless and hungry and that's, what's really- The fact that too, we are still within a pandemic and we have a lot of people in charge that want folks to just keep on going just out. "No, everything's fine." people are still financially hurting. We also hear a lot about, I'll just say that, media's writing a lot about retail. Nobody writes about wage theft. More money is stolen in wages than it is in deodorant. What does that tell you? I'm reading a police report and somebody is charged with stealing body wash, deodorant, razors. They're trying to survive. Those are essential items. Like we need to look at that. Like what services can we get that person so they don't have to steal the basic needs just to be a human and live in this society? [00:20:12] Crystal Fincher: I'm with you, I'm with you. So as we look moving forward, right now, you and Northwest Community Bail Fund are filling in this gap in our current system. Obviously there's a lot of changes that would be more effective if we made them. In terms of bail, what is it that you would like to see changed about our current system? Would you like to move to a system where judges just make the decision as they have in some other localities across the country? "Hey we're not really doing bail. We are making the determination about whether we feel this person is a flight risk or a threat to society. And if yes, we're detaining them and if, no, we're not." And throwing the idea of bail out the window in lieu of that? Or something different? What would you like to see in terms of bail in the system we're in? [00:21:10] Chanel Rhymes: There should be no bail. There should be no pre-trial detention. Folks are innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason for anybody to be caged. That's what they are, is caged. Before they have been convicted by a judge or jury of their peers. They've just been accused. We should be moving completely away from that. I would say, even just to start, we could have judges actually, follow court rule 3.2, which says you need to use the least restrictive means to release people. So that would be a start. We do court watching in courts around the area, particularly Seattle Municipal Court. We watch arraignment hearings. We, we take, track, demographic data, race, perceived age, age, date of birth. But we also track if court rule 3.2 is brought up by judges, by the prosecutor, or by the defense. And we recently had our data analyzed and it was only 13% in all of the cases that we had listened to that it was brought up. That's a very low number for a court rule to not even be mentioned during arraignment. And that has to do with whether folks are, public safety issue or, the means to pay to get out. So I think one, first thing is if y'all going, institute these rules and create these policies, you should follow them first. You're not even following your own policies, so can you accurately say if it's working or not? I don't think so, but ultimately it's a no. I'm an abolitionist. Get rid of them all. I just got my no more police book. I just started on that. This, it's not working. All we're doing is harming people and it's not sustainable and it costs too much. We could be investing those dollars in so many other ways that would actually give us a better return on investment because all we're doing is churning out more debt, ultimately, because if they can't get a job, they can't get housed, we're still gonna end up having to pay for it another way. [00:23:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. We're paying for it no matter what, just depends on whether it's an investment that's gonna yield a return later on. If we're dealing in, education and health and mental health and behavioral health support and treatment that do yield benefits for our entire community or whether we are dealing in the aftermath of pain and harm and paying to keep people in prison and incarcerated, which is just so terribly expensive and costly financially, and to our community, to that person, to the community, to everyone involved. What would you say to the people who- Obviously we always hear examples of violent crimes, horrible crimes, some horrible crimes happen that should never happen. And they see what someone has been accused of. They hear evidence against them and they're like, "that person is not safe on the street." And say, "we're afraid of what can happen. That they're a danger to society and based on what they've done, they should be detained." What do you say to people in that circumstance? [00:24:50] Chanel Rhymes: You have no proof that evidence is actually evidence that is true, or that can convict him. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not public opinion. There's a process that you go through during criminal procedure where the judge gets to decide what evidence gets to come in and what doesn't. We don't just get to decide oh, that's true. That piece of evidence that the reporters said right there is true. Also, we all know police lie all the time. We're just gonna take the word of police because that's who most reporters are getting their information from, they're just reading it from police reports and statements or their, communications officer or whoever it may be. So how is it that untrained people in law, just the regular general public would be able to determine who's safe and who's not? I also think if a judge has set bail, who are you to say that, better than that judge about the case? I don't understand that. Either we believe in these systems and y'all want these systems to do their job, or y'all just want to do it out in the public. Are we going back to that? Where we just doing the public, in the public square, and then everybody we decide how things go? No. To me, it's just bizarre that somebody be like this is what happened. You really don't know that's just what it was reported. People have to be convicted in a court, not in public opinion, it's just not the way it works. [00:26:24] Crystal Fincher: Which is true. And once again, this most recent study in Houston, which backs up prior studies, under consent decree where more people had to be released within 24 hours of a misdemeanor arrest, there was a 6% decrease in new prosecutions over the three years that followed that they followed those defendants. They said, "okay, everybody's saying we need to see whether or not people, are really gonna show up. We need to see whether you letting people out is really going to, make things safer as these people claim, let's follow these defendants. Let's follow these people." Over a period of years, not even beyond, not even stopping at, okay this one case, their current case was adjudicated, whatever happened, they went beyond. Eliminating bail, taking that out as a factor, releasing them and not detaining them simply because they can't afford bail, resulted in a decrease over the existing system. Meaning that locking people up made it more likely that someone was going to commit a crime again. Made it more likely that things would be less safe in our community. I'm for what makes people more. We talk about all of these things. A lot of it is punishment related. And I think in so many of these conversations, we have to decide whether we are going to prioritize punishing people or whether we're gonna prioritize keeping our community safe, because they really are at odds. And punishment is not working for us, any of us, and it's really expensive. It is so harmful to the person involved, it's harmful to the community and it's so costly. And we talk about funding for jails. We talk about funding for police. There is only a certain amount of money in the whole bucket. So if we're giving more to one area, we're taking it from somewhere else or preventing it from being invested in somewhere else. And I'm sure everyone listening to this thinks, "hey, we need, we do need more behavioral health support. We do need more substance use disorder. Treatment and accessibility and availability. We do need to make sure people have access to these things without having to be involved in the criminal legal system to get clean or to get healthy." And so it's just such an important issue and I thank you for just being vocal about this. For helping people in this organization and doing something that is making our community safer. Really appreciate it. If people want to learn more or to get involved or donate to the Northwest Community Bail Fund, how can they do that? [00:29:11] Chanel Rhymes: You can go to our website, which is N-W- C-O-M-B-A-I-L-F-U-N-D.org So nwcombailfund.org. You can follow us on Twitter and Instagram. I'm so grateful to have this conversation with you and inviting me on to talk about the organization that I dearly love, and we truly do wanna make our community safer and we wanna stop harming folks. [00:29:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Wanna stop harming folks. One thing that I do have to mention: I saw a report that you produced, and I feel like this was last year at some time now. You're not only doing this work, but you are, as an organization, being accountable, being transparent about the activity that's going on. You are showing results for what you're doing in a way that goes be above and beyond a number of others that I've seen. I appreciate that transparency in this organization. And then also wanted to mention, you brought up your court watching, also, earlier, which is such a useful and valuable tool. And just enlightening and informative because, to your point, lots of people don't know what happens in court. People have very limited experience, maybe someone contests a parking ticket or a speeding ticket or something. Lots of people have never stepped foot in one. And so have this idea from TV shows what it's like. It's nothing like what on TV shows. And so I sincerely appreciate that too. We're gonna link those court watching resources in the show notes, also for people to be able to access and follow. [00:31:05] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you. That is also available on our website, we're always looking for more court Watchers. We really need folks to go in person to courts. Seattle Municipal Court and Tacoma Municipal Court offer virtual courts so people can actually court watch from the comfort of their own home. If you're interested in court watching with us, please go to our website and fill out an interest form. [00:31:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for all of your information today, for what you do. It's been a pleasure to have you on Chanel. [00:31:31] Chanel Rhymes: Thank you. [00:31:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you all for listening to Hacks and Wonks. The Producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, our Assistant Producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks, and you can follow me at @finchfrii spelled F I N C H F R I I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

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

What's Trending: Exclusive: King County may end warrant checks on jail visitors, union sounds the alarm, Kent City Council to enforce camping ban and a whacky earthquake safety video is going around. // Jason gives his latest midterm election update on local and national races. // The Kraken unleashed a 'value' food menu for the new season.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.