Podcasts about navigation center

In a step toward addressing homelessness, the City of Santa Barbara has partnered with the Santa Barbara Alliance for Community Transformation (SBACT) in a newly awarded contract aimed at providing essential services for the unhoused. With a dedicated budget, SBACT will oversee critical outreach initiatives and the creation of a new Navigation Center to offer personalized care and connect individuals with pathways to stable housing. KCSB's Tessa Niu has more.

PATH Plaza — the first and only homeless shelter in Tehama County —officially opened its doors this week. However, advocates say it's not enough to address homelessness in the area fully. Also, more roadwork is set to begin in Chico next week as the city breaks ground on a project improving the Esplanade corridor, and unofficial results from a special election showed Chester voters said no to a tax for fire and ambulance services.

Timothy Bolding and Amanda Mansouri of Sunrise Watch discuss the impact that the homeless resource center located at the Sunrise Church in Sout Austin has had on the local community, including the adjacent Joslin Elementary school. https://twitter.com/SunriseWatchAtx _______________________________ @bradswail austincitycouncilman.com Support the show on Patreon!

The Fight for Safe Consumption Sites: San Francisco and the Overdose Crisis Part 5As overdose fatalities reach two to three deaths a day in San Francisco, demands for supervised consumption sites are getting more urgent. But city leaders are increasingly reluctant. And health officials who once campaigned for them are now conspicuously silent. We investigate San Francisco's long fight for safe consumption sites and what changed. And we visit an overdose prevention center in New York City that's having a real impact on the neighborhood and people's lives. 

 Tom Steigleman hosts today's program.  During the first hour Tom S. talks to Rick Whitbeck from Power the Future to talk all things energy.  Tom & Rick also touch on tonight's Republican Presidential debate and what Rick hopes to see from the candidates. .Rand Sulte from the Anchorage Assembly calls in to get us up to speed on issues in front of the Assembly including their recent vote to not approve the Navigation Center, converting Anchorage from multiple layers of residential zones to just one residential zone, and the possibility of issuing permits for Air bnb and other short term rental operators. During the second hour Tom S. talks to Kevin McCabe. Alaska State Representative for District 30,  about the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).   Public comments are welcome at https://publicinput.com/r6552#0Donna Mears, Alaska State Representative for District 21, calls in to talk about transportation issues, food security, changes to conflict of interest rules, and legislative pay.Tom wraps up the show by playing a clip from Dr. Ben Carson when he was speaking to the students at Mountain City Christian Academy to see what the Anchorage School District was so afraid of when ASD opted to not let Dr. Carson speak in their schools. 

We went to Houston, Texas, to see why so many think that city's homeless response is a model for the rest of the country. We hear from Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and those in Houston moving thousands of people into permanent homes. Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson tells us Houston's model isn't something he's interested in and also why he fought so hard to finish his navigation center. And, there is at least one homeless project in Anchorage that is bearing fruit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Building materials for the Navigation Center — which is not complete or approved — is costing Anchorage taxpayers thousands of dollars each month. Plus, the Aviator Hotel in Anchorage is benefitting from a new loan program to make energy upgrades; An Alaska senator joins U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murphy in hosting a discussion on mental health issues in Alaska and across the country; And a state senator is urging Alaska leaders to investigate whether Hilcorp violated its Cook Inlet leases.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On April 24, a 75-bed navigation center for people experiencing homelessness will open in Salem. The facility will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will be the first of its kind in Marion County. Case workers will be on site to help clients access medical care, behavioral health services and transition to stable housing. City officials say it is designed to be a “low barrier” shelter which does not require sobriety for entry, and accepts all genders, as well as pets. The Salem City Council has allocated more than $23 million in state and federal funds to expand shelter and homeless services, including launching this spring a third micro-shelter community of small living units to temporarily house young adults, 18 to 24 years old. The city is also opening 52 units inside a former Oregon State Hospital building to provide permanent supportive housing for unsheltered people who are disabled, mentally ill or have other complex medical and behavioral health needs. Joining us to talk about Salem's efforts to tackle a growing homelessness crisis are Salem Mayor Chris Hoy and Salem Housing Authority Administrator Nicole Utz.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by 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! They catch up with all of the news out of the legislature this week, as well as Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant not seeking re-election, a dodgy push-poll, South King County pedestrian fatalities on the rise, and lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI).  Breaking down the flurry of news out of the legislature this week, Crystal and Erica discuss proposed legislation for a wealth tax, middle housing, lowering the blood alcohol limit for driving, limiting rent increases, reducing the disparity between products advertised towards women versus men, alternatives to jail for behavioral health crises, and a potential expansion of law enforcement's ability to conduct vehicle pursuits.  The trend of current Seattle City Councilmembers announcing they won't seek re-election continued this week when councilmember Kshama Sawant revealed she won't again this year. With four of the seven open seats on the council this year without incumbents, this years' election is guaranteed to bring a large change to the city's leadership.  A seemingly non-scientific push-poll designed to show support for a potential ballot measure to fund more police hires and spending was sent to a number of Seattle residents. They use it as a jumping-off to discuss manipulative polling and how it's used to justify unpopular policy. Crystal and Erica also discuss the alarming increase in pedestrian fatalities in the region, especially in south King County. The data supports the need to make wide-spread improvements to our pedestrian infrastructure to truly make our cities safe for people who walk and bike.  Crystal and Erica end this week's show looking at two lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute. A former resident has sued the organization, claiming that LIHI illegally evicted them by not giving proper notice. The case hinges on whether LIHI's housing is emergency shelter or transitional housing, the latter requiring stronger resident protections. LIHI is also facing accusations that the conditions of their tiny house villages are not adequate to support their residents. 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 “Tackling Poverty with Misha Werschkul of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center” - Hacks & Wonks   “WA lawmakers trying again to tax wealth, as part of nationwide effort”  by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Two State-Level Housing Bills Aim to Stabilize Rent and Protect From Rent Gouging” by Vee Hua from The South Seattle Emerald   Washington Coalition for Police Accountability's letter on vehicle pursuit bills SB 5352 and HB 1363   “State Proposals Aim to Lower Traffic Deaths by Improving Driver Behavior” by Ryan Packer from Publicola   “Washington lawmakers discuss an alternative to jail for mental health crises” by Doug Nadvornick from KUOW   “Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant Will Not Seek Reelection” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Why I'm Not Running Again for City Council” by Kshama Sawant from The Stranger   “South King County Sees Alarming Jump in Pedestrian Fatalities” by Andrew Engelson from The Urbanist   “WALeg Wednesday: Saldaña Drops Bill to End Jaywalking” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist   “Former Tiny House Village Resident Sues Nonprofit, Alleging Unlawful Eviction” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola “Homelessness Authority, LIHI Clashed Over Reporting of Two Deaths at Tiny House Village” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast, 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. Today, we are 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: 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. [00:01:08] Erica Barnett: Hello, hello. [00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Hello, hello - and welcome back. Always a pleasure to have you and your information and insights. Think today we will start off just talking about the week in the Washington Legislature, now that our legislative session is off and running. What did you see this week? [00:01:28] Erica Barnett: There's a lot going on as always. This is a long session, so there's a lot more policy legislation coming our way. There's a proposal to revive a wealth tax that has moved forward but then floundered in previous sessions - it would be a 1% tax on intangible assets like stocks and bonds - and so we'll see how that goes this year, maybe third time is the charm. Legislation is moving forward to allow sixplexes around the state in areas that are ordinarily or that are traditionally single-family only - that's Jessica Bateman's bill - and that too has been proposed in the past, but it may have a better chance this session because one of the sort of obstructionist legislators, Gerry Pollett, is no longer in charge of the committee that determines whether that bill goes forward. There's a bill that would reduce the limitations on police pursuits. Police say that they, that legislation from - I believe it was either last year or 2021 - limiting the instances in which they can go after somebody in their car to violent crimes and sex crimes is inhibiting their ability to chase what they call criminals - people committing property crimes and things like that. So that proposal is up and it has a lot of support from the right-wing pundit class. And I'm missing a lot of other stuff - there's a bill to lower the blood alcohol limit for driving while intoxicated to 0.05 percent like Utah, which has been really effective in that state in reducing drunk driving deaths and a whole lot more. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: I think that's a good start. There's lots of things just getting out of the gate and people trying to figure out what does have the momentum and the support to move forward versus what doesn't. I think another one that I was looking at - in addition to the middle housing bill, which came out with a ton of support in a hearing that it had earlier this week - are also some bills aiming to stabilize rent and to protect people from rent gouging. So looking at capping rent increases between 3 and 7% annually, depending on the rate of inflation. There's lots of conversations about, absolutely, the need to increase housing supply - there's widespread agreement on that, and that certainly is necessary to long-term affordability. In the short-term, things like rent stabilization policies are going to be critical for reducing displacement, evictions, and can make more of a difference in the short-term than increasing the housing supply. So lots of people sometimes have either-or conversations about those. I personally love the opinion that both are necessary and useful. I've talked about before - I've had neighbors with rent increases over 40%, had rent increases personally of over 30%. And that is just completely unaffordable for so many people, and contributing to the amount of unhoused people that we have - so definitely looking at that as another one. There was another bill that just was a cool thing - with Senator Manka Dhingra, who works with students and youth in the area to introduce legislation. And they suggested legislation, which she has introduced now, which seeks to bring equity between pricing for products marketed towards men versus women, and how frequently the same exact product marketed towards women will cost more for no apparent reason. And so a bill trying to address that - I think that was most of it. There was another interesting one this week about an alternative to jail for people experiencing mental health crises. Instead of going to jail - which really doesn't address the root cause - talking about a kind of a 24-hour cooling off center where instead of being an environment that is not helpful at de-escalating or calming situations, that a place that is not jail that can seek to maybe stabilize or calm down a situation to hopefully get a person in a place where they're either stabilized or in a place where they can seek services. It sounds like that is in the beginning stages of conversation - does not have funding attached to it yet, that would be necessary - but those are the things that have been on my radar. [00:06:32] Erica Barnett: That last bill that you mentioned, also from Senator Dhingra - it's based on a similar program in Arizona - and I'm getting this from KUOW's coverage. And it's interesting. I really want to read up more about it because it's a 23-hour hold, essentially. And we have various types of involuntary and voluntary mental health facilities. 23 hours - my immediate response is - what happens after that 23 hours? Do we just release people back to the streets with no care plan? I'm assuming that is not the intent, and I'm assuming that 23 hours actually must come from some limitation in the law. But at the same time as this bill is moving forward, there is a proposal that's going to be on the ballot in April in King County to create crisis care centers where people can just walk in and - voluntarily or be brought there by police, I suppose - to receive crisis care. And it's for a longer period than that 23 hours, so it feels like there is an emphasis right now on trying to get an entire continuum of care for people in crisis. And none of this has passed yet. As you said, the bill in the Legislature does not come with funding. But there is more discussion of this than I've ever seen in the state, and that's really encouraging because right now, primarily what we do is put people in jail when they're experiencing a crisis that is causing a threat or perceived threat to public safety - and that really can be extremely destabilizing for people. [00:08:17] Crystal Fincher: And then you had talked about the vehicle pursuit legislation that is being worked on this week - and really interesting dynamics in between those. There certainly are folks led by a lot of law enforcement organizations who are saying that they're being limited - lots of times we can't chase people, or crime is on the rise because we've been essentially handcuffed from going after "bad guys." Senator Dhingra talked about it - we did an interview with her on Hacks & Wonks and in a Democratic media availability this past week - talked again about there's no data showing a linkage between a rise in crime and the limitations that were placed on police pursuits before. Now they're asking for an expansion of those. It is unclear why that would make a difference according to their logic. One, they actually are still allowed to pursue those most serious cases and have been. We've had several stories over the past few weeks of pursuits that have happened. And this is really a question of is it worth pursuing something, someone - no matter what - if someone stole some Tide detergent, is it worth a high-speed pursuit on residential streets where people are being put at risk and innocent bystanders are frequently harmed and killed in these situations. In fact, in the city of Kent, a police officer was killed during a high-speed chase. These are actually really dangerous events that happen. And there's a real question about - is it worth the loss of life, when frequently if you can identify the person you can find and pick them up - which has happened frequently - after the fact without risking the lives of everybody in the area. So that's going to be an interesting conversation moving forward. Senator Dhingra chairs the Law & Justice Committee and is not eager to bring this up for a hearing, but there are certainly Republican legislators and some Democratic ones who are in favor of expanding the ability to conduct these pursuits. And so that conversation is definitely going to be one that we follow throughout this session. Looking at events this week in the City of Seattle, one notable announcement came earlier this week about a councilmember who is not going to be running again. What was announced? [00:11:06] Erica Barnett: Kshama Sawant - I laugh because this was just so widely covered compared to other councilmembers who are not running - part of a trend of councilmembers on the current council saying that they are not going to seek re-election, but Kshama Sawant will not be running in District 3. She's going to be starting some sort of labor-related organization, and I say that vaguely because there wasn't a whole lot of detail in her announcement about what this group will do, but it's called Workers Strike Back. And what it will not do, apparently, is pursue elected office for its members. Sawant's organization, Socialist Alternative, is a small, Trotskyist offshoot of the socialist parties in America, and it's definitely one of the smallest. And they have not had a lot of success at getting people elected around the country. Sawant was really their shining example of a member who actually made it to elective office and was in there for three terms, for 10 years - one of those terms was a two-year term. And so they're going on and they're saying that they're going to start a workers' movement worldwide, so it remains to be seen what will happen with that. But Sawant will no longer be on the council, and a lot of people are already lining up to try to replace her. [00:12:42] Crystal Fincher: There are. I saw a couple of candidates have declared already, which has also received a lot of coverage. You are right - we got some kind of brief mentions for prior councilmembers, including Lisa Herbold and Alex Pedersen, announcing that they are not running. But there seems to be strong opinions about Councilmember Sawant and therefore strong reactions in both directions - people sad to see someone who has been a fierce and unabashed advocate for issues about workers' rights for a long time. Councilmember - Mayor Harrell also said one thing he never doubted was her fierceness and advocacy. But this is definitely going to be a change on the council, and she has definitely left her mark - coming to office following the $15/hour initiative in the City of SeaTac that was run by a number of unions and advocates and folks. Following that, she ran in the City of Seattle as a dramatic underdog who people didn't really take seriously for almost all of the campaign - running on 15 Now, $15/hour in the City of Seattle - and running successfully, making Seattle one of the first cities - major cities - in the country to pass that minimum wage. And we've seen minimum wages increase across the country since then, with first SeaTac and then Seattle. So really interesting, certainly has been a lightning rod for a lot. So we will see who is going to wind up replacing her and how those campaigns take shape. What do you see as - just how this election season in the City of Seattle, with so many open seats - may unfold? [00:14:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I was just doing the math in my mind - because I have to do it every time - and four of the seven seats that are going to be up are definitely going to be open seats. Open seat elections are always more interesting in my mind because you don't have that built-in power of incumbency that sometimes keeps people away, but often we re-elect incumbents. So we'll see what - Andrew Lewis has already said that he is going to be running for re-election in District 1. I believe Tammy Morales will be running for re-election - I would put money on that at this point - not a lot of money, but a little money. And Councilmember Dan Strauss also seems to be showing signs that he will run for a second term up in District 6. So still, with four open seats, that's going to be - that's a number that could swing the tenor of the council if there's any kind of trend in whether those seats swing left or right. But importantly, one thing that happens when you have massive council turnover is you both get a sort of breath of fresh air, but you also lose a lot of institutional knowledge. I think, and I said on Seattle Nice, I think Sawant's actual influence on legislation has been somewhat overstated. She didn't achieve $15/hour in Seattle - that was very much a union effort that she got on board with, and it was a process of collaboration and compromise. Her thing was, as you said, it was 15 Now - just do it now and screw anybody that opposes it. But she also has institutional knowledge and institutional memory, as does Lisa Herbold who's been there for - been in the council milieu in some capacity for 25 years. It's going to be a loss of that kind of institutional knowledge, and I think that that is important when you're a city council going up against a mayor who - and I say going up against because they often clash. Historically, the council and the mayor are often on opposite sides of issues. When you don't have that institutional knowledge of how processes work and how legislation gets done and how the budget gets done, the mayor can roll you over. Bruce Harrell has a lot of experience himself being on the council for a long time, so it'll be interesting to see how that affects the power dynamic between the mayor and the council as well. [00:17:36] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely will be. I'm also interested in something else that we saw this week that flew a little bit under the radar, but definitely was noticed in a number of political circles - which was a public safety online poll that was sent to people via text, several people this week. In fact, so many that it really didn't seem like it was a randomly targeted poll. It looked like someone got a hold of some political lists and sent it out, but what did this poll seek to ask and what was it comprised of? [00:18:10] Erica Barnett: Yeah. Unfortunately, nobody sent me this poll - which if you're listening to this and you want to send me poll information, please do - but from what I gather, it's a push poll designed to elicit the feeling that Seattle is less safe and needs more police. The goal seems to be gauging support for a potential public safety funding initiative at some point in the future. And again, I don't know anything more about the idea behind this initiative, but it would essentially - or at least according to the poll - get the police department up to 1,450 officers within five years. The premise behind this is pretty flawed, which is that all we need is to pour more money into the police department and they will magically be able to hire 500, 600 new officers - when the police department itself has said that's not the issue. Now, they would define the issue as people don't want to be police officers in Seattle because there's insufficient support for police in institutions like the City Council. I would say police departments across the country have had trouble recruiting in the last three years and this is just a sign of that. But the police department has a lot of money - they fund tons of, hundreds of vacant positions every year - and so I don't think a massive increase in their budget is going to have a whole lot of impact because their budget is not really the problem. However you define the problem, it's not that we aren't funding police sufficiently. [00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this was really interesting - and for those who have listened and who know me, thank you for capturing this poll and sending me all of the screenshots. Just FYI - always do that with polls - take screenshots, send them on over if you get called for a poll, note what it is and all of the questions. Really interesting to see what people are asking, how people are asking. And with polls like this, I would not be surprised to see - obviously someone is thinking about this initiative - but looking at something like this, sometimes we see these announcements or stories in the media which cite numbers from vague polls. And this is not a real poll - this is someone sending around some surveys, very non-scientific, and the questions are almost comically skewed and written here. So it'll be interesting to see if someone uses this to try and signal support for the poll. I would also be interested just in seeing the raw numbers because traditionally, folks in the City of Seattle do not react well - even if this was a scientific poll - so this is going to be really curious to follow, but obviously someone is thinking about running a public safety initiative - really a police hiring initiative, which this really is. And it really does seem to be misguided. If there is one thing the City has definitely been trying to do for the past couple years, it's hire more police officers. How many times have they tried to increase hiring bonuses? They're advertising everywhere. This has been a monthly conversation in the City for, I feel like, two solid straight years - and if money could fix the problem, it would have. But we'll see how this continues to unfold. Another unfortunate bit of news that we have seen reinforced over and over again - but that has been made official - is just the increase in pedestrian fatalities and what kind of impact that is having. Some unfortunate news that we've seen, which has been reinforced repeatedly in news that we've seen, is pedestrian fatalities across the board have been increasing. There's been great coverage in The Urbanist about an alarming jump in pedestrian fatalities in South King County - just, it's really bleak. Really looking at the data put together by the State Department of Transportation - since 2013, the total number of crashes resulting in death or serious injury to pedestrians has climbed from 33 in 2013 to 95 in 2021. And that number continues to increase, and it is really alarming. And looking at the areas that are the most dangerous - Highway 99, also known as International Boulevard or Pacific Highway South, is one of the most dangerous roads for pedestrians in addition to Benson Highway or 104th - these go through several south County cities - but it's basically a high-speed highway in the middle of these cities. I remember they did work related to RapidRide Line A - a revamping of Pacific Highway South and International Boulevard - and unfortunately, one of the features that we saw was that there are long stretches of road with no pedestrian crossings. And mixing that with speeds that are 50 mph in some places is just a recipe for a disaster - when you're forcing people to sometimes take a - choose between walking directly across the street, which would be categorized as jaywalking, or taking a 10 to 15 minute detour to walk down to the nearest light or crossing and then walk all the way back, which is challenging for people with mobility issues - there are a lot of age and the disabled people, there are a number of services and health clinics on these roads. And so predictably, people are going to attempt to cross the road to avoid those really long crossings. To me, this was foreseeable just because of the design in these areas - and just mixing such high speeds in such high traffic pedestrian areas - and so it's unfortunate. These cities have recognized the problem, but some of the solutions that they've presented for the problem have been challenges. In fact, there was coverage of a meeting by Ryan Packer, actually, at the state where some City of Kent officers, at least who've been involved in traffic enforcement, really seemed to almost victim blame in the situation - talking about they would do emphasis patrols to help stop jaywalking, which is a cause of this. I would say that's more predictable impact of design there and people making a choice because sometimes they can't walk that distance. And also characterizing people who are on foot or even on bike as unhoused people or people in poverty, as opposed to lots of people who are commuting. This is a site where several accidents have - several fatalities and crashes that have injured and killed pedestrians have taken place. It's going to be - a new light rail station is in process of being built there. This is a very high traffic area, lots of commuters, it's near a Park and Ride - and so there's a whole cross-section of people, lots of professionals. I used to be frequently on transit as I was commuting to work via Metro in Seattle daily. It's just disappointing to see a lack of recognition of what some of these challenges are. The Urbanist addressed some of these in that article, but it is really, really challenging, and I wish the conversation in terms of solutions and increasing safety would focus more on things that didn't blame the victim or seek to target them, instead of help keep them safer. [00:26:51] Erica Barnett: Yeah. The idea that our roadway problems and our pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are because of individual behavior - it goes both ways, right? There's also an emphasis on people driving too fast, and this report does talk about people going - this report in The Urbanist talks about people going 80, 90 mph - and that is a huge problem and people should not be driving that fast. And two, these roads are designed for that. And the only way that you can make it possible for people to cross the road without "jaywalking" and the only way you can get people to stop speeding - and even driving the speed limit is often more than fast enough to cause fatalities - is you've got to put crosswalks in, you've got to slow down traffic. And the way you do that is through road design. And some of these - you can't necessarily go and narrow a highway - you can, but it's expensive and controversial. You can put in stoplights, you can put in bus lanes, you can do things that slow down the flow of cars - and I would say that it's not just that these things cost money, it's that they cost political will, and they're just - in a lot of these cities, and in the state, and including in Seattle - there is not the political will to do something that will slow down motorists. I remember - I don't live on Rainier anymore, but I lived right on Rainier for many years, or just a couple blocks off it - and I would use the 7 to get everywhere and run errands. And I am somebody who is physically capable of running across the street, and let me tell you - I did not go half a mile in one direction, walk across the approved pedestrian infrastructure, and walk half a mile in the other direction, just because that's what the road was telling me to do. I would run across the road. So people act rationally - and in that situation, it is rational to run across the road and just risk it, because I didn't have time to spend 30 extra minutes crossing a street that traffic engineers had decided was a highway through the middle of a neighborhood. And that causes really risky behavior. And the only solution, and the solution that obviously we haven't taken - because traffic fatalities are going up and not down everywhere - is to change our roads and to inconvenience drivers a little bit in order to save some lives. [00:29:32] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I do just want to underscore - between 10 and 15 years ago, the conversations about traffic calming in Seattle and hearing pushback, and - Oh my gosh, this is going to change my commute and things are going to take forever, there's a war on cars. And the impact to cars and drivers was really negligible - literally talking about differences of one and two minutes, which can have such a powerful impact on safety and truly save lives. We really do have to ask ourselves the question, Do we really believe cars should be able to just go as fast as possible and have absolute priority in anything that might slow them down? It's bad even if it costs lives and money and so much. Or can we spare a minute? Can we spare two minutes to spare some lives? It really does come down to that, and I wish we would more openly have that conversation - because there are so many people who are walking, and who are riding bikes, who are in proximity to that. And it has to be part of the solution to public safety, people being safe on the roads. I just wish we would be in a different place with that. I do want to definitely talk about some great coverage in PubliCola this week about the Low Income Housing Institute, also known as LIHI, being sued for unlawful eviction. What happened here? [00:31:11] Erica Barnett: This is one of a couple of lawsuits actually that have been filed against LIHI. One was dismissed at the court commissioner level, but this one was just filed this past week by a guy who lived in a tiny house village - actually in Olympia - run by LIHI. And he was kicked out after an altercation with one of the staff. And the lawsuit essentially is asserting that this was an eviction, that LIHI's tiny house villages are housing. This guy lived in the tiny house for more than two years when he was kicked out, and LIHI said - You have to be out within 48 hours, take all your stuff, goodbye. And he did vacate, but he's saying this was not legal, and it was an eviction, and the tiny house was his home. And I think as a matter of law, what is interesting - there's a couple of things that I think are interesting about this case - as a matter of law, LIHI has long been classified, or was long classified - their tiny house villages were classified as encampments. And they got an upgrade during the pandemic - the city, and then eventually the federal government, now considers them enhanced shelter. But what they're saying is that it's essentially transitional housing, and it meets these definitions of transitional housing that were adopted by the State Legislature just a couple years ago. So there's an interesting legal argument there about - once you have four walls, a door that locks - is that everybody who supports LIHI likes to say - is that housing? And does LIHI have more obligations to give notice and to give reasons and to allow people in some cases to rectify whatever is wrong? LIHI says that they are not transitional housing and that if you started defining their tiny houses that way, it would create a situation where every type of enhanced shelter would start looking at the people they take in differently because they wouldn't want to have to keep people around if they were causing a problem in the community. And if you had tenant rights, that would create a situation where people could live there for a long time while continuing to cause problems. So if it goes forward, that would be an interesting legal discussion. And separately, I think that there's been a lot of complaints from residents of the tiny house villages that the conditions there are not always the greatest. One thing that this gentleman who's suing brought up to me was that they have these kind of outdoor kitchens, that he said the nutrition is really bad, there have been times when the washing machines have been broken so they can't wash their clothes, where there's been no hot water for a month on end in this particular village. And so I think there's questions too about the quality of life at tiny house villages. And so those are not really being litigated, but they're being discussed and I think that that will continue to be the case. LIHI is under a microscope with funding from the new King County Regional Homelessness Authority, whose CEO Marc Dones has never been a big supporter of tiny house villages. So I think they are under fire right now, and their CEO Sharon Lee is definitely someone who fights back and you can read my coverage for her comments on that. [00:34:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is an interesting situation. I think it really brings up a lot of issues to a lot of folks that just because someone does not have shelter, if someone is responsible for providing them shelter or housing - and some of these people can be housed for months in tiny home villages - does that mean that they are not entitled to the same kinds of protections that everyone else is entitled to? And it seems like the argument against that is that - Well, this is a more challenging population and if we're going to serve them, providing those kinds of protections is dangerous for us as an organization and maybe we couldn't do it overall. When I think there are a lot of people who would love to talk about, Okay, what are ways that we can ensure that there isn't abuse or exploitation, more dangerous conditions? Just because someone does not have the means to pursue a lot of recourse or is coming from a bad environment, does that mean that we're fine with letting them settle for any old thing and any old treatment? And that is not to say that this is not a challenging and complex issue. Certainly this is a population that because they have been unhoused and out on the streets, they've been made more vulnerable to a host of challenges - whether it's health problems, safety issues, mental health issues, substance use disorder - the things that afflict society at large afflict this population also, and they're at risk for so many other things. And so I just hope we have a conversation that really does start from a place of how can we keep this population as safe as possible? And how do we keep people accountable to ensure that there aren't abuses? I feel like it's a risky place to be to say - If we aren't here, no one's going to be. And so take it or leave it with whatever there is, or not being introspective about how services can be provided in a better, safer, more equitable manner. I know that's what I thought when I first saw the coverage. What kind of reaction are you seeing from people? [00:37:20] Erica Barnett: It's interesting. I think there is a lot of opposition to LIHI right now that I'm seeing in places like Twitter. I did want to say - just to flip your comments a little bit - I've also heard lots of complaints over the years from people who live at encampments but also in tiny house villages, that the environment can also be made unpleasant and challenging by other residents. People talk about - because tiny house villages - many of them are low-barrier and they allow people to use drugs and alcohol. People talk about that creating a bad environment in some tiny house villages. And when you have a population that is largely actively using, it can be really challenging for people who aren't. I don't want to discount the fact that when you are completely low-barrier, that creates challenges in itself - if somebody's trying to stay sober and they're in that environment, for example. But there can be lots of challenges in these communities - they're communities of people who are all struggling with different things. I just wanted to signpost that a little bit. Like I said, I think there's pushback to LIHI right now. It receives a lot of contracts from KCRHA and people are starting to really put a spotlight on them more than on other organizations. My coverage has been pretty factual, I think, so I'm trying not to reflect a bias one way or the other. And people can read into it their own biases and opinions and are doing so. [00:39:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it'll be interesting to see - I think one of the issues is that this is one provider who is doing so much of this work, and almost has a monopoly on the ability to provide these services. And are there - I certainly don't want to suggest that there are not challenges and that residents may not be, safety issues and sometimes, and thank you for bringing that up. I do think that it would be interesting to see what other similar shelters are doing and if they're in line with this. I do not know if they are in line with what other shelters who provide similar services or other tiny home villages are providing, but I hope that that is being looked at. [00:40:02] Erica Barnett: I will just say - really briefly - compare it to another enhanced shelter, the Navigation Center. Navigation Center kicks people out all the time. We don't necessarily talk about that as much because it's not as high profile. People aren't - the Navigation Center doesn't have an Andrew Lewis on the City Council constantly singing its praises and inviting criticism, but shelters do kick people out. It happens a lot for behavioral issues, so people should not be under the impression that this is uncommon. [00:40:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we will thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 20th, 2023. Happy birthday, Terrance. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of Seattle Nice Podcast, and the author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii with two I's at the end. 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 get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And if you like us, leave a review. 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 - we'll talk to you next time.

Family Crisis Coach Scott H. Silverman has served the population of San Diego for decades and has witnessed firsthand the struggles that Veterans face. He is the principal Founder of The Veterans Navigation Center, a 501(c)(3) organization. The Veterans Navigation Center connects Veterans to expert case managers familiar with the complex landscape of Veteran benefits and resources. Often, the case managers are Veterans themselves.Many Veterans will tell you they don't have the necessary resources to transition from active duty to civilian life successfully. Sometimes, Veterans don't realize what help is available and talking to a fellow Veteran can be eye-opening.Veterans experience higher-than-average rates of mental health challenges, like PTSD and substance use disorders. Many Veterans are homeless, and some are even dealing with food insecurity. Veterans are 50% more likely than non-veterans to attempt suicide. “Eighty percent of the veterans who have taken their own life, have not accessed any kind of mental health support,” says Silverman, “It's time for that to change. I'm tired of going to funerals.”The Veterans Navigation Center's case managers focus on the helping Veterans obtain the following services, most are offered by their network of “partner organizations:”• Acquiring Benefits• Employment/Work/Life Skills Training• Treatment for Substance Use• Mental Health Counseling for Depression, Anxiety, PTSD, or Trauma• Family and Marriage Counseling• Veteran Legal Services• HousingScott H. Silverman, in addition to being a Family Crisis Coach and the author of The Opioid Epidemic, is also the founder and CEO of Confidential Recovery, an outpatient addiction treatment program in San Diego that focuses on helping Veterans and first responders get and stay sober. It's no surprise that Scott's years of service has led to him connecting with a network of partners who can help Veterans. San Diego is home to the largest concentration of military personnel in the U.S. About 15,000 active military personnel transition out of the service each year in San Diego, so almost 1 in 10 adults civilians in San Diego have served in the U.S. military. For More Information:The Veterans Navigation Center can help Veterans who reside in California, and their website is here: https://veteransnavigationcenter.org/. Their team can be reached by submitting a form on their site, or calling (858) 567-9191. Confidential Recovery's website is here: https://www.confidentialrecovery.com/, and they can be reached through their website or by calling (619) 452-1200. Scott H. Silverman can be reached at (619) 993-2738.

This Thursday, join Visalia Rescue Mission to celebrate the completion of their Community and Navigation Center. Join us for appetizers and desserts at this FREE, family-friendly event.  RSVP here: https://www.vrmhope.org/taste

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal's co-host is criminal defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. They discuss how a powerful lobbying group used a focus on local control to sink statewide housing reform, and how to overcome that in the next session, a rundown of candidates running for open seats, the disconnect of prioritizing the wants of downtown stakeholders over real solutions to homelessness, the Seattle City Attorney's repackaging of a failed initiative, and mixed results on the plan for some concrete workers to return to work while concrete companies continue to drag their feet on negotiating a fair contract. 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. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Here's What Happened in Olympia” by Rich Smith from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/15/68343035/the-strangers-rundown-of-2022s-huge-confused-legislative-session    “What Will It Take to Get Statewide Housing Reform?” by Matt Baume from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/16/68207458/what-will-it-take-to-get-statewide-housing-reform    “Surprise Sweep Displaces Fourth Avenue Encampment, Scattering Unsheltered People” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/09/surprise-sweep-displaces-fourth-avenue-encampment-scattering-unsheltered-people-throughout-downtown/    “Downtown Sweep Highlights Urgency of Resolving Seattle's Other “Top-Priority Encampment,” Woodland Park” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/16/downtown-sweep-highlights-urgency-of-resolving-seattles-other-top-priority-encampment-woodland-park/    “City Attorney's Office Introduces Latest Initiative to Target “High Utilizers” of the Criminal Justice System” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/15/city-attorneys-office-introduces-latest-initiative-to-target-so-called-high-utilizers-of-the-criminal-justice-system/    “Harrell postpones Seattle police plan to crack down on ‘disorderly conduct' at Third Avenue bus stops” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/harrell-postpones-seattle-police-plan-to-crack-down-on-disorderly-conduct-at-third-avenue-bus-stops/    “Cigarettes and Fentanyl: All Aboard” by Nathan Vass from NathanVass.com: http://www.nathanvass.com/blog/cigarettes-and-fentanyl-all-aboard    “Some Seattle-area concrete drivers return to work, others await go-ahead from employer” by Nick Bowman from MyNorthwest: https://mynorthwest.com/3398180/seattle-concrete-drivers-return-others-await-employer/    “Concrete strike continues in King County as union workers who offered to return didn't show” by KING 5 Staff & Adel Toay from KING 5: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/concrete-strike-king-county-union-workers-no-show/281-f14d167c-c88c-44db-91c8-591171124209    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. For transcripts and resources referenced in this show, you can visit officialhacksandwonks.com and reference our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: criminal defense attorney, abolitionist, and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Hey. [00:00:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hello. Thanks for having me - and this is the second time I've been on - must have been so memorable that first time. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: No, this is your first time as a co-host on the Week In Review. Yes, we did an interview last time, which was very good and incredible. And a number of people were like, well, we see who you want to win. And it's just like, look, if she happens to be making great and salient points, it's not my fault. But yes, just really, really excited to have you here on the Week In Review. [00:01:28] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I'm excited to be here. Thank you. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Well, and so the first thing that we have coming out of the gate was one thing I wanted to talk about - coming out of the end of the legislative session - we talked last week and broke down a number of bills. The Stranger this week had a great article that we'll put in our episode notes that also further broke down what was great about the legislative session, what was disappointing, and how we can move forward. And then Matt Baume also had another article talking about the failure of bills that would have mandated more density, specifically near transit, that would've helped address the affordability crisis that we have here in the state. And I thought it was very good - it was focused on, hey, what needs to happen moving forward to actually succeed in passing bills that require more density statewide? In that, he talked about the AWC, Association of Washington Cities, being a vocal opponent. They are a powerful lobby in the State of Washington. Their purpose, they say, is to represent the over 200 cities in the state. And their position largely was - it's really important to have local control in these and the one-size-fits-all solution that would come from the state just may not be right for our communities, so therefore we need to do nothing. The challenge in that is that most cities have not moved forward on doing anything. As you look at this issue, Nicole, what do you see as being the barriers and, I guess, the opportunities for moving forward successfully? [00:03:16] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think that when I look at this, first I think it's funny that there is a coalition of all these cities that are all saying the same thing - we want local control - that seems to be the only thing that they agree on. But I think that on a state level, there needs to be a floor created for affordable housing and density, and that's really all we were talking about for the most part with these bills. It wasn't any incredibly specific directions that each city has to take on a certain timeline on a certain budget - anything like that. It was about just creating a floor of affordable, dense housing that is needed in pretty much every community. And I think that what I heard a lot in the last year was that - the reverse of there needs to be local control - which was now we have municipalities competing against each other for who can do the least. Seattle is - Sara Nelson and other people are calling out other cities for not doing their part and spending their money on addressing the crisis. And it seems to be like a race to the bottom in terms of who can spend the least. And because the idea, I think, is that if you build services, if you build affordable housing, people will move into them. And why do that when you can concentrate a lot of the unsheltered population in one place that provides the minimum to keep people alive? And that's what I see going on. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and definitely a resistance to people who are defined as others and outsiders from even being able to buy into communities. It was really interesting in this article - there were representatives from cities across the state, from Port Orchard to Tacoma to University Place, and a number of them were leaders within AWC and talked about - we need local control, we are all very different. But one very consistent thread in these is that the median home price in most of these areas has doubled. This housing crisis is not just a crisis in major municipalities. It is a crisis across the board in areas that were affordable - that people used to consider being affordable and that people could buy into and still work in a major area where jobs are concentrated. And still live, even with a commute unfortunately - that it was possible to buy a home there with a median income. It is no longer the case in many of these places. And sometimes, like one of these examples in Port Orchard, they touted - well, we built new homes. Well, yeah, those are half million dollar plus homes adjacent to a golf course. If we're concentrating on making sure cities are accessible to people across the board and that you don't have to be rich and that we aren't displacing people outside of cities and just gentrifying them, then we have to have a solution across the board. Also, interestingly, the National League of Cities, which the Association of Washington Cities is a member of, had a 2019 report that said, "While local control is often at the heart of policies that accelerate progress, there are examples, particularly in the affordable housing policy arena in which state policy is needed." To your point, there has to be a floor. We have to establish a minimum boundary. Cities can determine the right way that they're all going to get there, but what we can't do - what is not sustainable, we're already paying the price for - is continued inaction while just spouting excuses like, well, it's not local control, therefore it's nothing. I would love to see leaders within the legislature say, "Well, you say you want local control? This wasn't successful this session. You now have this coming year to address this within your own cities. If you do, we can find a way to create legislation that respects what you've done." And more than likely if you're taking meaningful action, the floor is going to be below where you set it. But it's not going to be an option to continue to not take action next session and further on in the future. I would love to hear that from legislative leadership and leaders across the state - it just should not be an option. We have to make cities and housing affordable and accessible for people to live in, or else we're going to make our homelessness problem worse, we're going to make our displacement problem worse, we're not going to have people available to fill jobs that are necessary within cities. This is a critical economic development issue just in addition to a housing and social issue. So I hope we address that. Go ahead. [00:08:31] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Oh, I was just going to say too that I really like how you talked about these are communities that used to be affordable. When we talk about Port Orchard - my in-laws live in Port Orchard, and so when they bought their home, it was very affordable and the amount of money it appreciated to was pretty astronomical. And so when we're resisting building affordable housing - and affordable really is - we're talking about homes that are less than half a million dollars, which is just a wild concept that that's where we are with the average home prices in an area. It wasn't always like that. So the idea that these - the people that are already there should be able to stay with this huge, expensive appreciation that they have in their home value, but then not let anybody else in that is going to be coming in at the same level that they came in at. And unfortunately they're not going to be able to afford - they're going to have to have less in terms of space and in terms of all of those things. And so it's interesting to me to want to keep out the same people that are essentially already there, I guess. [00:09:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it absolutely is that issue. And then as I look at this, it's like the people who are in housing whose housing has appreciated and who are resistant to any kind of acceptance of other people in their communities - we're talking about their kids, we're talking about their employees, we're talking about their students. And again, people talk about, well, I can't find anyone to fill this position in my company. We can't find people. No one wants to work. But is it that no one wants to work? Or is it that you're now forcing people who can't live and work in the same community, and maybe the compensation doesn't work for someone who has to commute 45 minutes each way and drop off their kids beforehand and pick them up after? It just isn't tenable for so many reasons. I feel like we leave housing and affordability out of economic discussions and it's just so critical and a big part of those two. So I hope that we see significant action, and that candidates are talking about this on the campaign trail, and our leadership is making it clear in both the House and the Senate - that this is something that needs to be acted on and will be acted on next session, and that cities are on notice that they need to move in the right direction. [00:11:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yes, I agree. Yes. That needs to happen. And I think there needs to be some - maybe more clear calling out of what is actually happening. If municipalities are saying, oh, we want to sit down, we want to sit down, we want to talk, we want to talk - but then they're not asking for any more talks and they're not proposing anything of their own. I think it's maybe time to call a spade a spade and say, are you really interested in solving this problem, or are you really just kicking the can down the road? [00:11:47] Crystal Fincher: Exactly. Well, the legislative session did recently conclude, and that means that now we have a number of legislators who are kicking off their re-election campaigns and starting in earnest. One thing I don't know if everyone who listens is aware of is that - while our legislators are in office, they can't actually raise money, so they can't do a major element of campaigning. There is a prohibition against doing that, also for certain employees of the state. So once session concludes, they're all trying to catch up to people who have already been running and doing that. And so a lot of them are - people are receiving a lot more emails from their representatives and appeals for donations - that's happening now. And I just wanted to do a quick little rundown of where there are open seats. There are a number of representatives who are retiring or moving onto different positions, some in the House are running for Senate seats - but that is leaving some positions open that are now contested by several different people. The 22nd Legislative District in Thurston County - having Beth Doglio and Laurie Dolan who are Democrats, and Loretta Byrnes running for those - that's Position 1 there. 30th Legislative District in Federal Way, where Jesse Johnson has decided not to run for re-election - we have Kristine Reeves, who's filed to run, Leandra Craft, Lynn French, Ryan Odell and Ashli Raye Tagoai, I think it is, and Janis Clark. And then in the 36 District in Seattle, where Reuven Carlyle decided not to run and then Noel Frame decided to run for Reuven Carlyle Senate seat, leaving that House seat vacant - there's Julia Reed, Jeffrey Manson, Elizabeth Tyler Crone, Nicole Gomez, and Waylon Robert. And in the 46th District - and just a reminder, I am working with Melissa Taylor - there is Melissa Taylor, Lelach Rave, Nancy Connolly, Darya Farivar, and Nina Martinez who have filed for that seat. That's in north Seattle, northeast Seattle. 47th Legislative District, which is eastern Kent, Covington, Maple Valley area, where Pat Sullivan is no longer running, he's not going to be running for re-election - there's Carmen Goers, Kyle Lyebyedyev, Jessie Ramsey, and Satwinder Kaur, who is a Kent City Councilmember. And then King County Prosecuting Attorney is an open seat because Dan Satterberg is not running for re-election - and so there's Stephan Thomas, Leesa Manion, and Jim Ferrell who are running for that seat. So there is a lot to come - we're certainly going to be having conversations with several of these candidates, but running these campaigns are getting off in earnest now - and you'll be hearing lots and seeing lots, and the end of the legislative session is a big turning point in campaign season with another big milestone coming up. There are lots of people who can file to run and you can start your campaign committee in May - in mid-May is where people officially declare that they're running for a specific seat - and that will determine who actually appears on your ballot. And so that'll be the final say on who is running for what, so people in the interim can potentially switch positions they're running for, choose not to run - lots of choices and paths that this can go down. As you're looking at this crew, does anything just come to mind for you? Or you've run a campaign - a big campaign citywide before - what do see just ahead for these candidates and for voters who are evaluating them? [00:15:59] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I mean, I see some candidates that I think are exciting - I also love Melissa Taylor. I used to work on the other side of Leandra Craft - I think she's smart and knows what's going on. So I think I'm seeing some good candidates. Campaigning at that level is different because there just has to be so much fundraising done, whereas in the City, we're so lucky that we don't have to spend all of our time doing that. I just - I wish everyone the best because - oh yeah, oh, Nicole Gomez too. There's some people to be really excited about, I think, and so that's great. I just wish everyone the best. I hope everyone's taking good care of themselves - that's what I think when I see this list. [00:16:45] Crystal Fincher: Running for office is a very, very tough thing. It's not fun - you're putting yourself out there to be scrutinized - people do not always consider the human when they are communicating with or about candidates. And they are humans - even when we disagree with them, they're humans. I do think, as candidates are kicking off their campaigns, certainly fundraising is a big deal in the City of Seattle - with City races, there are Democracy Vouchers where every resident gets money from the City that they can donate to the candidate of their choice. That is not the case in these campaigns this year - they have to raise all the money they need. And campaigns do take money because unfortunately there is not broad media coverage, and getting your message out to most voters requires communicating directly with them. And so whether it's knocking on their door, giving them a call - which still takes resources - and usually also involves communicating with them via mail or online or on TV - just a lot of different mediums there. And then people are also focusing on endorsements - especially early on, people are trying to figure out - what do these candidates stand for, what have they been involved with, and how have they worked before in the past, what is their history? And sometimes endorsements can be revealing and highlight what that candidate prioritizes, who is in their corner, what kind of issues they'll be strong on and a leading a advocate for - not simply a vote. So lots of that happening right now, and certainly just hope for the best and hope they are successful in getting their messages out. It is an interesting time and campaigns are kicking off once again. I did want to pivot to a number of news items in the City of Seattle surrounding public safety - first being the issue of sweeps of a number of encampments. And so we had a 4th Avenue encampment sweep, which scattered a bunch of unsheltered folks. There's probably other sweeps to come soon, and the issue of another encampment that has been viewed as a top priority at Woodland Park. As you look at what's going on with these sweeps, what do you see as far as what's happening? [00:19:33] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: What I see is the huge amount of disconnect between what the public thinks is happening and what is actually happening - and that's just such a huge disservice to everyone. I know that there's a narrative out there that people are refusing services and they're refusing shelter. And I guess the idea is that some people are camping out in the cold and rain, because that's preferable somehow to be sheltered. And that's not what the case is - we don't have enough places for people to live that they can afford to live in. We don't have the services that are needed to stop this from continuing to happen. Also, the thing is - it really just moves the problem around. There's nothing really - it will clear one area of sidewalk for a certain period of time, but all it does is move things around. And the more people are destabilized, who are already barely, are clinging to stability and security in the most tenuous way possible - are then pushed around and have all the belongings they need to survive thrown away - because that's what we saw in the downtown sweep is - it was different than some of the other sweeps in that they didn't really offer services, they didn't offer anything. There's different timelines that they went by because they called the tents downtown an obstruction, a sidewalk obstruction, which means that they're - all of the things that they're supposed to do during the sweep, they didn't have to do any of that. And they didn't. And so we just see people's belongings being thrown away, tents thrown away. And I think what's also missing from the narrative around these sweeps is just how much stress that puts on service providers. I talk to a lot of people and they say, well, the Navigation Center is just up the street and I'm like, how much do you think that they can handle? Because as a public defender, something that I saw often was people being displaced by going to jail. That means when they get out, they have to get a new ID, a new EBT card, they have to go to DESC and see if they can get a tent and a sleeping bag - because there's things that people need in order to survive. And people don't just evaporate after a sweep, they are still existing. And also my partner has an office in Pioneer Square and he watched the 4th Avenue sweep, and he's seen a lot of sweeps around . That area. And he says, it's just really hard to watch people who are barely hanging on become so dysregulated by the horror of what is actually happening to them. And he said he would see people huddled together in alleyways trying to get away from the police - it's just a really horrifying scene that doesn't - it really truly does not solve any problem other than that one piece of sidewalk for a little bit of time. And so we're spending millions and millions of dollars to essentially make this problem worse. We move it around and make it worse. And so, I get that people don't want to see this anymore, but if that's what they want, then we're going to have to take some steps towards solutions and sweeps just aren't it at all. [00:23:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. You raised so many good points - it's absolutely correct. The bottom line is the actions that we're taking are not moving people into shelter and permanent housing. It is not an ideal solution to have people on sidewalks and have people living on streets. But when people don't have a home to go to and they don't have anywhere else to go, that is the option. That is the option. Unless we just expect people to die, we can't jail our way out of the problem. There certainly is a contingent of people who are just like, well, they shouldn't be on the sidewalk and that should be illegal and that's an obstruction and it's bad, and they should be arrested and they're probably criminals anyway and they're causing problems and creating crime. When the reality is people who are unsheltered are actually many times more likely to be victims of crime. They're a very vulnerable population and that's all just factless propaganda that we're hearing otherwise. But our services are not set up to meet the needs that actually exist, and time after time - when we listen and we hear things like they were offered shelter and they refused, we really do have to dig a little bit deeper and think about what were they offered? So many times what they were offered does not actually accommodate the needs that they have - if they have a partner, if they have a dog - those people that they have relied on that again, because they're in such a vulnerable position and because they are so exposed to the likelihood of having crime committed against them, having people that they can count on who help to look out for you, that help to protect your belongings - is essential to survival. And a lot of times we're asking them to give that up for a night in a shelter, for a week in a shelter. It's not even like they have the opportunity to transition in a permanent way and okay, maybe it's going to be okay. That stay in the shelter could be absolutely destabilizing for them and could tear apart the only thing that is keeping them safe and warm and alive. And so we just have to get really serious about this. I think Marc Dones has talked a lot about this issue and that we have to get real about - when we see such high "refusal rates", which can just be a service didn't fit. And when we see high rates of people being referred to services and then not showing up or following through, there's a reason for that. And if we want to get to the root cause of this issue and if we want to get people off of our sidewalks, which I think everybody wants, then we have to actually address the issues there and meet the needs that exist, not the ones that - they have to be solutions that meet the needs that they're identifying that they have, not what we think they should have, not what we think they deserve, not what we think is right or good or moral or all of that stuff. If we aren't addressing the things that they say will, hey, yes, that is something that I could do to move forward to get off the streets, then we're just moving people around to different areas. And again, a sweep is just moving people off of a block - the City and the County will acknowledge, have acknowledged - that no, it's not solving the issue of homelessness, it's moving them off of a block. I think another missing part of this conversation is that we seem to be prioritizing the needs and wants of downtown moneyed interests and not those of the rest of the community. We're perfectly fine spending tons of money - allocating tons of time and officer resources, City resources - to clear a block here and there at the behest of the Downtown Seattle Association, or the Chamber, or a business owner who's been loud and vocal, but we're actually not doing the same thing in other neighborhoods where just regular people are living. In fact, we're displacing the problems that existed in the downtown area to other communities - freely admitting it and saying, hey, we just spent the money that we could have spent to house people - which is the biggest problem of homelessness is people lacking houses - and we're treating this like a criminal solution and basically putting the problem into your lap now. And doing a victory lap because this one block downtown is clear for now. It just does not make much sense to me. And I just feel like so many people are just like, well, you don't care and you want all the sidewalks to be like this. No, no one does. We just want to actually not keep kicking the can down the road and waste the money that we could be using to actually solve this problem. [00:28:33] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely - and I also think that there's - I don't really understand why there is so much comfort in subsidizing downtown businesses using all the resources there to make sure that they can have what they want, but everybody else has to deal with the fallout and they just have to take it on. But like downtown - their sidewalks, everything - the City as a whole pays to subsidize clearing those blocks for them and for their businesses. And I don't understand why anyone is okay with that idea, especially because yes, we're not talking about solutions. And I think that if you're not talking about getting people housed, then you are just talking about moving the problem around. And there's a lot of reasons why - you were talking about people might refuse services, but there's also - and they're very real. Like you said, there's a community aspect that is the only thing that's keeping a lot of people truly alive, truly safe, truly alive - the modicum of safety and life that they have. And that's not considered. And I think that it's a very convenient - to say, well, they refused services - but it's just like, well, did you give them a three-night hotel voucher where they can't take any of their belongings? And so therefore they know if I do this, then I'm going to be out again in three days and I'm not going to have any of the things that I need to survive. There's a lot more that goes into decisions about what services to accept and not, rather than just personal preference. And I think that's how it gets sold - is like, oh, well, you maybe don't like this, but that's what there is. And it's just - first of all, I think people should have choices. But second, we're talking about the difference between life and death. And so the idea that, and this is what I would see in court all the time too, especially around issues like addiction or not having shelter is - well, if we just punish you harder, then you won't be like this anymore. I'm - this person lives under a bridge and is fighting for their life. I don't know how much lower we can take this - there's no point in making people who are suffering suffer more. I think there's this idea that they'll just suffer more and then they'll just stop - suffer more and then they'll magically have money to move into an apartment that costs twice as much as it did five years ago? That's this weird, magical thinking that is really, I guess, hypnotic on some level, but it's really pervasive. And we can see that it hasn't worked, so I don't really understand clinging to those notions. But yeah, that's where we are. And it's incredibly - I saw a picture the other day of some bike officers at a sweep and there was 12 of them just in the picture - and if you think about median income for a sworn police officer for SPD, I think it's $163,000. So even just looking - if we just rounded to $150k - 12 officers at $150k in this picture - that's almost $2,000 an hour. And I'm sure that was only a small number of the officers that were there. So in addition to parks, in addition to all of the other services that may or may not be provided - we're spending gigantic amounts of money to make the problem worse. And that just doesn't make any sense. If you want people off the sidewalk - I do too, this is horrible. Yeah, and I think there is this idea that if you say you don't like sweeps, then you must love people living in the street. And I think it's the complete opposite - you can be in favor of the sweeps, but you are not in favor of getting people off the street. You are in favor of getting people off your street temporarily. So it really - but I think it's really hard for people when the narrative is, oh, they're refusing services - as if people are being offered an apartment and they're saying, you know what - I really like it outside in the cold and rain. Yeah, it's hard, it's hard, there's - the media around this issue is really hard, making it really difficult for a lot of people. [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. Another thing that we saw this week was the City Attorney Office pivoting back to a strategy - another strategy that we've seen unveiled many times before - an initiative to target "high utilizers" of the criminal justice system. And so Ann Davison has identified - I think it was 118 individuals who they say are responsible, 118 "high utilizers" who "create a disproportionate impact on public safety in Seattle." And so there have been similar initiatives launched in 2012 and 2019. And you may have heard other terms like high-impact offenders, prolific offenders - but this is the same strategy that they're using there. These clearly were not successful programs in the past, but we are returning to them. And certainly this is something that has been championed by more conservative folks, by the "law and order crowd". And we have varying opinions with this - there's a PubliCola article that goes over this - but King County Department of Public Defense Director, Anita Khandelwal, views the initiative as just repetition of a failed strategy, saying, "Over the last decade, the city has repeatedly announced similarly named initiatives that would focus more law enforcement resources on those already most policed as a strategy for addressing public safety. This is a tired strategy of arresting, prosecuting and jailing. It's expensive and clearly ineffective." Lisa Daugaard, the co-executive director of the Public Defender Association and co-founder of the LEAD diversion program, who we've talked about before - most recently supportive of the failed Compassion Seattle initiative - sees potential for success, saying the initiative is built on a solid foundation - addressing the needs of "high utilizers" on a case-by-case basis. She believes Davison could avoid the errors of past crackdowns by pushing her counterparts in city and county governments to expand programs like LEAD to accommodate a new surge in clients. Also, Lisa admits that if LEAD took on all 118 of those people's clients, they would not have any more capacity for additional clients in the future. And again, it's important to note that it does not appear that Ann Davison has expressed at all that she has any interest in diverting these programs to LEAD, or any other diversion program that is focused on treating more root causes to prevent this recidivism and reoffense that has been a hallmark of just arresting and jailing people. We have to do different things in order to get a different result. What do you think about this? [00:36:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think it's funny - the repackaging every year - Ann really sold herself as this - someone so opposite of what Pete Holmes did, but now she's - this is the same exact thing. And it really is just window dressing in my opinion. And the idea that we can spend more on law enforcement and it's going to help is so ridiculous. The one thing that the 118 people that were identified have in common is none of them have shelter. [00:37:28] Crystal Fincher: Literally none? [00:37:30] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Right. Yeah. No, none of them do. They're all unsheltered. And so instead of spending this astronomical amount of money on more law enforcement, why don't we put money into housing? Because also when you look at the breakdown of the repeat crimes, it's usually low-level shoplifts and trespassing, which is just sleeping under an awning. And so how much of that could we just remove by getting people sheltered? And that seems to be the last solution. It's just - try everything else, except for providing shelter and services to people, which are so - it's so much less expensive to house someone and give them wraparound services - wraparound services like onsite case management, medication management, things like that - is so much less expensive than putting them in jail. And it's stable, right? Because no matter how much you hate that someone sleeps under an awning or steals a sandwich, no matter how much you dislike that, the criminal justice system will always fail to provide a solution because it's a temporary thing. The maximum sentence on almost every misdemeanor is - well, the maximum sentence is either 90 days or 364 days. And with the way jail time works, everyone's going to be back out on the street in 9 months - that's the max. We cannot just think of jail as this permanent housing solution and permanent incapacitation solution for low-level misdemeanors that could be so - I don't want to say easily, because it's not easy - it's not getting people into affordable housing, we don't have any first of all. And it's not an easy solution, but it's the only one that actually makes any sense. And I think that when we talk about LEAD or any of these other things, we're just putting more money where it doesn't belong. I don't think lawyers and cops should not be dealing with these situations. That's not where the money should go. The money should go to service providers, to housing, to professionals that deal with addiction or mental health issues - that's where the money needs to go and those are prioritized the least, and it's all about arrests and incarceration. And again, it's just like the sweeps - you're kicking the can - there's nothing about that that's going to solve the problem. And so no matter how many times someone gets arrested for these things, they're going to get out of jail. If it doesn't escalate into a felony and we're talking about the people that are these "high utilizers", or a couple years ago repeat offenders or prolific offenders, we're talking about a lot of misdemeanors. We're not talking about people with a bunch of murders or something like that. [00:40:24] Crystal Fincher: Committing violent crime, assaults - that type of thing. [00:40:27] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, so if we're talking about this low-level stuff, there's - it's a completely inadequate response that sucks up all of the resources needed to actually combat the problem. [00:40:39] Crystal Fincher: It does, and it is a real challenge. We have done this before, it has not worked. We keep spending resources on what has been proven to not work, while simultaneously demanding data that proves that doing anything else will completely solve this issue, and create a nirvana and just be the end-all and be-all, when that is actually not the standard that we're applying with our humongous expenditure of resources. And just another reminder that jail is really expensive. It costs a whole lot of money. The criminal, just our entire criminal legal system is a really, really costly system. So we do have a lot of resources available - we continue to make choices to spend them on lawyers, on jailing people, on all of the people and buildings and apparatus to support that. And when we actually have tons of data that that does not fix this problem - in fact, it is likely to make it worse. And so if we are focused on data-driven approaches, that is what is clearly being indicated - what we have a long track record locally that we can draw on that proves that, but certainly also looking nationally - so much data to back that up. We will have to see. The last thing I wanted to talk about was a story that came out this week - David Kroman wrote about it in the Times - with Harrell postponing Seattle Police Department's plan to crack down on disorderly conduct at Third Avenue bus stops. The police department was looking at using the City's criminal code regulating disorderly conduct on buses - things like smoking, playing loud music, littering, drinking alcohol, "loud raucous and harassing behavior" and other conduct that is inconsistent with the intended use and purpose of the transit facility, transit station or transit vehicle. These have often not been cited. We will put it in the episode notes - there's actually an article I need to track down by a bus driver that I thought was really thoughtful. And it does seem like it is a fact that there is more disruptive activity happening on buses than there was before. This bus driver was thoughtful and like, yeah, this is happening - and also there are lots of reasons why it's happening, and there are lots of reasons why taking a criminalizing approach may not be helpful, why taking a different kind of the law and order thing or just kicking people off buses may not be helpful. It's a complicated thing to solve. We do need to acknowledge that driver safety is important, that rider safety is important, but also have the lens that if we want to address this problem - again, like the conversation we just had - simply arresting and jailing someone actually doesn't fix and solve the problem. A lot of times this is a result and a symptom of failures in so many other places of people not having access to mental health treatment that they need, of substance use disorder treatment that they need, public health problems that we actually don't have those facilities for. What is your view on this, and on Mayor Harrell's decision to actually step in and postpone it? [00:44:34] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think it's interesting because again, like as we already talked about, it's not a solution. There's lots of reasons for why these things are happening and it's not because there's lax enforcement. First of all, there is enforcement on buses - I've had many bus cases myself and there is some degree of enforcement. Is that something that's going to - or has that been working? Is it going to continue to work? Is the scope of the problem in a lack of enforcement? And it doesn't really seem to be. Like you said, there's lots of reasons that these things are happening. And when we're talking about mental health, addiction, housing - all of these things - addressing these things are going to help with those issues, but that's not what we put money towards. We just keep throwing it at this system that is not working. It's interesting to me that it was walked back - they're putting that on pause. And I wonder is that because they realize - oh, that's actually not going to make that much of a difference - but there's also the fact that buses and bus shelters are not under the City's jurisdiction. Those are county issues, so maybe that was not known - I don't know - beforehand. But when the City talks about cracking down on things going on on the buses, they don't have the jurisdiction to do that. So that could be one reason why it got walked back as well. [00:46:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. That's really interesting because - very clearly talking about enforcing things on buses - which yes, there is a jurisdiction issue there - but it also looks like they were planning to take action within 25 feet of transit stops. Is that defined as - technically the stop facility - or is there, I guess that's a really technical and wonky question, but I could totally imagine, to your point, that there are jurisdictional questions. [00:46:49] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I don't know what that - I have not looked that up. No, I think that's under City jurisdiction - that would be under City jurisdiction. Yeah. Just not anything on a bus - I don't think would be. But yeah, I would have to look that up, but I do think that would be the City still. It just depends - there's different parts of the City, like when - I won't go into jurisdictional issues, because no one wants to talk about those things for long periods of time - but they don't have as much control. Let me just say - they don't have as much control over things going on on a bus as they think they do. If someone's committing a felony on the bus, then SPD could potentially get involved, but it's still - it's going to be prosecuted by the county. And if it's misdemeanors, the misdemeanors on a bus are also going to be prosecuted by the county, because of county - see, I could go on, it could be a really long time. [00:47:47] Crystal Fincher: Well, I just learned something because I did not know that misdemeanors committed on a bus would be prosecuted by the county and not city. Very interesting - these discussions are very interesting. But I think overall we'll just keep our eyes peeled on it and continue to update on it. Just another quick update in terms of the concrete workers strike - there was talk this week about some of them potentially returning to some job sites as a show of good faith and an attempt to lessen the impact on the greater community. That seems to have had mixed results and a mixed outcome where some talked about returning, others didn't. One particular company looked like workers were willing to return and the company was unwilling to let them work again. But again, we've seen city and county leaders say that they want a quick resolution and that this is impacting various projects around the county, but also workers need fair conditions. And the workers are saying, hey, they're asking us - when you consider inflation - to take a hit to our salary, to healthcare benefits, and to our pension - it's across the board. And companies saying, but we're technically offering more money than we did before and so it should all be good. And still not doing much to come to the table and participating in this activity - hoping that public pressure just forces the workers back and they can just ride out the storm and do nothing, and hope that public pressure does some negotiating on their behalf. So we will continue to follow it - the county, we had talked about before, had tried to issue an RFP to other companies to try and work around this and have greater protections for unionization and worker conditions. And that - no one responded to that RFP actually, so we seem to just be in this position - and unless there is some specific call or pressure, it seems like - on the companies to negotiate in better faith and to move closer to the workers, it looks like we're going to be stuck in this position for quite some time. So we will continue to see how that unfolds. And again, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, March 18th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer Shannon Cheng, with assistance from Emma Mudd. And our wonderful co-host today is criminal defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. You can find Nicole on Twitter @ntkallday, and you should be following Nicole. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced on the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Houston green lights a new navigation center for people experiencing homelessness, and League City restores a local recreational landmark.   The CI Morning Breakdown is a production of Community Impact Newspaper. It is produced by Olivia Aldridge with editing by Marie Leonard. Weather and allergy reports are sourced from www.weather.com and AccuWeather. Learn more at www.communityimpact.com/podcast/morning-breakdown.

Today Erica C. Barnett of Publicola joins Crystal as they analyze this week's news, including: more mayoral candidates than ever supporting limitations of single family housing zoning and providing free transit services, ACLU of WA and the House Our Neighbors Coalition coming out in opposition to Charter Amendment 29 and the misleading rhetoric from the pro CA-29 "Compassion Seattle" campaign, and members of the Seattle Police Department fraudulently registering to vote by using their precinct address instead of their residential address. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “What Is the Correct Percentage of Single-Family Zoning in Seattle?” by Mike Eliason: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/06/01/correct-percentage-single-family-zoning-seattle/ “Amazon provides $100 million to build affordable housing near Sound Transit stations” by Mike Lindblom: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/amazon-provides-100-million-to-build-affordable-housing-near-sound-transit-stations/?amp=1 “Seattle mayoral candidates talk free transit, traffic-ticket cameras and greenhouse-gas emissions” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-mayoral-candidates-talk-free-transit-traffic-ticket-cameras-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ MASS + Allies Mayoral Candidate Forum (Video), hosted by the Cascade Bicycle Club, moderated by Erica C. Barnett: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=500917777790093&ref=watch_permalink Text of Seattle Charter Amendment 29, AKA “Compassion Seattle”: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~cfpics/cf_321942b.pdf Statement from the ACLU of Washington on proposed Seattle Charter Amendment 29: https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/statement-aclu-washington-proposed-seattle-charter-amendment-29 Statement from the House our Neighbors Coalition on Seattle Charter Amendment 29: https://www.houseourneighbors.org/ “Seattle Navigation Center gets people out of tents, but getting them into housing is tougher” by Vianna Davila and Vernal Coleman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-navigation-center-gets-people-out-of-tents-but-getting-them-into-housing-is-tougher/ “Only Two People Have Found Permanent Homes Through Seattle's New Low-Barrier Shelter” by Erica C. Barnett: https://www.seattlemag.com/news-and-features/only-two-people-have-found-permanent-homes-through-seattles-new-low-barrier “Where This Year's Campaign Money Is Coming From” by Erica C. Barnett: https://publicola.com/2021/06/15/where-this-years-campaign-money-is-coming-from/ “No Charges Against Cops Who Violated Voting Law; City Finally Buys Shower Trailers” from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/06/14/morning-fizz-voting-police-shower-trailers/ "Elections Department Will Refer Two SPD Voter Registration Issues to the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office" by Rich Smith https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/06/15/58254135/elections-department-will-refer-two-spd-voter-registration-issues-to-the-king-county-prosecuting-attorneys-office "City reverses course, issues permit for CHOP Art Juneteenth Celebration in Cal Anderson" by jseattle https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2021/06/city-reverses-course-issues-permit-for-chop-art-juneteenth-celebration-in-cal-anderson/ "Why King County Needs Ranked-Choice Voting" by Girmay Zahilay https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/06/15/58244912/why-king-county-needs-ranked-choice-voting   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Erica C. Barnett: [00:00:50] Thank you Crystal. Great to be here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:52] Excellent. I'm excited to have you here as always. You're always covering -- your coverage is great at PubliCola. You actually hosted a forum this week, not the first forum you've hosted this cycle. But certainly another great one. And we've had a lot of things happen during the week from that forum to Juneteenth being on Saturday -- now federally recognized as a holiday after Congress passed it, the Senate unanimously and Joe Biden signed it. Now only if they would do the same thing with the filibuster and others. The King County Council discussing renter protections ahead of the eviction moratorium. King Council Councilmember Girmay to introduce an ordinance to put ranked choice voting on the ballot in November, signature gathering with Compassion Seattle has begun, an SPD officer was in a bizarre and tragic incident -- struck and killed while helping a motorist on the side of I-5, and then her car was stolen, oddly. And then also two SPD officers registered to vote using the precinct address, which is illegal. It's a felony. And they're going to be referred to the Prosecuting Attorney after barely facing any discipline within SPD. So we'll see if that turns out to be anything more substantial -- seems like it is for other people. Let's hope that the cops have to play by the same rules in this instance. That would be a good start in that process.  But I want to start off talking about the Cascade Bicycle Club Transportation Forum that took place on Wednesday that you hosted, Erica. And I guess overall, what was the forum focused on? What were some of the big highlights and takeaways regarding the candidates? Erica C. Barnett: [00:02:41] Sure. The forum, which was actually hosted by the Mass Coalition, which includes Cascade and a bunch of other transportation and environmental and sustainability groups, really focused -- we ended up focusing a lot on transportation. There were some questions and some discussion of other environmental issues, as well as equity issues related to transportation. And it was a really interesting, very substantive forum. I thought the candidates came to it with some pretty different views, I think, of what a sustainable transportation system would look like, for example. But I think a couple of things really jumped out at me about the candidates' responses. One was just the fact that there's near unanimity now around the idea that single family zoning is exclusionary, which is a term that urbanists have used for many years. To say, look, single family zoning, where you can only have detached, single family houses in an area is based on redlining which is a racist practice, and is a form of modern day redlining, that forces people who can't -- who didn't buy in in the sixties, seventies, when houses were cheap, or who are wealthy now -- it forces people into suburbs and smaller apartments and places where other types of housing are allowed. I remember when I wrote that single family zoning was racist and based in redlining, maybe -- I don't know -- less than 10 years ago, I was lambasted for just suggesting that idea. And now it is just totally mainstream, all the candidates seem to believe pretty strongly that we need to get rid of single family zoning. The other thing that jumped out at me about a particular candidate is that is Bruce Harrell's sort of insistence on this idea. And he said this about homelessness, too -- that philanthropy is going to be part of the solution to transportation problems. I was not really sure how that's going to work, or how donations are going to solve these big systemic issues, and he didn't really explain, but that seems to be a big theme for him. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:01] That - yes, that's interesting. I certainly have heard him talk about philanthropy before. It seems like, Hey, if our current system and process is not sufficient enough to address the problems, and we already know that the mega rich are not paying their fair share, as we saw in a recent ProPublica publication after they released the tax returns of billionaires and they're paying less than many people who earn $75,000 a year or $50,000 a year -- why not just tax them? Isn't taxing the most reasonable, sustainable, equitable solution there instead of bending over to beg them for money and essentially hoping that you luck into enough money one time to make a little change -- but can you plan off of philanthropy? It just seems like it is passing the buck and not sufficient enough to address the challenge that we have right now. And [it's] trying to get away from the taxation conversation, which -- we've had the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We've had Amazon and Jeff Bezos say that they'll give X amount for homelessness or affordable housing and that Okay. seems like more of a way, especially while they're fighting against floor taxation, to placate people. Erica C. Barnett: [00:06:39] Yeah. And it always comes with strings attached. Amazon's contribution, it was largely -- the majority of it is in the form of a low interest loan. So it's not really philanthropy. I mean, philanthropy is, as I understand it is giving, it's not lending. So, there's that. And the fact is, Harrell's comment on philanthropy, in this case was about Move Seattle, which is supposed to build a lot more sidewalks and bike lanes than it is going to actually build -- just because of the cost of things going up and revenues going down. So his idea is to backfill that, but then, okay -- so, you get a bunch of money from Amazon, let's say -- where are they going to build those sidewalks? Is it going to be in places that are beneficial to Amazon workers, or is it going to be in the places that have historically gone without sidewalks for decades and decades, in Southwest Seattle, in Southeast Seattle and far north Seattle? So, that sort of idea and the same thing with his idea to do philanthropy for homelessness -- Amazon built a new facility for Mary's Place, which serves women and women with children. And not in any way to denigrate Mary's Place -- they do very important work -- but the biggest portion of the homeless population in Seattle is single men. And it's very, very hard to site a shelter for single men. There's no philanthropy. That's just, you know, philanthropy -- there aren't big businesses lining up to do this work. And so I would be really wary of any money that comes with strings attached. Even if Harrell's sort of vague proposal turned into a plan and turned into money.  Crystal Fincher: [00:08:33] Yeah. And fundamentally, this may be because I'm a wonk, but I want to hear what you can do, what you as a candidate in looking at your capacity as the Mayor of Seattle, what in your sphere of influence can you do? That to me just seems like passing the buck. "Well, let's get someone else. Someone else needs to do this. And wow, we can really do it with someone else, but I personally don't have a plan to address it." And I think we're at the point where many of the issues that we have require plans from these candidates to address directly. Tell me what you can do as mayor. This other stuff, legislative action, philanthropy, regional help -- all useful and helpful. Sure. But can we count on them? No. So we better have a plan.  Erica C. Barnett: [00:09:20] And we've had four years of a mayor appointing task forces that make these kind of vague proposals at the end. And it's like a black hole. We're gonna put this taskforce on top of this issue that's really important. And then you either never hear from them again, or they issue a list of eight recommendations that are basically the same stuff they went in, knowing they would need to recommend and do. So I think that mayoral candidates who say, I want to pass the buck onto Amazon, or I want to pass the buck onto a task force -- I mean, that's just promising more of the same.  Crystal Fincher: [00:09:59] Exactly. Another issue I was wondering about, that, actually, I've heard some candidates talk about -- some of them have talked about it on this show -- is the idea of free transportation. Certainly not a new idea. Certainly a popular idea, and the fare box -- fares do not cover the transportation system and don't pay all of the bills, but that idea was accepted by, and is being advocated for, by a number of candidates. Did you talk about that in the forum?  Erica C. Barnett: [00:10:32] We did, it came up a couple of times. It was really-- and that was another issue where I feel like the the window has really shifted. All the candidates except for Lance Randall -- and I'll say, all the candidates who were there, Casey Sixkiller canceled and Colleen Echohawk had a longstanding conflict -- so, the candidates who were there also that they supported free transit, except for Lance Randall. Bruce Harrell said that he wanted to move towards free transit, but in the meantime he supported, in his words, incrementalism from doing things like reducing reducing rates, doing free fares for some folks, and being creative and buying more hours. But overall, everybody did say on the record, we support free transit. I should say, I just remembered, Ace, the architect -- what's his real name? Andrew Grant Houston.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:29] Andrew Grant Houston, yes. Erica C. Barnett: [00:11:31] Ace The Architect on Twitter, which is where a lot of people know him. He did say that the issue beyond free transit is thinking about it in a holistic way and actually making it easier for people to get out of cars and to be on buses, so doing things like changing land use patterns and making more systemic changes in the longterm, so that it's just easier for people not to have to buy cars. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:58] Which I am a strong advocate of, I think people should truly have a choice of the type of transportation that they want to use. And, if someone is dedicated to remaining in a car, okay. But lots of people, especially in metropolitan areas like Seattle, a car is an inconvenience and it's hard and challenging to park. Parking takes up valuable space and is also expensive. And so just having to negotiate through that where oftentimes transit or biking or walking, when there are safe options, are better and quicker and healthier options for a lot of people. So to truly have that choice and to not have that choice eliminated because of poor zoning, lack of safe transit ways -- it is necessary. I appreciate that point being brought up. Was there anything else, overall insightful in just how they saw the possibility to transform the city as we have it today to one where there is that choice, or we do have more reasonable transit options within their terms? Erica C. Barnett: [00:13:10] Well, I think there was -- and I have to go back and look at their exact answers so I don't mischaracterize anybody, but I think there was sort of unanimity for expanding the Move Seattle levy to cover more and to be larger perhaps. And figuring out a way to build Sound Transit without having to -- they're going through this realignment process because their revenues have come in short -- but figuring out a way to build everything that is promised in Sound Transit without having to go back and pass another levy and wait another however many years to get everything built.  So, those were kind of the broad themes of consensus: We can't go back. We can't let the pandemic set us back on what is supposed to be a hundred year decision on Sound Transit Three. And so, again, you've followed this stuff for a long time as have I, and it just feels like, compared to previous elections -- even the last mayoral election, not to mention the ones before that -- everything on this kind of progressive transportation revenue and land use issue has shifted to kind of thinking about it more through an equity lens, which I think was not really as much of a factor four years ago. And of thinking of kind of the systemic reasons that people maybe drive cars or people can't afford 2. 75 for a bus fare.  And that's produced this discussion of free transit, which I just find totally fascinating. I mean, it's something that, Sound Transit I should say, is pretty much dead set against because they say they need those revenues. But it feels like we're moving somewhat in that direction, if not free then more access to reduce fares for more people.  Crystal Fincher: [00:15:10] Yeah, certainly. And I would imagine that free transit on Metro and not on Sound Transit would potentially changes some usage patterns by some people and that making transit more accessible for some people. I mean, Sound Transit -- I could talk about Sound Transit for a long time. The recent extended plans given, how they're presenting their budget, and delays until potentially 2046 for some alignments is just like, how are we discussing this with a straight face? I'm sorry, it's clownery. What is even happening? How are you even with a straight face taxing people today without delivering today? Sound Transit can do better.  Erica C. Barnett: [00:15:59] I agree.  Crystal Fincher: [00:15:59] I can confidently say that we should not accept what they're saying as acceptable and "That's the best that we can do." Sound Transit can do better. They should do better. They should be held accountable for doing better. And, I am encouraged, as you said, with the type of conversation that we're having today, especially in the Seattle City Council and mayoral races, where there seems to be uniform acceptance that we have to do better. That that is not sufficient. And hopefully that pushes the Sound Transit board and organization in a better direction. And hopefully we get some new leaders on that board who will more strongly advocate for that too. Erica C. Barnett: [00:16:43] Yeah. And just very quickly to be clear, for the mayoral race, this is a really relevant question because the mayor does serve on the Sound. Transit board. That's a given. City Council members can serve on the board. But the mayor does. So the Mayor of Seattle has a lot of influence on that board.  Crystal Fincher: [00:17:00] Absolutely. Thank you. Well, another thing I wanted to get to was the Compassion Seattle. I think it is ironically named and that there's not much compassion in sweeps, which is what they're trying to put into the City Charter, but signature gathering for the Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment has started. The initiative is facing fresh opposition from new coalition House Our Neighbors, the ACLU of Washington also publicly took a stand against that Charter Amendment. And there were also some misleading statements made in a campaign forum on Wednesday about that Charter Amendment. But I guess looking at overall the Charter Amendment, where that stands, where the camp stands and in signature gathering, is there anything that you found notable in those events, Erica? Erica C. Barnett: [00:17:58] Well, a couple of things. So the ACLU coming out against it was very interesting. Compassion Seattle put out a statement, kind of opposing the ACLU's opposition. I think there's just a lot of kind of misleading statements happening from the campaign about what the amendment would do. And that's kind of the basis of all this back and forth. I would just encourage people to actually read the amendment because it's not very long and anything that comes out of the campaign's mouth is much less relevant -- because it's about intent -- than just what it actually says in the amendment. So the campaign makes statements about how this would mandate funding for treatment. It would mandate funding for all these different services -- for case management, for compassionate things. And it doesn't actually do that. If you look at the amendment itself, it does not do that. It says that 12% of the city's budget, the city's general fund has to go into a Human Services fund that will pay for, in the first two years, 2000 units of temporary or emergency housing. And so what that means is shelter. And the campaign will say, Well, this could include permanent supportive housing. Permanent supportive housing costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a unit. And then you have to sustain it over time with services. And shelter costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per bed, depending on what you're talking about.  So when the campaign says this mandates treatment and services, what they mean is it mandates a minimum of enhanced shelter. So something like the Navigation Center in Pioneer Square -- I'm sorry, in the International District. And that's it. So look at what the amendment actually says when you're hearing all these kinds of grandiose promises. Because a lot of them don't really shake out the way that the campaign portrays it. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:06] That is true. Can you explain what the Navigation Center is like -- that's what it's mandating -- what is the Navigation Center? Erica C. Barnett: [00:20:17] Sure. And this is actually, this is another -- speaking of the narrative shifting, and what is possible shifting -- the Navigation Center was really innovative in its time when it was first built. It's an enhanced shelter, which means that people can stay 24 hours. They don't have to pack up their stuff and leave it at seven in the morning. There's some storage for people to keep some of their belongings and you can have pets. You can go with your partner. I believe it is sex segregated in terms of sleeping areas, but you get a little more privacy. People sleep on bunk beds in smaller rooms. So it's not just like a giant room the way, say, like DESC's old Downtown shelter was. So, it's an upgrade from your basic shelter. However, it is still a mass congregate shelter. And one thing the pandemic has taught us is that people do much, much better when they have privacy, when they have a room to themselves to think and breathe, and a door that locks, and a bathroom. I think the Navigation Center has a few stalls, mass showers. And so it's still a shelter.  And I think the pandemic showed us that we can do better and that people do better when we do better. So, when Compassion Seattle says we're going to do all this amazing stuff, they're talking about something that was amazing when it was first put into place, 5- 10 years ago. But we've moved beyond that now in our understanding of what actually makes people's lives better and puts them on the path to being able to sustain housing or get into permanent housing.  Crystal Fincher: [00:21:59] Right. And thank you for that -- I appreciate that. I think it is really important to be able to go through what the Charter Amendment actually does say. We will certainly include that in our show notes for those who want to read it for yourselves. And while there's a lot of promises being made far surpassing that, and there was video of a signature gatherer -- a paid signature gatherer actually -- who was saying, No, Compassion Seattle will not forcibly remove someone from anywhere. I don't know if people realize what a sweep is, but that's literally forcing someone to move from an area and you're codifying that in the City Charter. So, that can't be changed -- as the City Council has moved against that, but the Mayor has remained in support and has deployed these sweeps in various areas of the city -- even in defiance of what some communities have asked for. That is literally what that is. You can't put sunshine and a smile on that. That's what it is.  And also just as a reminder, it is also recommended against by the CDC for being dangerous in a pandemic. And although it is wonderful that the City of Seattle and King County look overall to be at 70% vaccination rate, which was certainly a target, many vulnerable populations, BIPOC populations are not there yet. So certainly taking a vulnerable population that is already struggling in several different ways, compounding that also with the risks brought forward either in congregate shelter or by being swept, which is recommended against -- it does not seem ideal. We know we can do better. This is a solution; it's not the best solution. And actually doesn't look like it's going to do much to solve the root issue, but make people seeing homelessness happier that they may not have to see it as frequently in their own area. But it certainly isn't finding appropriate shelter and putting people on the path to stable housing. Erica C. Barnett: [00:24:15] Yeah. And just on the question of sweeps -- I mean, there's been some dispute about whether this would increase the likelihood of sweeps, because it does essentially codify what's already allowed under the law. And that is true. But as Jon Scholes, the head of the Downtown Seattle Association, was saying just the other night at a forum -- the reason they're putting it in the City Charter, he said -- which is the city's constitution -- is so that the City Council can't do anything with it. They can't overturn it. It is in place and it can't be undone.  Now, of course, they also did this weird thing where they have it sunset after seven years, which is unprecedented -- for a constitutional amendment to sunset. So that speaks to a kind of wishy-washyness about it, or the belief that homelessness will be solved in seven years, which of course, it won't. But yeah, I mean, this is their intent. Their intent is to make sure that no matter what City Council gets elected, no matter what mayor gets elected, this cannot be overturned. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:25] Which is, I mean -- we've moved, especially now that we've moved to districted elections. The Council moving against this is really -- these are the representatives that people in each area of the City have elected to represent their interests. And to say, You know what? We can't risk those people actually making decisions -- the decisions that the people of the City are electing them to do -- seems really disingenuous. It seems like this is kind of a sour grapes policy disagreement from people who were just unhappy with the direction that the City is going and using this tactic to get back at it and saying a lot of misleading things while they do. So if what they were doing didn't matter and wasn't consequential, they wouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pass it and to do it. It is codifying sweeps. That's the purpose. That's why they're spending so much money to do it. And you did an excellent article this week on just where money is coming from in Seattle races in these ballot initiatives, charter amendments. And the money for this is coming from the predicted and predictable place. It's downtown business -- certainly from the downtown area -- who have been advocating for sweeps this entire time. So we see what it is. Erica C. Barnett: [00:26:50] Yeah, it's very interesting.. I mean, just -- and Seattle Ethics and Elections does a great job of this to be honest. I mean, I can't take any credit for the charts and graphs that are in this post that I did on PubliCola, but it's very, very stark when you look at just the overwhelming amount of money coming from District 7, which includes downtown, for Compassion Seattle. And you can look at the numbers individually, and it's just -- it's real estate firms, it's developers, it's property owners downtown. And they continue to shape the narrative, unfortunately, for this current mayor, but also are trying to shape the narrative in the actual elections. And I think that it's important to remember that Seattle has a lot of neighborhoods other than downtown -- when thinking about issues in general.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:48] Absolutely. The last thing I wanted to cover is an item that has been on many people's nerves. And that is actually eyebrow raising that -- just the audacity of it -- the two SPD officers who registered to vote using the addresses of their precinct, which is not where they live, in order to vote seemingly against candidates who they were unhappy with running. What happened here and where does that stand? Erica C. Barnett: [00:28:19] So I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it was eight officers that registered to vote using SPD precincts.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:27] You are correct.  Erica C. Barnett: [00:28:29] And they won't face criminal charges. There was an investigation by the Office of Police Accountability and what they decided was basically -- they're going to, they got one day unpaid suspensions and oral reprimands in various cases. And three of them retired or resigned before the investigation concluded. And so it's now been referred to the King County Prosecutor and that's sort of where it stands. I mean, this is -- if you think about -- if you or I were to decide that we wanted to vote in -- if I were to say, I really just don't like that Kshama Sawant. So I'm going to register to vote in her district, even though I live in District 7. You know - we would get in a lot of trouble and it would probably be a news story, to be honest, if we were public figures, which we are. So the fact that police officers, most of whom do not live in the City of Seattle and do not vote in our elections, would try to influence or participate in elections that they have no right to participate in is -- I mean, it's pretty appalling. And the fact that this was sort of -- they sort of received a slap on the wrist as if this was no big deal at all is as you said -- it's infuriating.  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:56] It is infuriating and you're right -- two are going to be referred to the King County Prosecutor's office. But there were eight.  Erica C. Barnett: [00:30:04] Thank you. We got there. I didn't have that detail.   Crystal Fincher: [00:30:07] So thank you -- I appreciate that. Or seven -- I'm looking at the five other officers -- and I'm looking at an article written by Rich Smith in the Slog right now. And including the SPOG president, Mike Solan, who also registered with an incorrect address. And the one thing we know is that they knew they were doing wrong. Why? Because Solan has been posting and created controversy, as he often does, by posting about the people -- the Stop the Steal thing, basically -- voter fraud and stealing the ballot. We just had a number of police officers attend the DC events that led to the insurrection. And the entire premise of people being in DC was that basically Black cities and Black voters -- cities with large Black populations and Black voters -- were just deeply fraudulent and did this in wide numbers, and voted where they weren't eligible when they weren't eligible. And clearly SPD officers took this to heart and felt that, and got mad about it -- mad enough to take their behinds to DC to protest something that did not exist. And we still don't know if any actually participated in the insurrection, but I actually think that's ultimately irrelevant because just being there is proof of such an indefensible and unacceptable belief and position. It was billed as Stop the Steal -- who was stealing what? For them to be able to answer that question with -- Well, other people are stealing this election from Trump -- is ridiculous. That said, they were happy to call that fraud when it came to other people. They did call it fraud when it came to other people. But somehow it was okay for them to do it. It's like they think they're above the law or something. I am just --  Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:09] It is like that, isn't it?  Crystal Fincher: [00:32:10] It seems so. And one -- for them to get a slap on the wrist, like barely a slap on the wrist. I think it was one day suspension?  Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:19] Yeah. Yeah.  Crystal Fincher: [00:32:19] Most of them were committing this literal felony. Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:23] Yeah, and I think it's -- it's the same in what we saw in the Trump era -- was projection, projection, projection. You sort of imagine people doing the thing that you yourself are contemplating or actually doing. And I think that the vast majority of the verified cases of voter fraud that have been found -- and there are not very many, it's really a handful -- have been Republican voters. So read into that what you will. But yeah it is -- but the fact that there's, I mean -- will these nine or these eight people sway an election? Of course not. But it's the fact that they are exemplars of the community, supposedly. And they are an example, and if they get off with impunity, then more people will be encouraged to just kind of do whatever they want.  Crystal Fincher: [00:33:15] Yeah. And accepting the vilifying of other people for doing what they themselves are doing, which is what our criminal legal system seems to do consistently. And is it any surprise that if they find it acceptable, and they're such a critical part of the system and how people enter into the system -- is it any surprise that there might be some bias involved with how they police, if they have no problem doing this? Just what does that say about that culture? It seems pretty obvious.  And again, they should not be above the law, but man, we keep seeing how that is true and it is just disheartening to see. And I hope that through this process and everything else that we've seen, that leaders in the City take seriously the need to bring forth true accountability -- as a new Police Chief is hired and really ultimately this new Seattle Police Officers Guild contract is negotiated, make sure there are levers to bring real accountability within that. And don't accept it if it doesn't have it -- that should be a litmus test.  Erica C. Barnett: [00:34:22] Well put. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:23] Well, thank you so much, everyone, for taking the time to listen to Hacks & Wonks today -- today on Friday, June 18th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the awesome Lisl Stadler. Our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. I'm also thankful to Shannon Cheng and Lexi Morritt for also being extremely helpful with this podcast. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a C, and on publicola.com. You can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking Relapse and Recovery at your favorite bookstore. You can find me on Twitter @finchrii, that's spelled F I N C H F R I I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar -- sometimes you need to use the ampersand and instead of the word and, we've discovered -- we're working on that, but be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows  and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review -- it really helps us out. You 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. We'll talk to you next time.

Join me at the grand opening of the 2nd Proposition-HHH-funded Navigation Center, a multi-service facility with wrap-around services for Angelenos experiencing homelessness.

This week, we hash out San Diego's new homeless planning woes, a suspended City Council campaign and the fluidity of reality around Prop. 15. Check out some of our free Politifest panels, including Sara Libby's ballot measure crash course, at https://www.youtube.com/user/voiceofsandiego Share us with your friends! www.vosd.org/pod See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, we hash out San Diego's new homeless planning woes, a suspended City Council campaign and the fluidity of reality around Prop. 15. Check out some of our free Politifest panels, including Sara Libby's ballot measure crash course, at https://www.youtube.com/user/voiceofsandiego Share us with your friends! www.vosd.org/pod See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Optimal Health Coach (http://bootstobreakthrough.com/about/) Dr. Ja'net Bishop, Ed.D, CPEC As a national speaker, author, veteran, personal growth trainer, and resilience coach, Dr. Ja'net Bishop is on a mission to transform lives. As the Founder and Transition Strategist of Boots to Breakthrough LLC, Dr. Bishop's coaching, speaking, and workshops elevate purpose-driven people to achieve a balance between personal and professional success through embracing wellness and self-care. As a wife, mother, experienced school principal and school counselor, and as a certified life coach – she is familiar with transitions and redesigning your life to fulfill your goals. She has been featured in SKIRT Magazine, Focus on Fabulous Magazine, and the Columbia County News Times (Georgia). She authored How Much Joy Is In Your Journey? A Creative Guide to Your Fearless Vision and is also a contributing author in If She Can, an anthology devoted to resilient women. She was awarded a SCORE Veterans Grant and was recognized in 2017 by the McCormick Chamber of Commerce, as a “Keeper of the Flame.” Her passion for helping others goes far beyond her professional life. She serves on multiple boards including the National Alternative Education Association, YMCA-Cane Bay, The Vantage Point Foundation, The NAVIGATION Center, and is a Commissioner on the Commission for Affordable Housing and Homelessness (Charleston SC). She also volunteers facilitating Resiliency Workshops for the RedCross to move others through personal hardship. Dr. Bishop and her late husband, William, are most proud of their sons William II and Matthew. She further attributes her peace & joy through the support of her loving parents, James & Carrie Smalls, and her brothers Darryl & James. A native New Yorker, she currently resides in Summerville, SC. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/momentsofgrace/support

Plans for a Navigation Center in San Francisco's Bayview are up in the air, after federal officials reversed course and revoked their approval for the site. KCBS Radio news anchors Jeff Bell and Patti Reising spoke with KCBS and Chronicle Insider Phil Matier,

Richie Greenberg discusses his co-authoring of a ballot measure proposition to be placed on the November 2020 ballot for voters to reign in the out of control Navigation Center fiasco. Learn about what such centers are, the changes and controversy, what limitations are proposed, and what the terms of the ballot measure would require for effective accountability.

Guest: Yogi Chugh shares his views on how the city has proposed the downtown location for the Fremont Navigation Center.

Everyone agrees San Francisco must address its homelessness problem, but the fierce debate over the Embarcadero navigation center highlights how hard that is to do. Trisha Thadani and Dominic Fracassa on the city's struggle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's show: San Francisco approves a plan to build its largest homeless navigation center on the Embarcadero waterfront against vehement neighborhood opposition. Then, Theatre of Yugen brings modern and ancient traditions to Japanese performance. And, we'll hear one of San Francisco's signature sounds — with a little amplification.

Neighbors of San Francisco's Embarcadero waterfront community were fired up when the city proposed building a 225-bed navigation center for the homeless. First, competing Go Fund Me pages were set up to raise money for litigating the matter. Then, Mayor London Breed was shouted down at a meeting about the shelter. This week, the city will host another such community meeting, but are people willing to compromise to find a solution? Guest: Caroline Champlin, KQED reporter

London Breed’s proposed Navigation Center at the Embarcadero would offer over 200 beds to unhoused people, but has drawn ire from nearby wealthy residents who started a GoFundMe campaign to fund a legal battle. The Coalition on Homelessness’s response GoFundMe supporting the Navigation Center has been far more successful. But victory is not assured, as demonstrated by tonight’s vitriolic community meeting. On the 10th episode of Report Back we’re joined by Sasha Perigo of DSA SF and incoming co-chair of the Homelessness Working Group, and Jack Rice, Development Director at the Coalition on Homelessness. To get involved: - Donate to the good GoFundMe at https://www.gofundme.com/safer-embarcadero-for-all - Set up a recurring donation to the Coalition on Homelessness http://cohsf.org - Attend weekly Human Rights Working Group meetings at the CoH on Wednesdays at Noon - Join the DSA Homelessness Working Group homelessness@dsasf.org - Give feedback on the Navigation Center at hsh.sfgov.org or email your Supervisor … and also tell them to stop the sweeps! #StopTheSweeps #SafeSleep

In today's world, film has become one the most useful ways of portraying a story or message. Fay Darmawi, our guest today, uses film for those exact purposes partially through the SF Urban Film Fest. The Urban Film Fest brings filmmakers together to tell stories and share messages that aim to bring light to social and societal issues in San Francisco, while also seeking to showcase San Francisco's beauty and diversity. Today, Fay joins us over the phone to talk about the SF Urban Film Fest, as well as her quest to find the solution to affordable housing in the City by the Bay. Website: sfurbanfilmfest.com/2018a/ 1:55 Getting Started 3:23 Affordable Housing Finance 11:01 Film and Social Change 16:17 SF Urban Film Fest 21:13 Number of Films per Fest and the Selection Process 25:29 Involvement 26:32 Donation Info 28:01 London Breed and the Navigation Center 31:30 Impact on Others Lives 34:28 Increasing Affordable Housing 42:20 Favorite Parts of the Fest 48:03 Next Events/ Wrap Up Thanks for watching! Listen to The Marc Guzman Experience on iTunes, iHeartRadio or Watch on Facebook or YouTube. WEBSITE: http://www.MarcGuzman.com FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/MarcGuzmanHomes INSTAGRAM: http://www.instagram.com/MarcGuzmanHomes SNAPCHAT: http://www.snapchat.com/add/MarcGuzmanHomes TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/MarcGuzmanHomes Company Website: http://www.BGAM.us

San Francisco District Four candidate Trevor McNeil, a public school teacher, is the only candidate in the District Four race who would support a Navigation Center in the district. He's picked up a smattering of endorsements, but whether he can get enough traction before November remains an open question. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mission Local talks with an advocate for the homeless and a resident of a local encampment about the city's Navigation Center model and plans to open a temporary one in the neighborhood.

One couple's experience living in the Navigation Center—and what came after.Navigation Center Director Julie Leadbettertalks about the center's new approach.Inside the Tenderloin post office's general delivery window.