Podcasts about seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2024 50:32

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman! Crystal and David dig into why Seattle is putting less money into new affordable housing project this year and how this week's launch of a second social housing initiative by House Our Neighbors may be appealing to voters wanting to see progress on the issue. Next, they discuss the pressure on Mayor Bruce Harrell to deliver results now that a City Council friendly to his agenda has taken office and how the new Council's relative inexperience was on display at initial committee meetings. Finally, the show wraps up with a troubling story of the for-profit Tacoma immigration detention center refusing to allow state inspectors access after hundreds of complaints about the facility's poor conditions. 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, David Kroman, at @KromanDavid. Resources Harm Reduction in Rural Washington with Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart from Hacks & Wonks “Why Seattle will fund fewer new affordable housing projects this year” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times I-136 Let's Build Social Housing | House Our Neighbors “Seattle's social housing developer proposes payroll tax on ‘excess earners'” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “New Social Housing Initiative Would Tax Business to Fund Up to 2,500 Over 10 Years” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “A council of allies in place, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell feels pressure to deliver” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “Watch: New Transportation Committee gets intro from SDOT, CM Kettle puts foot in mouth” by Tom Fucoloro from Seattle Bike Blog @KromanDavid on Twitter: “Councilmember Rob Saka: "Ideally I'd like to have an across the board auditing of the entire city budget, but I am mindful that that is very costly and a time intensive activity. It's not practicable or feasible this year."” “State inspectors denied entry to privately-run immigration detention center in Tacoma” by Grace Deng from Washington State Standard Find stories that Crystal is reading here Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I welcomed Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart for a conversation about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities in Washington, the damaging role of stigma, what harm reduction is, and why it's so important. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's co-host: Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. [00:01:22] David Kroman: Hello. Thanks for having me. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thanks for being here. Well, there is - been a decent amount of news this week. We will start off talking about news you covered about why Seattle is funding fewer new affordable housing projects this year. What's happening and why are they seeming to step back here? [00:01:45] David Kroman: Yeah, it's interesting, and I would say kind of concerning for the general affordable housing landscape. So back to as far as 2018, Seattle has always made these annual announcements of how much money they're going to be putting towards affordable housing. They pair it with federal tax credits and private donations, but it usually ends up being over $100 million a year. Last year, for example, it was $147 million - I think it was about that the year before. This year, the award is only $53 million for new affordable housing projects - that stands out because voters just passed a new housing levy that's triple the size of the one before it. There is still money - less money, but there's still money - coming in from the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. And there's also the JumpStart payroll tax, which is supposed to go towards housing. So all those things together would suggest there's a lot of money for new affordable housing, but the problem is that a lot of the projects that the city has funded in the past are struggling with their finances. The combination of interest rates and some wonky details about what loans they're on mean that these 70 projects or so that are in the works, or at various stages of development, need something in the order of $90 million to prop them up. So it's a frustrating reality for people in the affordable housing world because they want to be building new housing, they want to be putting new units on the market. But because of just the nature of construction industry and where interest rates are at, a lot of that money is getting sucked up into basically paying for housing that we thought we'd already paid for. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: So does this money that is usually allocated annually - does it only go to the construction? Does it ever go to propping up other projects? Did this happen by surprise for the city? It doesn't seem like it was telegraphed that it would be this much of a hit. How did this change come about? [00:03:36] David Kroman: Yeah, the Office of Housing always helps out with operations and maintenance, and they see that they have a certain obligation not to just fund the construction, but to make sure that the buildings that they're helping fund function properly and can actually house people. I don't think it's uncommon that they go back and help out buildings that they'd already funded. As far as I know, though, it has never gotten to this size. It was telegraphed actually a few months ago - their initial announcement of how much money would be available suggested that it was going to be quite a bit smaller. I think people thought there were some more technical explanations for that. But what's really happening - in affordable housing, there's basically two loans that these affordable housing buildings get. There's the construction loan, which is what they get to put up the building. And then there's their final loan that they convert to once they've leased up enough of their units and are bringing in enough rent - because, despite the fact that it's affordable housing, the calculations that the banks make around these still require that they're collecting some level of rent from their tenants. Usually that process takes two or three years for them to convert from their construction loan to their final loan. But for a lot of reasons, they're just having a really hard time doing that. They're having a harder time filling their units - I think that's probably worth following up on why that is exactly. And then they're having a harder time collecting rents - some of that does go back to some of the pandemic era policies that were intended to stabilize people in their rental apartments. So they're not able to get to the point where they can get off of their construction loan. And that is a really bad loan to be on for a long period of time, just because the rates and interest rates on those are way higher. And so I think that reality is just coming to pass this year, that basically every single one of these projects is functioning on a construction loan. But if the Office of Housing didn't go back and help them weather this storm, then we're looking at a much worse problem, which is affordable housing buildings that have already been built and people are living in them - but them just basically going belly up or needing to be sold. And so kind of a rock and a hard place for the Office of Housing - they have a choice of spending on new buildings or helping out the buildings they've already funded. The choice in some ways is fairly obvious because you don't want to lose these buildings you've already built. But it does mean that future projects take a fairly significant hit. [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, it does look like that and it's important to keep these projects moving and healthy so that they don't go belly up or cause a large amount of destabilization in the market. But looking forward, especially with this hit to new affordable developments in an already-crisis level situation with housing affordability, the need for more units to be added - what kind of long-term impact does this look to have? Are we looking at a similar situation next year where we could be looking at a further hit? Is this a permanent injury to affordable housing funding, at least for the short to midterm? [00:06:28] David Kroman: Yeah, it's a good question. I'm not sure, but I do know that something fairly material would have to change between now and next year to make sure that this isn't a problem anymore. The number of units in a building that have to be leased up and collecting rent is like 90%, so it's really high. It used to never be a problem, but it seems like a lot of these buildings are hovering around 80% occupancy/rent collection. So unless the City has some trick up its sleeve for making sure that these buildings are 90% leased up and the people who are in them are paying that rent, it sets up a situation that is out of the City's hands because these are banks making these calls on whether or not they qualify for these cheaper loans. It's not like the City can pass some law that requires the banks to give them a cheaper loan. And so my guess would be it's not a problem that will go away in a year and probably will come up again this time next year. In the past, this has just never been a problem because, unfortunately, affordable housing is in such high demand that banks have never even thought twice about whether or not an affordable housing development would hit 90% occupancy and payment. The deeper concern here is that as banks see that that assumption is maybe not holding up as well, they might be more hesitant to write these loans in the first place. The only sort of cold comfort, I guess, is that this is not really a specific problem for affordable housing. I used to cover transportation - any transportation project is having these massive cost overruns and problems with construction projects too. And so maybe there's a little more leniency on the part of the financers because they understand that this isn't just some negligence on the affordable housing providers part, it's just the reality of the construction industry right now. But that doesn't mean that it's going to start being cheap anytime soon. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: Right - that's almost the takeaway. Everything about building housing right now seems expensive and growing more expensive. Inflation has definitely hit every element of it and interest rates are higher than they used to be, and just everything seems to be contributing to a higher overall cost. And so that's a challenge that we're going to have to figure out how to deal with, especially as it would be one thing if this were 15 years ago - We need to make plans because this is going to become a problem if we don't address it appropriately. But this now is a problem, a major problem, crisis level, where from the legislature to different cities are all acknowledging that we do have to build more residential units - at minimum - in addition to a variety of other policies, in order to prevent rents and housing costs from continuing to skyrocket. So here we are again, but not enough money is currently budgeted to go around. Is this a money issue? I know there's also a big budget deficit that they're in the process of beginning to deal with. Did the money just run out? Is this a matter of priorities? [00:09:21] David Kroman: Yeah, there is one lever I think that the City could pull and is pulling that could actually help this a little bit, which is one of the problems is the permitting timeline - for anything really, but affordable housing included - it used to be a year and a half basically just to get all the permits. There has been some legislation passed recently to exempt some affordable housing projects from design review in an effort to speed things up. That could help because then you're not sitting on a piece of property without actually being able to do anything with it. But yeah, it is a money problem because what it is at the end of the day is just things are costing more. The problem is every time there's a property tax levy in Seattle, the specter of levy fatigue is raised. So far, Seattle voters have never hit that - they have handily passed pretty much every property tax levy put before them. But there is, to an extent, an upper limit on how much in property taxes Seattle officials are going to feel comfortable asking voters to fund affordable housing. And if more than 50% of their money is going towards projects that they already thought had been funded, suddenly the political scenario starts to feel a little more fraught. Meanwhile, the other two funds that the City relies on for affordable housing are also no longer guaranteed solid funds. The Mandatory Housing Affordability pot - that depends on there being a lot of development in the City of Seattle. And of course, we've seen permits for new development plummet, which means there's just not going to be as many contributions from private developers toward affordable housing. And then the JumpStart payroll tax, this new city council is thinking already about this $230 million budget gap that you mentioned, and are not the friendliest to the idea of a business payroll tax. And so shifting the JumpStart tax from pure housing purposes to basically budget relief is very much on the table. And I think nonprofit housing developers understand that. So the problem is that in addition to the housing levy, which is robust and large, not going as far as they had hoped, combined with these other two sources of funds either declining or perhaps being repurposed for political reasons, in general, creates a lot of uncertainty among nonprofit housing developers. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: It does. We will continue to follow this. Thank you for covering that so comprehensively. Well, and that leads into news this week that House Our Neighbors launched a new social housing initiative, basically Part 2 of their initiative process that they talked about before. What is House Our Neighbors? What did the first initiative do? And what are they launching with this initiative that they just filed? [00:11:51] David Kroman: House Our Neighbors is the political side of Seattle's new social housing developer. 2023, they ran an initiative that set up this public developer that was theoretically going to take money and then either buy or build buildings. On its surface, it sounds a little bit maybe like Seattle Housing Authority, but their focus was going to be on mixed income or housing for not necessarily the poorest residents - 80% to 120% AMI. The idea being that if you're trying to raise a family in Seattle, it's really difficult because it's very, very hard to find two-, three-, four-bedroom affordable apartments. This would fill that gap that they see is missing between the market and government provided subsidized housing. The complaint or pushback on the last initiative was that there weren't any funds to do any of that work. That was intentional on the part of the people who ran the campaign because there are concerns about violating the state's rules against having multiple subjects in one initiative. So this new initiative that they're running would be that second step. It would provide a funding source via a tax on businesses with employees earning more than a million dollars. Their hope is to raise $50 million a year and buy or build around 2,000 units of social housing. I don't know that their announcement was coordinated with the Office of Housing's affordable housing announcement, but the two things certainly are related to each other. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And with social housing, it's designed to be permanently affordable, government-owned, mixed-income housing that insulates itself, basically, because it's not part of the private market - where we just got done talking about all of the factors causing price increases in the private market. But because this is public, government-owned, it can move forward with a different model that is conceivably more insulated from market forces, in addition to not having profit pressure attached to it - helping to keep it more affordable with mixed incomes where people paying into the pot help fund the affordable housing for everything else. This did pass in the City of Seattle. And as you said, this was a two-part initiative process. The first part was on whether we were going to establish this public developer. And now comes the time to fund it. So when it comes to funding, what is the funding mechanism? And why was this chosen? [00:14:15] David Kroman: Yeah, the funding mechanism is similar to the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about before, which is it focuses on companies that have an employee making a million dollars or more. And I think the thought behind this - if you think back to the contentious Head Tax debate, which was targeting overall revenue of a business and trying to tax that, that became really contentious because you have businesses like grocery stores that have really high revenue, but super thin profits. So when you have Uwajimaya, for example, testifying against this tax as a beloved local business, people get kind of queasy about it - it basically failed because of that. The argument here is we're not really focusing on the overall revenue. We're focusing on whether or not they have employees that they're paying over a million dollars, because that suggests - if you can pay somebody a million dollars or more, you should be paying some tax on that. And it's a marginal tax, so the first million dollars of that person's salary are not taxed - it's everything above that that is taxed. The City's payroll tax exempts grocery stores and healthcare businesses, or at least healthcare businesses have waiver for a few years. This one doesn't do that. This targets any business that's paying people a million dollars or more. The exact number of businesses that that includes is a little murky. They relied on a couple past legislative efforts at the state and city level to come up with their calculations. If it passed, we'd get a little more sense of who would actually have to pay this tax, but that's basically how it works. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: So what they're referring to is an 'excess earners' tax, and it'd be a 5% marginal payroll tax. As you said, if they had an employee making $2 million, the tax would not apply to that first million. It would only apply to the one million above that at a rate of 5%. They're estimating with that revenue source, they could acquire or build 2,000 affordable units over 10 years. What is the timeline for this initiative now? What do they have to do in order to qualify and get it on the ballot? [00:16:06] David Kroman: They have set 30,000 signatures as their goal, and they want to get it by June - because if they got it in by June, that would leave the current city council no choice but to put it on the November ballot. And anybody who's trying to do a more left-leaning progressive initiative wants to get their measure on the November ballot because turnout in Seattle is going to be probably 80% - it's a presidential election - and the progressives of Seattle figure that more turnout favors them. So the goal is November '24. But they said that if for whatever reason they didn't get there, they would run it anyway at a later ballot date. I just think politically, that would be a little more challenging for them. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. They just filed the initiative. So that process for the initiative to be approved, get to the signature gathering process will be commencing. How does this fit in, in the general overall landscape? Tiffani McCoy, who's the policy and advocacy director with House Our Neighbors, talked a little bit about this happening because there is either not a plan or a deficit in the ability to deliver the amount of housing we need and the type of housing we need at scale. [00:17:11] David Kroman: Yeah, it fits in because the affordable 80% to 120% AMI - there is just not really anybody interested in doing that right now. There have been some one-off projects around the city where a developer, out of the good of their own heart, has said that their building is going to be affordable to a certain level - workforce housing. But you're really relying on individual developers being interested in doing that. Usually those come with time limits, so they guarantee it for 30 years or 40 years or something like that. And then as we talked about before, there's Housing Authority and Office of Housing - it's a small lane, but there is a lane for 0% to probably 60% AMI. But when voters are approving a property tax levy, they're not quite as interested in building housing for people who are making up to $80,000 a year. But when you're looking at how expensive it is to live in Seattle or what the median income is, those people are having a hard time finding places to live and especially raise families in Seattle. And so that is more who this effort is targeted towards, which is fill that gap between 0% to 60% AMI and then 200%+ AMI housing, which there's just not a lot of people out there building that kind of housing right now. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: Right. And that matters so much because that is related to a lot of the staffing shortage talk that we hear about, whether it's teachers or bus drivers or healthcare workers or - across the board, we're hearing about workforce shortages, particularly in the City of Seattle and surrounding areas. And a big piece of that puzzle is that people just can't afford to live in the areas where those jobs are. It's way too expensive. So you have people moving further and further out, making it harder to commute in for a job, or just finding a job elsewhere outside of the city. And so housing affordability is an important element in just these conversations about our overall economy, including workforce strength and availability. It is absolutely related to those challenges. So once they made this announcement, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce immediately make a statement that opposed it. I don't know that this opposition was necessarily surprising, but it was an immediate reaction. How did they respond? [00:19:30] David Kroman: No, not surprising at all - they took the JumpStart Tax to court. They clearly don't like payroll taxes on businesses. Their argument was they supported the Housing Levy and they support some level of voter-agreed-upon property tax to build housing for the poorest people. The Chamber's line, and this has been their line and that of other businesses since at least back to 2017 when the first Head Tax debate came up, is this all comes down to supply. That the real issue is that Seattle is zoned in a way that you just can't add more supply, especially in the 60% or whatever it is of the city that's zoned for single family homes. So their argument is you are asking businesses to try and address a very small part of a much larger illness. And in so doing, you're not going to get us to where the city actually needs to be. And at the same time, you're going to materially hurt these businesses at a time when it has been, at least for some of them, sort of a difficult period. I think the counterargument is it has not actually been that difficult of a period for businesses like Amazon. And if you're paying somebody over a million dollars, something must be going okay for you. But I think the Chamber's position does kind of go to this point, which is - you're talking about a symptom when the real cause is just that we have built a system that doesn't allow for new housing construction. [00:20:42] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and it would be less ironic if they didn't seem to also oppose a lot of the rezoning and necessary new construction for that. But I guess it's a comfortable position to be in when you can just oppose things that seemingly have to do with each other. But I do think that's part of the reason why this passed in the first place. This passed after several years of seeming opposition and defeat of efforts to make things more affordable overall, including housing, especially those that are funded with taxes. And that has been a big point of contention between the Chamber and other folks there. The Chamber traditionally takes a - Hey, just don't tax us approach. A lot of their financial support of candidates in elections seems tied to their willingness or unwillingness to tax business. So this has been a long-standing divide that we have here. But I wonder if they've ever wondered if that long-standing hesitance to do that, in the face of skyrocketing costs borne by the regular residents of Seattle and surrounding areas, might have something to do with the alternatives becoming more popular to the point where they pass this in Seattle. So it'll be interesting to see how formal and robust the opposition to this initiative is. But it does seem like this is an alternative that the residents of Seattle are looking at. And as we look forward, especially if the JumpStart Tax is raided for the general fund, some of the other mechanisms that the legislature is looking at right now don't end up coming to fruition - this may be one of the only avenues where it looks feasible that something can actually happen, that there can be funding for, and that we can start to make up some of the gaps that are reopening here in some of the other areas. How do you see the prognosis for this moving forward? [00:22:42] David Kroman: Yeah, I think you're right that this is a lot of voter response to an intractable problem. I think it is true that the underlying problem is supply - I think that's hard to dispute at this point. It's just there are a lot of people coming into the city and just not enough housing for them. And so then, therefore, even old, run-down housing is being competed for - rich people are outbidding people of lesser means for housing that you would not necessarily associate with rich people. A lot of that is enabled by the fact that most of the city - it's just cast in amber and there cannot be any added density. So at a time when the city's population is growing, you've got certain neighborhoods in Seattle where the population is actually decreasing, and I think that is what is driving a lot of rent increases. I think the reaction, though - the problem is now, the struggles are now - and so it's all well and good to diagnose the deep problem and look back at what the city should or shouldn't have done, or what the city should be doing to help this problem in 10 or 15 years. The city could upzone across the entire city tomorrow, and the construction environment - as we just talked about - means it's pretty unlikely that you're going to see a huge influx immediately of new housing and density because it's just not a great time for building new stuff. And so I think that then causes people to look for alternative options. And this is one of them, which is a more direct taxation to construction that is divorced from - well, not entirely divorced because we talked about the problems facing the nonprofit housing world, but more divorced from market forces that, again, perhaps should have been addressed a long time ago. But even if they were addressed tomorrow, would take years, decades, perhaps, to really show meaningful improvements in the affordability of Seattle. And so I think that is why these solutions that the Chamber doesn't like - because they are not market solutions, they are taxation solutions on their clients and the people that they represent, but that becomes more appealing because people want to make some immediate progress in the next year. [00:24:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to follow that story and the initiative and see how it goes. I also want to talk about a piece that you wrote this week about Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell, titled, "A council of allies in place, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell feels pressure to deliver." I think that pressure is an appropriate response - a number of commitments or what he ran on two years ago still has a lot of areas for improvement. I don't know that anyone feels that the type of progress that was indicated or promised has actually happened. But some of that was in his telling because he didn't have a great working relationship with the council - even though they have very distinct roles and responsibilities. But he's saying now, and part of what he said during the campaign - if we have a better working relationship, we could accomplish more. What did this story uncover, what did you talk about, and where does he stand on what he's accomplished and what he's looking to accomplish? [00:25:37] David Kroman: Yeah, I think it's perhaps not quite exactly like having a one-party President, House and Senate, but it's something like that. Because at least since I have been watching City Hall, I would argue that there has been no mayor who, at least on paper, has come into a more favorable political environment than Bruce Harrell does right now. Because he endorsed five people for city council - which I don't think Durkan or Ed Murray dipped that much of a toe into the political scene, so that alone was a big jump into playing politics - and then all of them won. And then he gets this bonus of another one of his opponents, Teresa Mosqueda, leaving to go to the King County Council. So basically he gets six new friendly people on the council, banishes all but Councilmember Tammy Morales as clear opponents to his agenda. And then more than that, if you've been watching the committee meetings in city council this year, their agenda items are what is the Seattle Department of Transportation and what does it do? They are just getting their feet under them. They are still trying to find where the bathroom is. Meanwhile, Bruce Harrell has been in City Hall for 14 years. So all of that added together means there is nothing in his way to basically do what it is that he has envisioned for City Hall. The question is - can he or will he do that? And also it kind of puts to test some of the narratives that were created around what the previous council was at fault for doing. Some of those I think could end up being true, but also I think some of the problems that we're talking about here - fairly complicated and don't just boil down to who exactly was on the previous city council. For example, police recruitment. The mayor has said he wants to grow the department to 1,400. It's a real question of whether the police department is ever going to be back to 1,400. But there's no longer the boogeyman of "Defund the Police" to fault for those challenges - now the rubber meets the road. Can a council that has explicitly said it wants to hire more police officers actually do that? And then if it doesn't, I will be curious to see how voters respond. Will they give him the same level of scrutiny that they gave the council the last few years? That will be interesting to watch. [00:27:35] Crystal Fincher: That will be interesting to watch. I do also find it interesting, from the perspective of his allies that we heard during the campaign, of stuff like "Defund the Police" and blaming some of the inability to achieve what they said they wanted to achieve on that, as if the council had been hostile. But if we look - particularly over the past two years - the council didn't pass up an opportunity to fund the hiring of more police officers. Functionally - policy-wise, budget-wise - they allocated all of the money that was asked for, they allocated bonuses related to that, yet they still ran as if this council was somehow hostile to that issue. It seemed, to your point, like the creation of a boogeyman that didn't exist, and certainly not since he's taken office here. Did that strike you as genuine reasons or reasons that really would have impeded him taking action on some of his priorities that he seemingly talked about? Well, it was because of the council that I couldn't. But on an issue like police funding, where council did provide the funding for that, where council did provide everything that was asked for to do that, yet there still wasn't progress - does that rest on the council or was that another issue? [00:28:51] David Kroman: Yeah, I think if you ask him and you ask the current council, they acknowledge - Sure, they didn't literally defund the police by 50%. And what they did "defund" was mostly a shuffling of the decks.decks -moved parking enforcement to SDOT for a while and they moved 911 to Community Safety. So the police department's budget shrunk, but those functions just moved to a different department. I think they acknowledge - yes, that they didn't cut them. But policing is an incredibly competitive recruiting environment. And I think their argument is. And I do think - yes, they didn't literally defund, but they were pretty public about some of their comments around the police. And I think that that probably had an effect on certain police officers' willingness to stay at the police department and others' willingness to come to the police department - can have a whole debate about the merit or harms of that, but I do think that probably played a factor. But at the same time, I think that there's a lot else going on around that issue of police recruitment that transcends just conversations around "Defund the Police" and what the previous city council did or didn't do. The mayor's office has had a budget for marketing for a couple years now. As far as we know, the recruitment environment has not improved. And so I think there are a lot of technical details that will slowly come out over Harrell's administration that show that the problems - while I do think that whatever the city council's previous image was, made probably a difference around that - I think there's a more complicated story around the mechanics of what recruitment actually looks like. [00:30:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I tend to think that there's a more complicated story around the mechanics of recruitment, particularly because several surrounding departments, including those with staunch supporters of hiring police, of funding police, are also experiencing challenges with hiring. It's hard to find a department around that isn't saying that they're experiencing staffing problems. So it seems to go deeper, in my view, than just that. Can I absolutely say that their willingness to examine the budget four years ago had nothing to do with this now? No, I can't. Certainly conservative elements in talk radio and Fox News continue to make a lot of that and characterize "defund" as a current dominant thought, which I think is just demonstrably false. On top of that, just on that issue, with the understanding and the knowledge that even if you were to hire an officer today, it's going to be a year plus before they can actually be deployed on the streets because of their need to train and go through their requirements. Is there a plan in the interim? We're two years into Bruce Harrell's term now, and it doesn't seem like - okay, barring that, what are we doing? I don't want to say no plan. They introduced a limited partial trial of a co-response model for behavioral health through his new CARE Department. There is that going on in a limited way - would love to see that expanded so it's at minimum around-the-clock, but certainly more than a handful of officers and responders involved there. Certainly in the area of public safety, I think a lot has been examined there. Were there any other issue areas, whether it's homelessness, the City's environmental plans, economic development within the city, that he talked about wanting to deliver or work on in his next two years? [00:32:10] David Kroman: Harrell - I think he's going to be dripping these out slowly. But the thing that I would say stood out to me the most was his comments about the City's relationship to the county. We had seen some comments of his about, specifically the City's relationship to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, leak out unintentionally over the last two years. Fairly clear that he took a skeptical eye toward that body. But now I would say the big change now that he has this friendly council and basically full control of the City Hall is he's no longer saying those things in private. He's being fairly public about - he has a skeptical view of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And he has a skeptical view of the amount of money that the City of Seattle is giving that body and whether it is doing what he wants it to do. He said basically the same thing about Public Health Seattle King County, which I thought was interesting. I had never heard that relationship come up as one that needed additional scrutiny. But he said that when it comes to the issue of fentanyl, that basically he thinks Public Health Seattle King County should be doing more, and he was wondering why they're not doing more. And so as far as specific policies or legislation he might introduce, I don't have a great read on that just yet. But I do think - and I've heard this from the new council members too - I wouldn't be surprised if we see a fairly dramatic rethinking of how the city and the county work together on some of this stuff. [00:33:25] Crystal Fincher: Interesting. Certainly, it seems like there might be some budget implications attached to that. That might be another reason why we are talking about this now, as the City looks to trim a couple hundred million dollars or make up for a budget deficit of over $200 million that they're facing. Has he been responsive, or did you get a chance to talk about some of the seeming inaction on some of those areas? There certainly seemed to be a number of promises as he walked in and optimism from a lot of people as he took office that - Hey, you're someone with a different vision who's looking to move forward on a variety of things, talking about One Seattle and the vision that he has for that. Has that resulted in or materialized in anything? Is he talking about doing anything specific with that? I think a lot of people are wondering just kind of overall what his plans are. [00:34:17] David Kroman: Yeah, I think so far this has not been the most policy-heavy mayor's office by any stretch. I think back to the Murray administration - before, of course, everything else came out - but that was an office that pushed super hard for the task forces around $15 an hour and housing affordability, the HALA committee, and they would lock people in a room and make them work it out. This is not that office. What we have heard from him is a lot of messaging and, I think, an effort to do perhaps not systemic things, but pushes around certain homeless encampments or priority policing around Third Avenue or 12th and Jackson. And it's kind of these hits and sort of giving a general message about what kind of mayor he is. I think he would perhaps point to some of the rules - tree canopy legislation or things like that. But I don't know that you can point to the first two years of his office and call it a major policy-heavy term. I think there's going to be more pressure on him to be a little more policy-minded in the next two years, because as we just talked about, he's not going to have to do nearly the amount of negotiation with this city council as he would have had to do with the last one. If he comes down to them and says - I think this is really important, we got to pass this. - pretty good chance he's going to get it passed without, there's going to be tweaks and I'm sure there's going to be some nods towards pushback or accountability. But at the end of the day, this is a city council that has kind of adopted the mayor's own One Seattle slogan. When he was on city council, too, I don't know that everyone would have pointed to him, as a city councilmember, as the most policy-driven. He had certain things that he focused a lot on around policing, or he was the one who pushed the hardest for body cameras. And he's pushed hard for some police technologies like ShotSpotter and things like that. But when he was on city council, he wasn't taking the lead on a lot of big, big policy swings. And so far, I would say that's mostly been true for the first half of his term. It's just he's going to have to show some big policy swings, I think, for these next two years - because I do think he's hyper-conscious of his own reelection campaign, is my sense. We didn't talk about that specifically, but I think he's interested in running for reelection. I think it's assumed he will run for reelection. And so he's going to have to build a case for himself to voters in two years from now. [00:36:28] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. I also want to talk about some of the firsts that we saw this week. We saw the Seattle City Council conduct their first committee meeting. The Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilmember Rob Saka, held its first meeting. As you talked about, it was very Intro to or Transpo 101, because these are a lot of new members who are not familiar with the way this functions, who are still just getting their bearings underneath them for how City Hall works, how legislation works, what SDOT does do. They are all very new and are not even coming into this with a policy background in the area that may help. So this is really starting from Step 1 here. What did we hear during this committee and outside of the committee - statements from members of the council this week? [00:37:19] David Kroman: Well, a few things that stood out to me. One, it's starting to hit home a bit that this is just an incredibly green city council. This is two-thirds of people who have not held elected office before - that's not to say that they have zero experience. Maritza Rivera, for example, was a department head, so she has spent some time in City Hall. But at the end of the day, some of the questions they're asking or getting briefed on are things like - What is the Sound Transit Board? Who decides where the West Seattle to Ballard stations go? - things like that. Not to say that they don't know those things, but that's the level that we're at right now in their committee meetings. So that was one thing that really stood out to me, which is - they don't have a lot of time to figure out a lot of these big problems. We're already a month in to the year because they had to spend the first month appointing a new member. Council President Nelson didn't schedule any committee meetings during that time. So it's February and we're doing the briefing meetings. I think that's going to be something to watch. We also heard, I would say - let's call it some acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. On the campaign trail, we heard a lot of talk about "auditing the budget." We really heard it in the applications to fill the vacant council seat, this phrase "audit the budget, audit the budget." It was never super well defined what they actually meant by audit. We heard from Councilmember Saka that a literal audit of the entire budget is something that would take a really long time and be really expensive. And he acknowledged that they're not going to do that, at least not this year. So that raises some questions around what they actually meant when they were saying we were going to audit the budget and how that is materially different from what happens every year with the budget - which is you review what you can, and cut where you think you can cut, and fund what you want to fund. So that was interesting - just there's a certain reality that comes with moving from being on the campaign trail to being in office. [00:39:06] Crystal Fincher: There is a reality about moving from the campaign trail to moving into office. Speaking personally and speaking as someone who is a political consultant, has worked with plenty of candidates. This is something that you hope candidates would have an understanding of while they're running. This is directly related to what their plans are going to be. Certainly, Rob Saka and other councilmembers were asked plenty of times on the campaign trail how they were planning to deal with this looming budget deficit. And part of the background of this is that, "Well, we need to audit the budget" issue - never sound credible or serious to a lot of people because, overall, just a citywide budget audit is not the thing. But as you said, the budget process is what that is. The budget process is continually reviewing, understanding, approving, modifying - what this funding is, how effective the funding has been - that's all part of the standard budget process of the City every year. And so a lot of it seemed like they were trying to avoid talking about what their plans were. They were trying to avoid taking a stance on particularly the progressive revenue that would be needed to close a budget hole like this. And the mayor put together a Progressive Revenue Task Force that came out with options that may seem doable - asked about those, the move from a lot of the candidates, especially the moderate to conservative ones, was to say - I don't know about that progressive revenue, but we really need to audit the budget before we do anything else. We need to take a look at exactly what's being spent where and see if it works and that kind of stuff. But I think we're arriving in another situation where if you actually come in with a plan about what you want to accomplish, that's one thing. If you're coming in trying to avoid talking about what you want to accomplish, that becomes really hairy - trying to contend with and explain once you're actually in office. So now the one thing that people heard you talk about, which seeing response certainly online following these comments, was - Hey, the only thing he talked about was doing audits. And now he's saying that - Well, they can't really do that, we're walking it back, it's not practical or feasible. One, that seemingly could have been something that when people pointed that out on the campaign trail, maybe they should have taken that to heart and come up with a more realistic plan. But also now that we're here, it just seems like maybe there wasn't the kind of understanding related to what they were saying. I hope future candidates look at that and take that under advisement. I hope voters look at that and again, look at the types of answers that you're getting - even though they may sound good in a soundbite, are they actually realistic? Will they actually get done what you want to see happen in the city? Or is it just a line that people are tossing out in order to avoid talking about something else, or because it sounds good as a soundbite? [00:41:57] David Kroman: Yeah, I would say this, though, about the budget. I don't want to sound like I'm defending the City's budget process too much because - it takes you a little while, but it's very easy to see where dollars are allocated, theoretically. It is much, much more difficult to know if those dollars are actually being spent in the way that the city council budgeted them for. We've seen this actually crop up in conflicts between the city council and the mayor's office, which is city council will budget a certain amount of dollars and the mayor's office - not this mayor's office, past mayor's offices - just won't spend it because it wasn't part of their priority. And I think you can look to that conflict and generalize it out a little bit. I don't know that there are great mechanisms to show for sure that when the city council puts money towards a certain thing, it's A) going to the thing that it was supposed to, going out at all - I do think there are probably some amount of dollars that are dedicated and not being spent for whatever reason. I don't think it's corruption or anything like that. It's just staffing and permit timelines or whatever it might be. And then of course, the final question of - So it's gone out the door, is it doing what it was intended to do? I think those are all questions that are probably worth asking. And I'm not sure are always asked in the fullest sense every year during budget. And so I agree that the use of the word "audit" was incredibly fast and loose on the campaign trail. Because when you say "audit," that implies something pretty specific. We have a Washington State Auditor. We have a City of Seattle Auditor. And they do audits, or you can hire people to do an audit. It's clear that audit in the most literal sense of the term is not on the table here because that costs time and money. Close scrutiny of whether the dollars that the City has allocated are being used in the way that people said they were going to - sure, I can buy that a little bit more. I don't know how you bring that more into the process than what's already there. To the new councilmembers' credit, I think there is room there to shed a little bit more light on that end of the budgeting equation than has been done in the past. [00:43:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely agree with that. I think you raise a really important point. It's hard to do it comprehensively - doing a deep dive into everything is a challenging thing. I do think that those questions do need to be asked frequently, especially on these high priority items. We definitely have a number of examples in the Durkan administration where they just refused to spend money - if council funded something and it wasn't aligned with the priorities of the mayor's office, the mayor's office just wouldn't spend that money in some instances or would look to divert that money to another area that wasn't one of their policy priorities as they've identified. So certainly just because money is allocated, does not mean at all that it's being spent at all or spent effectively. And I hope council does take seriously their responsibility to make sure that what they intend to happen as they set forth does happen and that money isn't just sitting there - that should be working for the residents of the city. But we'll certainly see what happens there. Last thing I want to talk about today was a story that was really concerning about a for-profit ICE detention center in Tacoma blocking health and labor inspections. What happened here? [00:45:04] David Kroman: Yeah, this was news to me. It looks like the state had tried to pass a law that basically increased access to the ICE facility - a privately run jail, basically - for people who have come into the United States. Because, as we know, there have been a lot of complaints about that facility over the years, but it's always been a little bit of a he-said, she-said situation because there's just such limited access in a way that - not to say that the state or city or county jails are in great shape, but lawmakers have an eye into those places and can see what's going on in there. They just don't with this facility because it's private. And so this bill was supposed to allow that access, but it seems like the GEO group that runs the prison is fighting them super hard on it in court and even barring people from entering. And this is pretty new to me - it seems pretty concerning - something that if you were a lawmaker, you might want to follow up on. [00:45:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, these complaints, there were hundreds of complaints - over 200 just between April and November of last year - stuff like insufficient food, misuse of solitary confinement, clothes rarely laundered and returning when they were supposedly laundered wet and dirtier than before, detainees with mental health issues being refused clean clothing. Medical issues, including stroke, paralysis, asthma, internal bleeding. One instance, a detainee with a broken arm was only given ibuprofen and not a cast for days after the incidents. When you talk about the types of violations that can happen when you have people who are 100% under your control, who you control their access to everything - the possibility of denial of that is egregious and atrocious. And so you do have to follow the laws of the state. Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self is trying to work through legislation to ensure that the state can inspect and examine what is happening here so it gets out of the world of he said, she said, and to ensure that they're following the laws of our state. And they've refused. So it is really concerning. A law was passed in 2021 aimed at shutting down the detention center by 2025, but that was ruled unenforceable. It just really is scary to think about - that we have these facilities responsible for people's care, basically, while they're being detained just seemingly unaccountable to anyone, with really catastrophic impacts on people who are jailed or detained here in this situation. And sometimes I'll hear people very flippantly - If they didn't want that to happen, then they shouldn't have done something to land in there in the first place. One, I think it might surprise people, the amount of seemingly innocuous things that can land someone in there. But regardless of how they landed in there, these are still people in the care of the state. And the detainment is what has been called for there, so they're being detained. But that doesn't mean that abuse, neglect, mistreatment is in any way justified. It is never justified. And I just think that we need to look at these things seriously. And when we hear about facilities, with the responsibility on behalf of the state, where they can control people's access to the necessities of life, that we should hold a higher standard than the average private company out there. And it really is just infuriating to me that we seemingly land in these situations where we have people being mistreated and they just seem to not care about the law - it's about the profit - and regardless of how people suffer at their hands in the process of it, I just - these types of stories really get to me. [00:48:54] David Kroman: Yeah, and I think it's why people are so concerned and looking for ways to get more eyes on the private prison industry - just because it is a constitutional right that people, even incarcerated people, have healthcare and food and not inhumane conditions, but just a little harder to make sure that it's not happening when the prison doesn't necessarily need to answer to the voters. [00:49:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Hopefully that is something that will change soon. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 9th, 2024 - it's my mom's birthday today, as we're recording this February 8th. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman. You can find David on Twitter at @KromanDavid, that's K-R-O-M-A-N, David. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Hamdi Mohamed, new President of the Seattle Port Commission and more

director president education executive director seattle pastor commission port new president hamdi endowed chair berkeley school seattle office kent washington urban impact seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2024 54:21

guest include:Derrick Wheeler Smith, Director, Seattle Office of Civil RightsSteve Bury, Executive Director, Urban Impact in SeattleDr. Dwane Chappelle, Director of the Seattle Department of Education and Early LearningReverend Dr. Leslie D. Braxton, Pastor, New Beginnings Christian Fellowship, Kent WA and Reverend Dr. Joseph Evans, Endowed Chair, Berkeley School of Theology Linda Thompson Black, Pacific Northwest Area Development Director, United Negro College Fund (UNCF)DeiMarlon Scisney Shaude' Moore, Chair, Seattle King County Organizing Coalition Hamdi Mohamed, new President of the Seattle Port Commission Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hamdi Mohamed, new President of the Seattle Port Commission and more

director president education executive director seattle pastor commission port new president hamdi endowed chair berkeley school seattle office kent washington urban impact seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2024 54:21

guest include: Derrick Wheeler Smith, Director, Seattle Office of Civil Rights Steve Bury, Executive Director, Urban Impact in Seattle Dr. Dwane Chappelle, Director of the Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning Reverend Dr. Leslie D. Braxton, Pastor, New Beginnings Christian Fellowship, Kent WA and Reverend Dr. Joseph Evans, Endowed Chair, Berkeley School of Theology Linda Thompson Black, Pacific Northwest Area Development Director, United Negro College Fund (UNCF) DeiMarlon Scisney Shaude' Moore, Chair, Seattle King County Organizing Coalition Hamdi Mohamed, new President of the Seattle Port Commission

Urban Forum NW 01 - 11 - 24

Alternative Talk- 1150AM KKNW

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2024 54:21

Derrick Wheeler Smith, Director, Seattle Office of Civil Rights Steve Bury, Executive Director, Urban Impact in Seattle Dr. Dwane Chappelle, Director of the Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning Reverend Dr. Leslie D. Braxton, Pastor, New Beginnings Christian Fellowship, Kent WA and Reverend Dr. Joseph Evans, Endowed Chair, Berkeley School of Theology Linda Thompson Black, Pacific Northwest Area Development Director, United Negro College Fund (UNCF) DeiMarlon Scisney Shaude' Moore, Chair, Seattle King County Organizing Coalition Hamdi Mohamed, new President of the Seattle Port Commission

director president education executive director pastor urban forum endowed chair berkeley school seattle office kent washington urban impact seattle department

CMN Community Voices - Vanishing Seattle Edition

Converge Media Network

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2023 64:11

Vanishing Seattle and Converge Media come together with the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods for a special edition of Community Voices honoring historic places we've lost and celebrating those still with us. Tune in at 7 pm on October 19th to join us.

seattle vanishing neighborhoods community voices seattle department

Andrew Lewis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 7

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 17, 2023 41:51

On this Tuesday topical show, Crystal chats with Andrew Lewis about his campaign for Seattle City Council District 7. Listen and learn more about Andrew and his thoughts on: [01:02] - Why he is running [03:31] - Response to critics calling him ‘fickle' [07:03] - Lightning round! [12:33] - Lightning round follow-up: Endorsements, SPOG contract questions, waterfront, reallocating encampment funds [17:05] - Homelessness response: Is there room for improvement? [20:13] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [23:39] - City budget shortfall: Progressive revenue options? [26:03] - Climate change, bike and pedestrian safety [31:36] - Public Safety: Alternative response As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Andrew Lewis at @LewisforSeattle. Andrew Lewis Councilmember Lewis is a born and raised Seattleite and a proud graduate of Seattle Public Schools. He holds a BA in history and political science from the University of Washington, a masters degree from the London School of Economics, and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to serving on the City Council, he served the people of Seattle as an assistant city attorney. He lives in West Queen Anne with his wife Laura, an assistant attorney general, their daughter Vivian Grace, and two rescue cats, Scoop and Maggie. Resources Campaign Website - Andrew Lewis Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very happy today to be welcoming Seattle City Councilmember Andrew Lewis to the show. Welcome. [00:01:01] Andrew Lewis: Hey, great to be here. [00:01:02] Crystal Fincher: Well, lots of people have been familiar with you for quite some time. You are an incumbent running for re-election here on the Seattle City Council. I guess the first question is just - Why are you running, especially when so many other of your colleagues have chosen not to? [00:01:18] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, well, it's really great to be here to talk about the campaign 'cause I really do think Seattle is positioned to be one of the definitive cities of this century in terms of our potential - our potential for climate resiliency, our potential to overcome a lot of the challenges we face around housing insecurity and emerging challenges in public safety - and I wanna be a part of that. And finish a lot of the work that we've set in motion in the first term, and really bring a lot of that work to its full conclusion. We've worked, in my office, to put in place a big capital plan to redo a lot of our community centers in the city to be climate resiliency hubs - that is gonna be an increasingly necessary piece of infrastructure for shelter during extreme weather events like heat and smoke surges. We have worked to put in place a pilot for a dual dispatch alternative 911 response that is gonna be hitting the road in October, and that the Harrell administration and my office have shared ambition to see scaled to a bigger civilian department that has the capacity to respond in a public health-centered way to a lot of emergencies in our community. So if the first four years was about setting the stage to get these investments locked in and get a commitment and funding locked in, the next four years is really about implementation and really seeing that fully realized. We also have a lot of big, exciting things that are coming on the horizon in the next term - including major revisions to Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, which has huge implications for housing affordability, for climate. We have the Move Seattle levy which will be renewed in 2024 as well. So really, really big policy lifts that I really have strong opinions on and wanna see realize their full potential for a multimodal city with dense and abundant housing. So those are some of my priorities and I'm sure we'll dive into those more over the course of the interview. [00:03:30] Crystal Fincher: We will. Now, one criticism leveled against you is that you're fickle - that may be putting it pretty bluntly. But one, The Stranger said - in their endorsement of you to be clear, they are absolutely recommending you - they said you "could really use a stronger spine" and The Seattle Times said, "Seattle voters have every reason to feel whiplash these past four years. Perhaps no other councilmember has veered from one position to the next as often and as dramatically as Andrew Lewis. Do you agree with that criticism and how do you respond to it? [00:04:04] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, I actually don't agree with that criticism - that probably won't surprise anybody here. But I think that a lot of it comes down to the fact that we unfortunately have a media environment where there isn't much recognition or respect for nuance - absent the Hacks & Wonks podcast, of course, where nuance is the currency of the realm. But if you look at some of those instances where we, as policy makers, are forced into a very polarizing environment where the options that were dealt are these two polar options and there's not really much interest from actors in the media that have a strong agenda and like - look, obviously I'm supported by The Stranger, I appreciate their support, I'm glad that I have their endorsement - and they wouldn't contest that they have an agenda. I'm sure The Seattle Times editorial board would not contest that they have an agenda either. And I do think that polarizing actors can get frustrated when the dichotomy that they're pitching people gets flipped on its head because people that are in the middle - that are being forced to pick false choices from two things that are dealt - want to flip the table over on those false choices and try to figure out a way to bring community together and come up with a better policy. And I think that we see, with the result of the Fentanyl Work Group that Mayor Harrell put together with support from my office, that we are getting a better proposal with a broader base of support from the work - that we have spent over the summer digging into how to best respond to the fentanyl crisis, rather than just reactively passing a policy that was set up really with no clear, well-thought-out implementation plan in June. And I can't really sit here and say that it's bad policy to take a little bit longer and ask real probing questions instead of just pick between two choices that are put in front of us. And honestly, I think a lot of the problems in our politics come from accepting those kinds of false choices. So, look - if I'm reelected, I'm certainly going to continue to try to figure out how to make the best policy outcomes we can. And sometimes that might mean rejecting divisive policies. And if people want to call that being fickle, that's what they can do. But I think that the people of Seattle want to see solutions to their problems and not just figuring out how the red team or blue team can win in a given moment. [00:06:49] Crystal Fincher: I appreciate your beautiful rhetorical flourish on "nuance is the currency of the realm" here on Hacks & Wonks. You have a podcast also where nuance is also covered there. Now, we're going to depart from our normal kind of candidate interview script - I guess, that we've had over the past several years and switch it up a little bit before we get back to the regular script - and do a bit of a lightning round, which we've done in live events and in forums, debates, but haven't so much in these interviews. But I think it can be useful to level set and to help give people just a base understanding of who we are before we get back into long-form questions where we get to discuss things without the, I guess, limitation of kind of the super short soundbite type of thing that other forums are limited to. So starting out - these are yes or no questions, and we'll make our way through them, is - Did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers levy? [00:07:52] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:07:53] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services levy? [00:07:57] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:07:58] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:08:03] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:04] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell for Mayor? [00:08:08] Andrew Lewis: I voted for Lorena González. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: And did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for City Attorney? [00:08:16] Andrew Lewis: When I don't publicly endorse a candidate that I have to work with, I don't publicly state - so I'm gonna decline to answer. [00:08:24] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. And did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell? [00:08:27] Andrew Lewis: I voted for Leesa Manion. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: Do you rent your residence? [00:08:33] Andrew Lewis: I own. [00:08:35] Crystal Fincher: Okay, and are you a landlord? [00:08:37] Andrew Lewis: I am not. [00:08:38] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to help better plan housing and development needs in your district? [00:08:47] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:48] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:08:54] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:09:03] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:04] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:09:08] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:09] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:09:13] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:09:14] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for a civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:09:19] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:09:25] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:09:36] Andrew Lewis: No, but I'm happy to expand on that later. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Will do. Do you support abrogating or removing funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:09:49] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:09:54] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:09:55] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:09:59] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:00] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, OPA, and the Office of Inspector General, OIG, subpoena power? [00:10:11] Andrew Lewis: I'm on LRPC, so I can't comment on active bargaining, unfortunately - but I can expand on that later. [00:10:17] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:10:23] Andrew Lewis: Same answer, unfortunately. [00:10:25] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on all of the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:10:33] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:34] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms or public facilities that match their gender? [00:10:39] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:40] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the City's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:10:44] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:10:45] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:10:52] Andrew Lewis: I could, yes. [00:10:53] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly-built waterfront? [00:10:58] Andrew Lewis: Yes, but that's something I want to expand on, too. [00:11:02] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Do you believe return-to-work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:11:09] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:10] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:11:12] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:13] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:11:15] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:16] Crystal Fincher: Look at you, Andrew Lewis. Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial delivery car traffic? [00:11:24] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:11:25] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:31] Andrew Lewis: Repeat that one more time, sorry. [00:11:33] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:11:39] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:40] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:11:46] Andrew Lewis: Yes, absolutely. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:11:50] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:51] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:11:59] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:11:59] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked a picket line? [00:12:02] Andrew Lewis: Yes. [00:12:02] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:12:04] Andrew Lewis: No. [00:12:05] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign unionized? [00:12:07] Andrew Lewis: So we pay the union wage. I don't know if he is formally - my campaign manager's formally joined, but of course I'd be all for it. So, yes. [00:12:20] Crystal Fincher: And that was the next question. If your staff wants to unionize, would you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:12:25] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, totally. [00:12:26] Crystal Fincher: Well, look, Andrew Lewis - you concluded our first in-interview lightning round here on Hacks & Wonks. I guess following up on that, there were a couple of issues where you wanted to follow up on that - so I'll give you a little bit of time to clarify. [00:12:41] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would say, like in how I do endorsements - there were some questions about endorsements. If I publicly endorse - publicly endorsed Lorena, publicly endorsed Leesa Manion - I will say in the future who I voted for. If there's a municipal office where I have to work with that person, like council colleagues or other municipal officials - if I don't publicly endorse, I don't state 'cause I have to work with those people. So, I mean, people can maybe infer based on some of my other statements and actions, but it's just a hard and fast rule I have that I inherited from my friend, Nick Licata. So I will just say, put that out there. On the waterfront - well, actually, first, LRPC - there's some questions regarding bargaining. At the Seattle City Council, there's a body called Labor Relations Policy Committee - it's five City councilmembers. Our deliberations are private 'cause bargaining is private - for good reason. We oversee the bargaining process for all unions that have contracts with the City, including the Seattle Police Officers Guild, and we weigh in in that body on approving bargaining parameters. So sitting on that body - it's just best practice to not specifically talk about hard and fast positions on the bargaining process. And I know that's frustrating to a lot of my friends in labor for the coalition bargaining that's happening right now. But by virtue of serving on LRPC, I have to be really, really careful about what I say to avoid unfair labor practice allegations and other things like that, regrettably. On the waterfront, which is another question that came up. I think the waterfront's gonna be great and have a lot of really cool new things - the Overlook Walk, the Aquarium expansion, obviously going to be a big new investment. So on the whole, it's a beneficial addition, and I think yes is the best answer to that question. There are ways it could be dramatically improved - I don't think anyone out there is denying that. A couple of months ago, when we were discussing the designation of Dzidzilalich - the renaming of Elliott to Dzidzilalich Way - I asked the Office of the Waterfront staff how much leeway we have to make improvements to increasingly remove the amount of footprint that's on the waterfront that is reserved for cars - which is the biggest deficiency, in my opinion, of the waterfront. And everything essentially north of the ferry terminal is city right-of-way and not state right-of-way - where we have an increased amount of leeway to make changes. So I'm optimistic that over time, we can continue to work and shape the waterfront to reflect the kind of urban space that I think a lot of us in the community wanna see. It's tough that so much of the shape of the waterfront was kind of locked in over a decade ago before I was on the council to really have a say in how to shape those conversations. But just clarification there on the waterfront. On the question regarding money that goes towards removing and remediating encampment locations - I mean, that's an ongoing - that maybe is the subject of further questions, actually, in the interview, but I don't think it's necessarily a situation where we're in a position to completely get rid of the money that we've set aside for the Unified Care Team - with the current state of how the rest of our contract with the regional authority is set up, we do need the ability in case of emergencies or obstructions or other exigent problems to be able to remediate an encampment location. But I think that we should be doing it with compassion and discretion and not - yeah, and that our focus needs to stay on having a Housing First approach to resolving the crisis of homelessness that we're facing. [00:17:05] Crystal Fincher: How do you think that compassion and discretion has been going so far? Has the City met that mark, or is there room for improvement? [00:17:14] Andrew Lewis: I think there's always room for improvement and I think that all of us admit that that's the case. We - for the first time, we're tracking why people might decline offers of shelter. In the Durkan administration, we never did that. It's something that's been a long council priority to like, if someone declined shelter, we should ask them why. In the Durkan administration, there was no interest - there was just sort of a philosophy of like, Well, no, if they say no, then why would we ask them? And it's like - well, if you want to increase the rate of people accepting offers, you should be asking people. And under the Harrell administration, we have started asking. And the Harrell administration has been very responsive to feedback in updating and changing a lot of our outreach practices that, in the Durkan administration, we weren't getting any traction as a council in that kind of responsiveness. And what we've learned through that process is the dominant shelter preference are tiny house villages. And if you have more tiny house villages, you're gonna significantly reduce the amount of encampments in the city. There has been a 42% decrease in encampments over the course of the past year or so, through our work with the Unified Care Team. And that reflects a reduction in the amount of displacement, because there is an emphasis on increasing the amount of shelter placements from the outreach that we do to encampments. We have increased the amount of enhanced shelter in tiny house villages, though not as much as I would like to see. So I think the focus needs to be on continuing to scale up those enhanced shelter options that - we do have a consensus from the Harrell administration on wanting to do. The historic challenge has been resistance from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to tiny house villages, but I think the new leadership team there has a different view of the utility of them. So my hope is that we can continue down that path in centering things that work. The best model that we've done in recent years is the JustCARE model, which used a hoteling-supported placement system. But we can do the same work with tiny house villages, and that might be more attainable than leasing or acquiring additional hotels in the current climate. So that's what we need to continue to work on - in my estimation. If you want fewer encampments and you want to provide people with a place to go, I think it all really comes down to having more tiny homes. [00:20:06] Crystal Fincher: And I think it's fair to say you've been the council's leading proponent of tiny homes during your time serving. I do wanna talk about the upcoming anticipated revenue shortfall in the City of Seattle. It's projected to have a revenue shortfall of several million dollars beginning in 2025. Because the City's mandated to pass a balanced budget, the options to address the upcoming deficit are either to raise revenue or to cut services. How will you approach the issue of how the City collects and spends money on behalf of its constituents? [00:20:44] Andrew Lewis: Yeah, it's estimated to be around - $200 million is the deficit that we're anticipating for the next biennium. So we have the entire year of 2024 to plan around a variety of different strategies to mitigate the impact of that looming deficit. I think that there's a couple of things that can be brought to bear. Obviously, there's some revenue options that were queued up by a recent task force that was convened by Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Mosqueda. It's not likely that any of those revenue sources in and of themselves would be enough to completely close the gap. So there would have to be - if there is a strategy pursued to pursue new revenue, there would have to also be some level of efficiencies and reforms that are found. I think that there is some utility in having the City really take a hard and fast look at some of the things that we do and figuring out if we can do them better. I think there's a broad consensus, for example, that things like design review are tedious, subjective, not really helping to advance a lot of our current policy challenges around getting things built in the city. All of these processes come with associated costs. I think that there are ways to look at the 45 offices and departments that we have at the city and look for some opportunities for consolidations of certain roles. I think there's a credible argument to be made that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, the Office of Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, the Department of Neighborhoods could theoretically all be merged into one department and there's probably economy of scale savings that we could realize from those kinds of efficiencies and consolidations. So I think that we need to think creatively in looking at all of the different options to get there. I don't think we can take revenue off the table and we can't take looking at some ways to more efficiently and effectively deliver existing services. Or get out of certain lines of business entirely - like I just indicated, design review, but there's other things in the permitting and land use world that we could probably streamline as part of the Comprehensive Plan. And I think there's a lot of interest in those kinds of actions - to have a more, to be able to build housing quicker, to be able to build things faster, and to reduce the associated costs with the process that slows a lot of that housing construction down. [00:23:39] Crystal Fincher: I think everybody would welcome streamlining of that process, and I've also seen indications that there is broad interest in doing that. So we talked about the streamlining - are you considering any progressive revenue options? [00:23:54] Andrew Lewis: Well, yeah - I mean, look, I co-sponsored the JumpStart Tax - gosh, like three years ago now, I guess, is when we did that. It seems more recent. So I'm not averse to new progressive revenue. I have proposed in the past a capital gains tax, which is one of the things that was recommended in the report. But I wanna take a good hard look first at ways that we can really show our work in 2024 - trying to figure out how we can really make the case that there's ways to find some additional ways to save money in the deficit before we are rolling out and committing to new revenue. People forget - partly 'cause I think there's a lot of people that don't wanna give the council credit for things - but people forget that in the last biennium, we found $60 million worth of savings that we rolled into the budget. So it's not like we aren't able to go through this work and find ways that we can save money. I mean, the county has been doing similar budgeting practices by necessity for over a decade because they have to. I mean, the county's in a position where they have the same budget pressures that we're facing - they can't raise progressive revenue, so they have found ways to be more efficient and effective. And I don't think that we at the City face the same pressures, but I think that there's a lot of ability to realize similar efficiencies. Also because we have dynamic and new needs - the Social Housing Initiative is a dynamic and new need - that's not something that we've had before that we've had to figure out how to resource. So finding ways to redistribute and reallocate funding from other parts of the budget, I think, is something that should be a focus of our work in 2024. [00:26:02] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. On almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - which is an important milestone to hitting the 2040, 2050 climate goals - as we are experiencing the impacts of climate change right now, many of which are devastating from extreme heat and cold, to wildfires and floods. What are your highest priority plans to get us on track to meet 2030 goals? [00:26:31] Andrew Lewis: So in my first term - really proud of prime sponsoring legislation mandating that new commercial construction needs to essentially be non-emitting. Like you can't build a new commercial building in Seattle and heat it with natural gas - you have to get heat pumps. Councilmember Strauss sponsored a similar bill for residential construction doing the same thing. So that's new buildings. I want us to work on figuring out ways to adapt existing buildings, to convert to electric heat pumps instead of using natural gas. One of our biggest contributing factors in our climate accounting, our carbon accounting, is the heating of large buildings. And that's something that we can really take on, and I think that we - in the Comp Plan next year and through other sort of incentives and mandates - can get there to speed that transition up and have that part of the carbon accounting really go down. We need to continue to work on the biggest plurality of our climate challenge, which is our transportation system in the City of Seattle. I used to think it was as simple as the process of building out light rail - I don't think that anymore. I mean, obviously that's gonna be essential and having that grade-separated fixed rail transit is critical and we have to be completely committed to speeding it up, getting it done right, and delivering it. But other things like emphasizing 15-minute city planning in the Comp Plan and figuring out ways to follow the lead of other cities that have made a lot of stunning progress in the COVID era around the subsidy and expansion of e-bikes. I think that e-bikes have a lot of potential to be a significant component. I don't think they're a silver bullet for our transportation climate problems, but I think that they are like a leg of the stool. I think that e-bikes can be a significant way to make biking, as a transportation alternative, more accessible and getting more people to take on that kind of commuting habit to reduce their dependency on single occupancy vehicles. That means we need to - in the Move Seattle levy and just through other budget priorities, through our transportation budgets - really make sure that protected and safe bike infrastructure is something that we're really investing in. So that people feel like they're - not just that it is a comfortable and convenient alternative to use an e-bike, but that you know you can do it safely and in a way that you are going to feel and actually be protected by the infrastructure you use to get around the city. Really proud, in my first term, to have sponsored the first increase in a decade of the commercial parking tax, which is a tax on private commercial parking lots - to create the first-ever dedicated funding for Vision Zero infrastructure improvements. So building on that is something we really need to do to meet our climate goals. I'm proud to be the only candidate in this race in the primary who mentioned climate change in my voter guide statement. I think - in 2023, it's kind of stunning that you can have six candidates running in the Seattle City Council race and only one of the six even mentions climate change as something that we need to be doing. But here we are. So that'll continue to be a priority. Last thing I'll throw out there - really proud of the work I did with 350 Seattle and a coalition of environmental organizations to make significant investments in our community centers, through the renewal of the Metropolitan Park District, to be heating and cooling centers in extreme weather events and also to decarbonize those community centers as part of the process. This is all - it needs to be everything - we need to be mitigating, we need to be investing in climate resiliency, and we need to be aggressively working to reduce our overall climate footprint. And we can really be the city that I think leads the country in being an urban example of how you can be part of the solution on climate. [00:31:09] Crystal Fincher: Now, I just want to give my full-throated support to the e-bike subsidy and to helping to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure. It's so important, and especially e-bikes - showing that more than even regular bikes - to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and as you put it, certainly a leg of the stool that's going to meaningfully address carbon emissions and pollution in our city. I want to talk about public safety and particularly alternative response. Other jurisdictions - not just around the country, but in our own region and county - have rolled out alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises, experiencing homelessness, a variety of issues that may not be best addressed by a police officer in an armed capacity. Which used to be a pretty common - and in some places still is - commonly talked about by even law enforcement officers, that they cannot address and solve everything. But it seems like Seattle has been falling behind on alternative response, behavioral health responses. Where do you stand on those solutions, and what are your thoughts on the civilian-led versus co-response models? And how do we move forward quickly to help improve public safety in the city? [00:32:32] Andrew Lewis: All right, well, I'm gonna give a long answer, 'cause I feel very strongly about this. And appreciate the question. And honestly, Crystal, I appreciate - as an avid listener to your podcast - the way that this topic is discussed extensively with the guests that you have on, because it is not in our broader media and I think this is one of the first parts of the problem. In our broader legacy media, this really isn't discussed as something that's important. You know, like there's only passing reference to it in the editorializing from The Times, definitely none of our local TV news discuss it. And I'll just plant that as a flag - that I think that that is part of the reason it's been hard to get momentum for it - is it is not given much bandwidth, time, respect, or analysis by a lot of legacy media voices, and that diminishes the momentum for it. But just to maybe go way back - I think I got ahead of myself on that part - there's lots of great models nationally for how you can send alternative civilian responses for public health-based calls for service. Eugene, Oregon has a longstanding program called CAHOOTS, Crisis Assistance Helping Out in the Streets. That program's been in operation for 30 years - sends mental health clinicians without the assistance of police to respond to calls for crisis in the community. And they've never had any serious injury or death associated for their staff of responding to those calls. Denver, which is probably a more analogous city - for our purposes as a major city - has a program called STAR, Support Team Assisted Response. Almost exactly the same as Eugene's CAHOOTS program - mental health clinicians and EMTs, civilians, provider-based. They've had no significant challenge, and a Stanford study actually recently saw that there's been an attributable, nearly one-third decrease in street disorder in the place where they've been in operation - which is incredibly impressive - and they've only been in operation for three years. Albuquerque has a similar program. So we really are a late adopter to this work. I will say that the council in June of 2020 really put down - a stake in the ground for having this kind of a service as a really, really big priority. I was a big leader in that, former Councilmember Lorena González was a big advocate of that, my colleague Councilmember Herbold has been a huge, steadfast advocate of this kind of service. And for whatever reason, and I don't really - people can speculate, but I never really got a good reason why - it was not a huge priority for the Durkan administration. And the Durkan administration just really was not interested in lending capacity, bandwidth, or support to developing this kind of a program. And we lost a lot of time as a result of that - to be quite candid. The Harrell administration coming in - and I'm gonna say this - I think the Harrell administration on this issue has been great. We have lots of impediments in the City of Seattle and Washington State, mostly related to the fact that arguably this work needs to be bargained. And I don't wanna get into the bargaining too much, but that's been a big impediment. But the Harrell administration has worked in good faith with Councilmember Herbold and I to develop this work along - and admittedly it's complicated work, and it's taken a lot longer than any of us would like it to. But the Harrell administration has gotten us to a point where we're gonna have a pilot in October. And I give immense credit to them for making this a priority in the first year and a half of their administration. And this dual dispatch pilot that's gonna be hitting the road in October is gonna bear a lot of similarity - in practice, I think - to a similar dual dispatch program in the City of Kirkland, which is called RCR, Regional Crisis Response. Actually, if the podcast is looking for a great guest to talk to about that - highly recommend Councilmember Neal Black, who's the one in Kirkland who turned me on to the fact that they have that service. I was not aware of it - did a ride-along with it- [00:37:22] Crystal Fincher: We actually did a show on that. [00:37:24] Andrew Lewis: With Neal? [00:37:25] Crystal Fincher: Not with Neal - with Mayor Herbig and the executive director of the RCR program. [00:37:30] Andrew Lewis: Oh, that's right - no, you did. Sorry, sorry. Yes, of course - oh my God, sorry. Yes, I listened to that. Old friends with Nigel Herbig, so yeah - I was texting him about it when that launched a couple of months ago. Sorry, I totally spaced on that. [00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: How dare you not know every episode of Hacks & Wonks, Councilmember Lewis? [laughing] [00:37:48] Andrew Lewis: I know - scandal, scandalous. But in any event, I do think our dual dispatch will bear a lot of similarity to that program. And it sets a good foundation because the team - you know, it's a dual dispatch team. And just really quickly, 'cause there's a lot of confusion in community about this. A co-responder system is where you have like a mental health clinician and a police officer in the same unit, the same vehicle, and they respond at the same time in the same vehicle. A dual dispatch program is where the units are separate - like you have a mental health clinician, EMT, in one vehicle and you have police in another. And both of them are dispatched at the same time, but they can sort of work together and like screen off in the field as necessary based on the needs of the call. And in practice, my understanding is that leads, in lots of cases, to the officer, you know, clearing the call and moving on to something only they can do - in the overwhelming majority of situations where the mental health clinician is able to take on the call on their own. So dual dispatch has the potential to continue to evolve into something that is a fully independent 911 response like CAHOOTS and STAR - because with the right training and doctrine, that fully independent unit can have incrementally, you know, more responsibility and more autonomy as we implement the program. So, you know, it's been a while, but I appreciate the Harrell administration's prioritization of this. I appreciate that we're building the program out in the new 911 Communication Center Department, and that we have a new civilian director who's very, very committed to this work - and, you know, I look forward to this pilot being the first step. But in these cities - like in Denver and Albuquerque, those pilots grew very, very quickly into big, mature systems. So my hope is that we can have a similar experience here - we're just getting that service. The best advertising for the service, Crystal, is gonna be getting it out there so people can interact with it, people - and people tangibly know. Like one of the pushbacks I get a lot as an advocate for alternative 911 response is that people don't really have a great conception of like what that means, and they're sort of vulnerable to counterarguments about like - you know, people are gonna kill the alternative responders, or like things that just aren't problems in these other jurisdictions. And I think by getting it out there, it'll make it easier for advocates - like myself, like Councilmember Herbold - to be able to say, Look, this is what we're talking about, we need more of this. And I think that once it's out there, I think that it's gonna catch a lot more attention and public support. [00:40:38] Crystal Fincher: Well, I certainly hope so - and there have been, I believe, some fits and starts in Seattle previously, whether it's the JustCARE model or others - but sincerely hope that we can get meaningful alternative response, comprehensive response up and running here in the City of Seattle. And thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today about your candidacy and your time during your first term - much appreciated. [00:41:04] Andrew Lewis: Thank you so much. [00:41:05] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

covid-19 god tv university amazon california washington office planning seattle development oregon veterans mayors economics raise climate stanford hacks streets housing stranger progressive berkeley lightning candidate homelessness washington state seniors albuquerque scoop city council london school human services emt spd aquarium kirkland neighborhoods opa endorsements harrell waterfront inspector general seattle times emts police accountability housing first vision zero city attorney cahoots rcr oig seattle city council comprehensive plan seattleites seattle public schools andrew lewis sound transit durkan wonks lorena gonz seattle department spog jim ferrell ann davison mayor harrell king county jail nick licata nicole thomas kennedy seattle city council district

Ep. 40: The "Anti-Nomination" Landmark Process in Seattle

COLUMBIA Conversations

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2023 59:52

Feliks Banel's focus on this episode of CASCADE OF HISTORY is what's often called the "anti-nomination" process for potential landmarks reviewed by the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods' Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board - when a building's owner does NOT want the building designated as a city landmark, and consultants and attorneys join in a process that probably runs counter to how many people believe historic preservation programs should operate in the United States. This past Wednesday, October 4, 2023 the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board voted to designate only the 1951 memorial wall at Memorial Stadium as a city landmark, and to not designate 1947 Memorial Stadium. Through audio from the meeting and excerpts from email correspondence, we use Memorial Stadium as a case study to show how public resources are being devoted to processes that appear to be lacking some key elements of what might be called good government. This LIVE broadcast of CASCADE OF HISTORY was originally presented at 8pm Pacific Time on Sunday, October 8, 2023 via SPACE 101.1 FM and streaming live via space101fm.org from studios at historic Magnuson Park – formerly Sand Point Naval Air Station - on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle.

united states space seattle landmark nomination neighborhoods memorial stadium lake washington seattle department feliks banel magnuson park

Juneteenth Celebration, Songs of Black Folk:Music of Resistance and Hope and more

executive director seattle songs celebration players resistance father's day juneteenth human resources albums anthony davis pdt folk music strategic advisor black folks federal way seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2023 54:42

Thursday, June 8 on Urban Forum Northwest :*Taniesha Lyons, Executive Director, Federal Way, WA Black Collective whose mission is to provide a voice, build strategies, and drive change in the city through policy development and culturally reflective resources.*Teresa Everett, Atlantic Street Center invites you to the organizations 22nd Annual Juneteenth Celebration on Saturday, June 17 11:00 am-3:00 pm at the Rainier Beach Community Center 8825 Rainier Avenue South. The event will be live streamed by Rainier Avenue Radio.*Anthony Davis, Out Of Class-Work Force Equity Advisor, Strategic Advisor to the Workforce Equity Director, City of Seattle Department of Human Resources comments on his duties and responsibilities.*Eugenie Jones, award winning singer/songwriter, producer, and legacy activist. Her 2022 release Players ranked #30 on the Jazz Week's top 100 Albums. She also was a first-round Best Jazz Vocal Album Grammy contender and ranked #7 on Jazz Week's Top 50 charts.*Ramon Bryant Braxton, Artistic Director/Conductor, Songs of Black Folk:Music of Resistance and Hope that will feature some the country's top singers and musicians will perform at Seattle's Paramount Theatre June 18, Fathers Day at 7:00 pm (PDT).Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Juneteenth Celebration, Songs of Black Folk:Music of Resistance and Hope and more

Alternative Talk- 1150AM KKNW

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2023 54:42

Thursday, June 8 on Urban Forum Northwest : *Taniesha Lyons, Executive Director, Federal Way, WA Black Collective whose mission is to provide a voice, build strategies, and drive change in the city through policy development and culturally reflective resources. *Teresa Everett, Atlantic Street Center invites you to the organizations 22nd Annual Juneteenth Celebration on Saturday, June 17 11:00 am-3:00 pm at the Rainier Beach Community Center 8825 Rainier Avenue South. The event will be live streamed by Rainier Avenue Radio. *Anthony Davis, Out Of Class-Work Force Equity Advisor, Strategic Advisor to the Workforce Equity Director, City of Seattle Department of Human Resources comments on his duties and responsibilities. *Eugenie Jones, award winning singer/songwriter, producer, and legacy activist. Her 2022 release Players ranked #30 on the Jazz Week's top 100 Albums. She also was a first-round Best Jazz Vocal Album Grammy contender and ranked #7 on Jazz Week's Top 50 charts. *Ramon Bryant Braxton, Artistic Director/Conductor, Songs of Black Folk:Music of Resistance and Hope that will feature some the country's top singers and musicians will perform at Seattle's Paramount Theatre June 18, Fathers Day at 7:00 pm (PDT). Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye.

Urban Forum NW 6 - 08 - 23

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2023 54:42

Thursday, June 8 on Urban Forum Northwest : *Taniesha Lyons, Executive Director, Federal Way, WA Black Collective whose mission is to provide a voice, build strategies, and drive change in the city through policy development and culturally reflective resources. *Teresa Everett, Atlantic Street Center invites you to the organizations 22nd Annual Juneteenth Celebration on Saturday, June 17 11:00 am-3:00 pm at the Rainier Beach Community Center 8825 Rainier Avenue South. The event will be live streamed by Rainier Avenue Radio. *Anthony Davis, Out Of Class-Work Force Equity Advisor, Strategic Advisor to the Workforce Equity Director, City of Seattle Department of Human Resources comments on his duties and responsibilities. *Eugenie Jones, award winning singer/songwriter, producer, and legacy activist. Her 2022 release Players ranked #30 on the Jazz Week's top 100 Albums. She also was a first-round Best Jazz Vocal Album Grammy contender and ranked #7 on Jazz Week's Top 50 charts. *Ramon Bryant Braxton, Artistic Director/Conductor, Songs of Black Folk:Music of Resistance and Hope that will feature some the country's top singers and musicians will perform at Seattle's Paramount Theatre June 18, Fathers Day at 7:00 pm (PDT). Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye.

executive director seattle songs players resistance urban father's day forum human resources albums anthony davis pdt strategic advisor federal way seattle department

Patrons-First Bonus Podcast: One-on-One with SDOT Director Greg Spotts

Seattle News, Views, and Brews

Play Episode Listen Later May 12, 2023 26:29

Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel talks with Seattle Department of Transportation Director Greg Spotts to discuss the plan to reduce right turns on red lights in downtown Seattle, the challenges of implementing Vision Zero to eliminate traffic injuries and deaths in Seattle by the year 2030, and a proposal to untangle a decades-long political dispute over reconnecting Seattle's streetcar system. Super Mega Bonus: a discussion that involves the word "keytar." To access this patrons-first podcast earlier than anyone else next time, support Seattle News, Views and Brews on Patreon!

director seattle views transportation first podcast one on one brews podcastone streetcar red lights vision zero spotts sdot seattle department seattle channel brian callanan

Banning (some) right turns on red

Seattle Now

Play Episode Listen Later May 9, 2023 12:55

Taking a right turn at a red light is a staple of American driving. They keep traffic moving, but for pedestrians, they're a real health hazard.The Seattle Department of Transportation has a new policy to ban right turns on red at 41 intersections downtown, and to roll out more bans city-wide over the next year.SDOT Director Greg Spotts explains the changes, and where the policy could go from here.We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/donate/seattlenowAnd we want to hear from you! Follow us on Instagram at SeattleNowPod, or leave us feedback online: https://www.kuow.org/feedback

american transportation banning kuow seattle department

The Race to Net Zero: building a car-free future

Outside/In

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 20, 2023 32:39

Right now, we're investing billions of dollars into charging infrastructure in order to speed up the transition to electric cars and decarbonize transportation. But there are all sorts of problems that EVs won't solve: bumper-to-bumper traffic, extractive metal mining, and car collisions that kill tens of thousands of drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians every year in the US. That's why transit activists say we need to rethink the way we get around. Because learning to drive less isn't just about safer streets and better quality of life – it's also key to winning the race to net zero. Featuring: Effie Kong, Jascha Franklin-Hodge, LaShea Johnson, Alex Hudson, Edwin Lindo, Thea Riofrancos. SUPPORTOutside/In is made possible with listener support. Click here to become a sustaining member of Outside/In. Subscribe to our FREE newsletter.Follow Outside/In on Instagram or Twitter, or join our private discussion group on Facebook LINKSRead more about Boston's 3-year plan to expand the city's biking infrastructure, make crosswalks safer for pedestrians, and offer biking classes to women and gender-diverse adults.The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is in the middle of getting feedback on the Seattle Transportation Plan on how to build a safer and more efficient transportation system.Read about Cul De Sac Tempe, a new car-free community in Arizona, where residents are contractually forbidden from parking within a quarter-mile radius of the site. (Bloomberg)According to studies in Cambridge, MA and Toronto, Canada, bike lanes have a neutral or even positive impact on local businesses, even if some parking spaces are taken away.A paper in the journal Energy Research & Social Science describes the EV transition as “a wolf in sheep's clothing” and argues that private vehicle electrification is neither effective, nor equitable.This LA Times Op-ed argues that switching to electric cars isn't enough to solve climate change.Studies say pedestrians and bikers are more likely to be hit by EVs and cause more damage because they're quieter and heavier than gas cars.Archival audio in this episode come from the 1953 film The American Road funded by Ford Motor Company, and Futurama at the 1939 NY World's Fair. CREDITSHost: Nate HegyiReported and produced by Felix PoonMixed by Felix Poon and Taylor QuimbyEdited by Taylor QuimbyEditing help from Rebecca lavoie, Justine Paradis, Jessica Hunt, and Mara HaplamazianRebecca Lavoie is our Executive ProducerMusic for this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, and Roy Edwin WilliamsOur theme music is by Breakmaster Cylinder.Outside/In is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio

canada race arizona toronto cars studies cambridge ev evs biking futurama ford motor company blue dot sessions public transit archival car free american roads new hampshire public radio breakmaster cylinder thea riofrancos seattle department alex hudson net zero building edwin lindo jessica hunt

#1,627 - Seattle sweeps record number of homeless encampments

seattle homeless parks recreation sweeps real change harrell record number coinciding woodland park seattle department seattle mayor bruce harrell

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2023 27:01

New records obtained by Real Change indicate that the city of Seattle oversaw a massive rise in sweeps of unhoused people living in tents and vehicles in 2022. According to the log, the city conducted 943 sweeps, averaging more than two-and-a-half per day. The vast majority of these removals — 771 — were classified as “obstruction” sweeps, meaning that staff were not required to provide any notice to camp residents before initiating the sweep. In 158 sweeps, residents received prior notice, ranging from between one day and four days ahead of the sweep. Fourteen of the sweeps did not have a known classification or were labeled as question marks, suggesting potential clerical errors in the city's logging methods.Previously obtained public records showed that Seattle conducted 53 sweeps with prior notice in 2021, indicating a sharp increase in the number of sweeps conducted with notice as the city relaxed its pandemic quasi-moratorium on sweeps. It is not known how many no-notice obstruction sweeps the city undertook during that time period.Coinciding with this rise is the inauguration of Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell, who pledged during his campaign that addressing encampments would be a top priority for his new administration. In an August 2022 press conference, Harrell announced that the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation had cleared a number of parks and green spaces that had been impacted by people taking shelter there.The increase in sweep numbers may also indicate that many of the bigger encampments, which had experienced relative stability during the pandemic, had now been displaced, with the final big encampment in Woodland Park cleared in May 2022. Most of the 2022 sweeps were small in nature, involving only a handful of tents, vehicles or sleeping bags.For years, community advocates have decried the city's sweeps policies as violent, harmful and counterproductive. At the reopening of the Ballard Commons park on March 11, dozens of activists interrupted the celebration to protest the city's sweeps policies, delaying the event by about an hour. The park was closed in December 2021 after a sweep in which city officials cleared dozens of tents and displaced about 100 residents.Support the showSign Up For Exclusive Episodes At: https://reasonabletv.com/LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. https://www.youtube.com/c/NewsForReasonablePeople

New SDOT Director

director seattle transportation sdot seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2023 26:11

Meet Greg Spotts, the new director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Find out what he has planed for the future of transportation in Seattle.

New SDOT Director

director seattle transportation sdot seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2023 26:11

Meet Greg Spotts, the new director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Find out what he has planed for the future of transportation in Seattle.

New SDOT Director

director seattle transportation sdot seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2023 26:11

Meet Greg Spotts, the new director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Find out what he has planed for the future of transportation in Seattle.

New SDOT Director

director seattle transportation sdot seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2023 26:11

Meet Greg Spotts, the new director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Find out what he has planed for the future of transportation in Seattle.

Week in Review: March 3, 2023 - Jazmine Smith

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2023 46:26

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by elite advocate, member of The Urbanist Election Committee, and Political Manager at the Washington Bus, specializing in legislative advocacy and electoral organizing with young people, Jazmine Smith! They catch up on legislative updates from Olympia, including free school meals and other education bills, housing and transportation, public safety, voter rights and name change legislation. They also discuss the legislature's desire to exempt themselves from many public disclosure requirements that other elected officials are subject to. They also discuss the state's first auction of carbon pollution allowances after the passage of the Climate Commitment Act and what that might mean for green investment and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, several school districts planning school closures and layoffs because of funding shortfalls that require legislative funding to solve, the impact of SNAP food assistance benefit reductions for families. Crystal and Jazmine conclude with a discussion of speed camera traffic safety enforcement in response to the need to improve safety on our streets and the impacts of police increased surveillance within BIPOC and lower-income communities, as well as some proposed mitigations to those issues. 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, Jazmine Smith at @jazzyspraxis. Jazmine Smith Jazmine Smith is the Political Manager at the Washington Bus, specializing in legislative advocacy and electoral organizing with young people. She also is an urbanism organizer, serving on The Urbanist's Election committee, with the Queen Anne Community Council as the Transportation Committee co-chair, the Uptown Alliance's Land Use Review Committee and is a WSDCC Rep for the 36th LD. Resources “Marc Dones and the State of King County's Homelessness Crisis Response” from Hacks & Wonks “Announcing our 2023 Legislative Priorities!” | The Washington Bus “WA legislators scrap plan for free school lunch for all students” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times “Washington's Middle Housing Bill Is Still Alive with Further Amendments” by Stephen Fesler from The Urbanist “As Density Bills Move Forward, It's Statewide Housing Goals vs. "Local Control"” by Ryan Packer from PubliCola “This WA bill could make it easier and safer to change your name” by Taija PerryCook from Crosscut “New Drug Possession Bill Emphasizes Coercive Treatment” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola “Member of WA's ‘Sunshine Committee' quits, cites lawmakers' inaction” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times “WA's government transparency committee is ready to call it quits” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut “WA enters new era of putting a price on greenhouse-gas pollution” by Hal Bernton from The Seattle Times “Cap-and-trade takes Washington businesses, ratepayers into the unknown” by Don Jenkins from Capital Press “First auction held for ‘licenses to pollute' in Washington” by Bellamy Pailthorp from KNKX “Seattle Schools notifying employees of possible layoffs” by Monica Velez from The Seattle Times “Local school district estimates $12 million deficit without staffing, program changes” by Aspen Shumpert from The News Tribune “Everett schools may slash 140 jobs to deal with $28M deficit” by Jerry Cornfield from The Everett Herald “Additional pandemic-era SNAP benefits to end March 1” by Bridget Chavez from KIRO 7 News “Seattle has ignored concerns over SPD use of surveillance technologies, community members say” by Guy Oron from Real Change News “What's Next for Traffic Cameras in Seattle?” | Whose Streets? Our Streets! “OPINION | Seattle's Automated Traffic Cameras Disproportionately Target Neighborhoods of Color” by Ethan C. Campbell and Nura Ahmed for The South Seattle Emerald Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, Marc Dones, CEO of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, returned to catch up on how the response to the homelessness crisis is faring since our conversation last year. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome to the program for the first time today's cohost: member of The Urbanist Election Committee, one of my favorite follows on social media, and Political Manager at the Washington Bus, specializing in legislative advocacy and electoral organizing with young people, Jazmine Smith. Hey! [00:01:18] Jazmine Smith: Hi, thank you so much for having me. I'm really excited. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you, excited to welcome you for the first time and so serious when I say that you're one of my favorite follows on social media all across social media, whether it's Twitter or TikTok or whatever. But there's a lot happening this week, starting with what's going on in the Legislature, which you are involved with a lot there and following closely. So what are we excited about? What are we sad about? We just passed another cutoff, meaning that if bills didn't make it through the hoops that they needed to that some people have issues with calling them dead, but at least dormant until next session at minimum. So what is still alive and what's not? What's caught your eye? [00:02:07] Jazmine Smith: Yeah, the ones that I've been mostly following are the ones that we cover for work because we have a whole lot of different issues that we're covering four main buckets and so I've been really focused on those. One of the big ones being the wealth tax and guaranteed basic income that's the tax the rich, fund the people stuff. The free school meals, which had a floor vote yesterday and we'll talk more about. But a whole host of democracy access bills as well, and just making sure that we improve our system every way. So there's a lot going on and it's been wild trying to keep track of all of them. [00:02:46] Crystal Fincher: It is. Let's talk about the school meals because this is a bill that I was extremely excited about. We have tons of data, even got more through the pandemic and some of the extra provisions that were provided that show providing meals and assistance to kids helps reduce hunger. And hunger is an impediment to learning. So this should be something that is uncontroversial yes, we're requiring kids to be in school, we should feed them while we're there. This is uncontroversial and sailed through to passage, right? [00:03:21] Jazmine Smith: Right? You would think. I remember back when - I was teaching before this, I was working in elementary school - and during COVID and that shift back to in-person that happened in that spring, it was so nice having kids just be able to grab their lunches - we were doing half days and whatnot - and breakfast and not have to worry about checking in, and getting the codes in, do they have money for this? And then there were a number of students that I talked to that don't normally pick up lunches, but really appreciated the opportunity to have some extra food and whatnot. It was really great to see and I was really excited to hear in the fall that this was a priority for not just OSPI, but from the Legislature. And so that's why when fiscal cutoff hit last week - and it was really surprising to see that it had been reduced down. [00:04:15] Crystal Fincher: So when you say reduced down, what has happened to the bill? [00:04:19] Jazmine Smith: So it went from free school meals for all, breakfast and lunch, to being specifically targeted at K-4 schools and with specific percentages of free and reduced lunch qualified students. So it's no longer a universal for all - which is what was promised - what we were doing during the pandemic, and what I think the starting point and ending point should be. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: And there's a big conversation tangential to this about means testing and how that adds an additional layer of bureaucracy at quite a significant expense. And as we talk about school funding later, that absolutely contributes and makes a difference in how that cuts a lot of people who are still in need and even some who may qualify - that is a barrier to access. And means testing, being one of those - I don't want to say neoliberal - but one of those ideas that came with justifications like - we can't allow people who are just rich, who can pay for it to do it. But why not - why is it wrong to feed kids who are hungry, no matter what their background is? And again, if we're requiring them to be there, why don't we just do that? But throwing means testing back into this and paring it down so much is certainly not what we wanted to see - better than nothing, definitely - but let's push and do all we can. There are Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and we have a Democratic governor, so this was something that I was hoping could get through. When it comes to school funding, there are also challenges across the board that several school districts are paying attention to when it comes to special education funding and different things like that. Where do we stand in terms of education policy in this legislative session? [00:06:17] Jazmine Smith: We have a lot of catching up to do with funding for schools - that's where issues with the wealth tax will come in - and just how dramatically underfunded our schools are, both in the general, but also in special ed programmings. And so was, again, really excited to see special education funding remove a cap - we should be supporting all of our students, but then that gets switched back. And so we have a lot of catching up to do and we need to fund our schools and I'm not seeing that happen to the level that it needs to. [00:06:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. What is happening in terms of housing and transportation? [00:06:58] Jazmine Smith: Housing - we have a lot of bills coming through where we're attacking all issues. We've got transit-oriented development, TOD - wanted to, thinking about transit on demand, like I wish - transit-oriented development. And then the missing middle bill being back - watching for that - it passed through the House and wanting Senate to keep it going through the - we've been hearing a lot of conversations. And so with the city council meetings that I've been popping in on, watching - we're hearing a lot from different governments being nervous about 1110, the missing middle bill, and a lot of conversations about local control and whatnot. But this is beyond a local control problem. This is a problem where we need all the housing everywhere and we need to be doing everything we can. And it's been shown that local control hasn't been working. And when each individual city and town says - We're not against housing, we just don't want housing here - who are we excluding and where are we passing the buck to? And where are people allowed to live? And then it's just a rehash of the 1923 problem where zoning restricted all of these places where people could live and created the problem where we're standing now with the Comp Plan - comprehensive plan process. [00:08:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so middle housing is still alive - increasing development near transit centers and in more dense areas are still alive. But we've talked before about a lot of cities talking about the issue of local control saying - Hey, yeah, there may be a problem, but one-size-fits-all policy from the state is not how we feel comfortable addressing this. That if we could make our own requirements that fit our own city - what works for Seattle is not necessarily what works in Spokane or Cle Elum or Gig Harbor and different things. And so we all need to do this differently. The challenge in what a lot of people are saying and what has grown the coalition in support of this legislation has been - Well, you've been saying that for years. And we've been waiting for you, while you've been saying that for years, to take the action that you feel is appropriate for your city. And what has happened in most cities is that no action has been taken, while housing prices continue to skyrocket. A lot of times we hear about these pricing issues, predominantly in Seattle - is the highest-priced region, area in the state - but this is impacting Spokane, it's impacting Southwest Washington, Pierce County. It's a statewide issue. And since cities have not taken appropriate action to address the massive housing shortage driving an increase in long-term prices across the board, it's now time for the state to step in and take action, which is how a lot of these things work. But that has resulted, as these conversations happen, in - some might call it negotiation, others might call it watering down or compromise in these bills. And so when they talk about the requirement of cities going from - Hey, any city with 6,000 residents or, and now that's moved to 25,000 residents. Okay - bigger, larger-size cities we're exempting, smaller cities we're exempting the types of areas that this would apply to. If they're in a watershed or different types of areas of development, they're exempting them. So these are the conversations going on in these negotiations. It looks like certainly these bills will pass. The question is how will they be amended and what compromises will occur in order to get them to pass both houses. So they continue to move through the process, but this is an area where staying engaged is definitely helpful. Now there's another bill that I think is really important to talk about - in addition to rolling back police pursuits, which we've talked about before - and now they're asking to expand, once again, the conditions under which they can pursue vehicles. They can pursue vehicles now. Sometimes in the conversation, it sounds confusing - and some people talk about it as if they're prohibited from pursuing anyone now, but they certainly can. But there's another piece of legislation which would make it more efficient, easier, more streamlined to change someone's name. And this is very impactful for the trans community, for people who've experienced intimate partner violence, for refugees who - having an old name and some of the requirements like advertising publicly that you intend to change your name - we don't require that for a lot of other things. These are unnecessary hoops to jump through. They also cost money. We have to have people to administer these things and especially with all of the attacks on the trans community, particularly, but also in terms of intimate partner violence - if someone has a stalker, advertising publicly, Hey, I'm changing my name, just flies in the face of the safety that people are seeking from changing their name. If someone can just easily find out that they're changing their name, that doesn't address any issue there. So excited to see that moving through the process and hope it does. Any other legislation that you have your eye on right now? [00:12:39] Jazmine Smith: We've got a couple of democracy-related bills that we've been following - updating the online voter registration system is going to make it more accessible. Currently, if you have a driver's license, that's the only way - or Washington state ID - that's the only way to utilize the online voter registration system, which leaves out a lot of folks who are recently moved, don't have that specific form of documentation - and that's disproportionately impacting of poor folks, folks who are experiencing homelessness that might've lost their ID, young people who are not interested in driving. I know I've heard that there's a huge bump in young people that just aren't interested in being drivers at this point, and so they don't have a driver's license and there's barriers to that. So that has passed. It has a hearing in the House side now. And then also updating the automatic voter registration so that it - the way it currently sits, folks are asked when they're updating their driver's license or going and registering for the first time - and it can put people who aren't actually eligible to vote in a position where they might accidentally register, not realizing. 'Cause different countries have different rules on who can and can't vote and whatnot. And just in a quick transaction, then, that could put someone's future citizenship at risk because they accidentally registered - so making that both more streamlined and safer for everyone involved. And then also moving city and town elections to even years. So we did that in King County this last election and there are other jurisdictions, say Seattle, that want the opportunity to be able to have their elections when the most people are voting - when they have a full electorate of young people, Black and Brown people, the people who don't have water views, being fully represented and having that turnout that we want in any election. Any representative should be representing their whole community of constituents. And so allowing other towns to join in - will be really exciting to see that move. [00:15:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And then when it comes to some of the public safety bills - unfortunately, the bill banning solitary confinement has died again this year. They're still working on the legislation in response to the Blake decision from our State Supreme Court, which - that decision made personal possession of substances - just decriminalized them, legalized them across the board. Our Legislature stepped in a couple of years ago and set some uniform standards that did recriminalize them across the state, albeit lesser penalties. And it looks like they're staying on that path with that legislation this year. The reason why they have to take it up is that there was a sunset provision in the prior legislation for this year. So they have to do something new and it looks like they're not substantively changing, necessarily, their approach to that. They're not looking at decriminalization further, it appears, but we will see. And the deadline for bills to make it out of their house of origin is March 8th, which will be coming up next week. So we will certainly see then what has survived and what has not. Also in news this week - just looking at some legislative transparency problems. While they're doing all this legislating and having all these conversations - there's a lot of information, a lot of deliberation, a lot of communication and testimony that happens. And they talk about their actions and their reasoning. And typically this is available to the public via public disclosure. Lots of times we see in the paper - investigations or information that is found via requests for this information, because these are public servants being paid for with public dollars. The theory is, and how it has worked largely, is that their work is subject to public disclosure and accountability. And the Legislature holds themselves to some different standards, and it has been continuing to raise eyebrows. What is happening here? [00:17:07] Jazmine Smith: That's what I really wanna know, and that's the heart of the question - is what is happening. And with legislative privilege - finding that line between working on the bills and the issues and all of the different nuances - but we do have a right to know what's going on - why did this bill die? What happened behind the scenes? And not all of that is in the public record. A lot of that is conversations that you're having with a person face-to-face or whatnot. But been seeing in the courts with a lawsuit regarding legislative privilege, and also some things that came up last year that were subject to a public disclosure request. And now we're starting to get bits and pieces through someone who used to work at the Legislature, Jamie Nixon, and what they've been able to release. Their Twitter has been keeping a lot of information up-to-date, but then also different reports from other folks following the Legislature. So it will definitely be interesting to see - what is going on, how does legislative privilege hide what's happened, and what is that line? We're still actively working on an issue, but everyone deserves to know - why aren't things getting passed? Why did this happen? What is the background on all of these issues? [00:18:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and essentially to your point, what they're doing is claiming legislative privilege for things that - if they were discussed or happened in other areas of government, if it was a city council or a mayor or county council, school board, that they would be subject to disclosure - but we're receiving heavily redacted documents in response to public disclosure requests and them saying - No, we don't have to turn this over. And over time, they continue to implement exceptions and loopholes for different situations or circumstances where they don't have to disclose public documents. And this has raised the ire of certainly several journalists, of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. This is not really a partisan issue - this applies to both parties. There was a hearing where there was a Republican member defending these exceptions, and we've had plenty of Democrats do that, but it does raise questions about - if we don't know what's going into these deliberations, if there is no lever of accountability, what is really happening behind closed doors - and does that foster more productive, ethical, legal conversation? Or even just - there may be plenty of things that don't have anything to do with legality, not saying that people are doing things wrong, but the public should be able to see how decisions are made, how these discussions are going, and there is significant resistance to doing that to the degree that has become the standard for everyone else in the Legislature. I hope that there are more people there that see the light. There is basically a committee that has been tasked with doing this that is basically throwing their hands up. A lot of people are throwing their hands up - they've had some resignations 'cause they're going - What is the point at this point in time? They seem to be fighting back, not taking our recommendations as they once did, and moving in the opposite direction. So we'll continue to follow that and see how that pans out, but it certainly is a challenge. And we see the importance of public records in so many different things, whether it was understanding how dysfunctional our redistricting process was and what happened with that, whether it was issues like deleted texts that we've seen in the City of Seattle and elsewhere - a lot of investigations and accountability work and making sure that people are just doing what they're supposed to be doing is brought to light as a result of these public disclosure requests. So hopefully we see progress on there. Another thing that happened this week that's pretty significant is a big new step as a result of the Climate Commitment Act, which was a huge monumental piece of legislation meant to address climate change - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a price for carbon and essentially setting up a market where there is a cap - saying, Hey, we say that this level of pollution that's currently going on, we're gonna cap it at this level. If you wanna pollute above that level, then you have to buy these credits - or essentially get a permit to pollute above and beyond the established cap. And over time, that cap is supposed to ratchet down - impacting the price that organizations, companies, particularly ones that pollute, and reduce and emit a lot of greenhouse gases can emit. And so whether they are called pollution coupons or credits or that, we just had our very first auction in the state where organizations bought those credits to be able to essentially pollute. Now, a criticism of this system is that - can you really bank on reducing emissions if all someone has to do is pay to continue polluting. And the number of credits you make available - does that negate the cap, if you just continue to allow people to buy pollution credits basically and continue to do that - which in other areas where this has been implemented, most notably in California, hasn't gone well in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So we'll see how that works in our state. But one thing that's undeniable is that this raises a ton of money. This is supposed to raise hundreds of millions just with this first quarterly auction. Over the first couple of years, it's supposed to raise over a billion dollars. And this money raised is supposed to go into investments that help transition to a green economy, to things that reduce greenhouse gas emissions - whether that's electrification, whether that's different initiatives that reduce commuting, whether that's transit, or helping transition companies that are heavy polluters and workers of those companies who are being impacted by the change in their industry to different sectors, investing in solar, the green economy, just a bunch of things. So it'll be interesting to see what these - to get the final tally on what was raised from this auction this time and follow the process to see how those are going to be invested. And to see if the promise of listening to impacted communities - the communities that are hardest hit by greenhouse gas emissions, by climate change and pollution - are we focusing investments in the areas where they're needed most? Are we helping rural areas transition in this area? So a big opportunity, certainly, and look forward to following through this process to see how that turns out. What do you think about it? [00:24:22] Jazmine Smith: I think that any way that we can bring in more money for the state is great. We have a lot of different areas that we need to address the revenue deficit. If we can't fund schools, then where are we going to - where's the line? Everything, so looking specifically at cap and trade and whatnot, agree that I'm skeptical about anything stopping pollution, especially when you're giving these licenses to pollute, but at the very least, we should be able to have the revenue available to start doing that transition. And I know that with the gas tax and all of those things, then we can only use them on specifically cars and whatnot. So being able to have that freedom and different areas to invest in more green areas and having a green economy would be very great. [00:25:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. In other statewide news, there is - education is so integral in everything that we do in our economy, in terms of public safety, just in the future for our kids. And several school districts around the state are really struggling right now, because despite it being enshrined in our Washington State Constitution as a paramount duty to fully fund the public education, we are not doing that in a number of school districts, including Seattle, Everett, the Peninsula School District, and others are saying - Hey, we've been saying we're at a funding crisis. We've been raising this alarm and now we are at the point where we're going to have to lay off employees, we're going to have to make cuts in really significant ways. Several districts are talking about school closures and consolidating things, which is just extremely disruptive to kids and to communities. And this is really a result of a shortage of funding there and over-reliance on local levies and bonds that - in the absence of state funding, they have to pass property taxes and increases in property taxes in order to fund the areas of public education that are necessary that are not being funded by the state. And everything from special education to librarians to school nurses to different arts and cultural programming, just what is required for an education that fully prepares people to be successful in life, however they define that, are on the chopping block. How do you view this and what's the way out? [00:27:07] Jazmine Smith: Yeah, as someone that came from an elementary school up in Ballard - so there was a lot of PTA funding that supported the school, nice-sized auctions and whatnot. It was still funding staff members - the counselor at the school was partially funded by PTA funding, folks at the front desk that are absolutely crucial to making sure that everything runs smoothly in the school - these are the folks that are gonna be first on the chopping block. And those staff members that are those connection points with students who are struggling, who might be the ones that are organizing backpacks of food to go home over the weekend, and the counselor that you talk to about what's going on. These are the people that are facing layoffs because we are not funding our schools, because there's massive deficits and that we're over relying on, as you said, those levies. And it just hit this breaking point. And I know that we had the McCleary decision a while back and there was some influx of funding that happened that did help raise wages - wages are still too low for what is appropriate for education professionals and whatnot. And here we are with Seattle with $100 million deficit, Peninsula Schools, Everett - millions of dollars that are leading to 70 here being laid off. And it's just heartbreaking for the children, for the community, for what happens when neighborhood schools close and consolidate, and the disruption that has, the additional barriers that that poses on families. I remember when we had to move to a temporary school and it was on - still in North Seattle, but on the other side - so all of those families that had to commute for multiple school years outside of their district - and so to, or not outside of their district, but outside of their attendance area and whatnot. And so really frustrating to see - when it's entirely preventable - again, we have a trifecta, we have a Democratic governor and Legislature - we can fund schools. It's our duty to fund schools and we're not doing that. And it's hurting a lot of our communities. [00:29:36] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely is. It is once again, not lost on me that when it comes to our public education system, even within the same district, it is predominantly the schools that are attended by a larger percentage of lower income students or BIPOC students who are being disproportionately impacted - whether it's from school closures or cuts that are going to impact them - they always seem to be on the chopping block first there. And this is not an exception, whether it's the conversations happening right now about potential school closures in the Bellevue School District or what we've seen continuing to happen in Seattle, different districts - it really is a big challenge. And really more districts are sounding the alarm and saying - Hey, we see a number of districts struggling with this now. This may not be us today, but hey, State of Washington and Legislature, if you don't take action this year, this is gonna be us next year. This is something that is a structural problem with education funding throughout the state. And although school boards can certainly impact and school leadership can certainly impact the conditions around that, everyone is starting from behind square one because of these structural deficits and inefficiencies that can only be addressed by our State Legislature. And again, the mandate was clear from this past election - even in battleground districts - lots of Democrats ran on the importance of fully funding public education. This is not controversial. This is supported by the public by and large. There were a number of teacher strikes that were trying to avert issues like this earlier in the year. And so I really hope our Legislature, particularly Democrats who are in power in the Legislature right now, step up to help address this significantly. Also, a challenge that a lot of people are facing this week - especially as so many more people are struggling with the rising costs of housing and food and everything - is a cut to SNAP benefits or Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programming benefits for people, whether it's EBT, food stamps, however you wanna call it. Hunger is a problem and we have no excuse in this country to have people being hungry. We have no excuse in this state. But we are seeing, as of March 1st, a reduction in the pandemic-era increase to SNAP benefits. So people, as of March 1st, who are receiving food assistance are going to be receiving about $90 less per month, which is very significant. We saw that additional investment reduce child hunger and reduce child poverty by significant substantial amounts, and allowing this to expire and go away is disappointing. But it really has an impact on a lot of people and a lot of news reports are saying - Hey, food banks around the area are expecting a real big influx of people relying on them to feed their families, because not only is this cut happening - and it would be painful at any time - there are so many more increases in food costs overall. Food is just more expensive than it was a year ago, two years ago. And so I hope for everyone listening, you do donate to your local food bank. If you can, help people who are hungry - donate to your local mutual aid organizations - because we're about to see more people fall into hunger and be exposed to poverty now with that. How do you feel about this? [00:33:16] Jazmine Smith: It's really frustrating. I think when we first lost the child tax credit that was expanded, then that was something that - it was not only like losing something that really helped a lot of people during the pandemic, which is still going on. So the first level of everything is that we are still in a pandemic and still living with all of the inflation and all of the issues that are still around with the pandemic - increased health costs and whatnot. So it's still happening even if we've declared that the state of emergency is over. And so first thing when the state of emergency was pulled, both at the state and federal level, is that all of these things that have been helping people - having access to certain levels of healthcare, being able to take a COVID test and get free COVID tests without having to worry - that writing on the wall of everything falling. And now to lose SNAP benefits, or have that drastic reduction, is not only devastating and frustrating from that aspect of people are still needing it and more so right now. But also just - for what reason, why would we do this? And there's - we can't pretend that people aren't still struggling with the pandemic, that it's gone, and that everything's all right, and everything can go back to normal - it can't. We need to continue to be supporting all of our communities through everything. [00:34:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. In other news, we certainly have talked over and over again about our street and traffic safety crisis that we're facing across the board when it comes to cars speeding, acting irrationally, hitting pedestrians and people on bikes - this is happening so frequently. We are seeing so many challenges. Just a couple miles away from me, a few nights ago, there was a fatal hit and run from someone who hit a pedestrian on a street. We've seen several other vehicle collisions in the region this week that have resulted in major injury or death of pedestrians - certainly talked a lot about this on the show. And one potential fix that has been talked about is automated traffic enforcement - speed cameras, basically. And hey, this is something that we don't rely on traffic stops, just sees if you're speeding or not. This has been implemented in some school zones. They're talking about implementing it in others, and potentially expanding to other areas in the city and areas where there are a higher amount of vehicle-pedestrian collisions. And lots of people going - Hey, these speed cameras do show that they reduce speeding, they reduce collisions and injuries. While also - the fact of the matter is that the communities impacted the worst, the people who were being hurt and the communities where these deaths are occurring are predominantly lower income and BIPOC communities because of the historic lack of infrastructure investment and safety investments that occur in other areas. So these accidents, because of the way these communities have been built and designed, are more likely to happen in these areas. But if we do focus solely in these areas, not only does that potentially have the benefit of addressing these traffic collisions and making the area safer, it submits these communities to increased surveillance. And there are talks about expanding the use of cameras or the availability of data and information from these cameras for uses beyond traffic. So this is in the realm of possibility. And if we're saying - Hey, if we're talking about in the south end on Rainier Avenue, and hey, if you're down there - everyone who drives by, everyone who walks by is gonna be on a camera, they're gonna have their license plate scanned, they're gonna do that - that can potentially be used for any kind of situation. We have seen this repeatedly result in increased interactions with police, increased scrutiny in these areas that doesn't occur in other areas. That doesn't mean that these problems are not occurring in other areas. It just means that we're not looking for them to the degree that we are in lower income and BIPOC communities. And there is a very valid conversation to be had about - do we allow the expansion and the proliferation of surveillance of communities of color, basically. And we have to talk about this. This is an impact that should not be ignored. And someone who cares deeply about pedestrian safety and mobility and absolutely wants action to be taken on this, I also do not want to subject these communities to continually expanding surveillance, and the consequences and harm that results from that. So this is something that is a conversation that's talked about. Guy Oron had an excellent article about this - I believe the South Seattle Emerald, had a great piece on this. But as this conversation evolves and adds this tension between - hey, this is something that can increase safety, and also this is something that can increase harm - are things that we have to continue to grapple with and that the community needs to be involved with working through this. How do you feel about this? [00:38:37] Jazmine Smith: It's definitely complicated because that gut instinct is that if it is proven to change driver behavior and whatnot, then in that sense, then it works where it's at or where it's put in place. And so it should be everywhere - or to a certain extent - it certainly shouldn't be concentrated on communities of color, which is where there currently are a lot of focus points. And so it is that balance between wanting people to be alive, not wanting people to have to risk crossing Rainier and worry about their family all being hit in one interaction with a vehicle. But at the same time, I guess I hadn't realized that there was - I just assumed that all of the cameras everywhere are always watching - I'm just so numb to this current state of the surveillance state. There's cameras on top of the sign across the street from me and whatnot. I remember asking my landlord - You think that they can see into my apartment and whatnot? There's so much surveillance going on. And I guess part of my question is - How much is already happening just universally, but at the same time not wanting to expand it, expand that harm. And I think a bigger emphasis needs to be put on designing safe streets from the get-go. Putting that design - and I know we've already built out a lot - and so it's patching up as things come up and whatnot, as buildings get built and whatnot. We can't just reinvent the whole city in one snap. But yeah, that first investment should be in designing streets and fixing streets to be safer for everyone as we walk by, while not focusing on that punitive element. And finding ways to address driver behavior that isn't in that punitive way, but really just encourages safe behavior. So it's really complicated in that - well, what works and what has been working, versus what is best for communities and what is most equitable across the board. [00:40:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And the point you raised about it needing to be everywhere are some points that people say - Okay, if we are gonna do this, we should be mitigating the potential harm. We should be making sure we're doing this in as equitable a way as we can. Certainly to your point, the road design impacts more than enforcement will, certainly. This is a conversation that we've been having, especially with the recent release of the Seattle Department of Transportation's Vision Zero review, which lots of people noticed did not seemingly adequately address the impact of road design or plans to impact design to address this. But when it comes to cameras, one of the suggestions was - Okay, so make sure they are distributed equitably throughout the city. Make sure they're not just concentrated in certain areas. We have an interest in people not speeding or driving dangerously in all areas of the city. So let's not just concentrate it there. Let's do it in all areas. And suddenly when you talk about implementing something in Laurelhurst, people get more concerned about what the potential ancillary impacts could be. And so that's a positive thing. And we're not only doing that. Another suggestion that was brought up was - currently right now, the revenue from traffic cameras goes into the Seattle General Fund. And in many cities, it goes into general funds because - certainly this is not just a Seattle-only problem, several cities have traffic cameras and are contending with this across the state - and it largely goes into general funds. And if this becomes a revenue driver, if the goal isn't simply making the streets safer, and the goal becomes - in declining revenues and things you want to fund, this is another area of revenue. It is not, personally, what I think - is not a productive, is not a good place to be to rely on enforcement for revenue. That is a bad incentive and incentivizes them to continue to find things that go wrong - in fact, to not address some of the structural design issues because - Hey, we're getting revenue from the way things are happening now. So restricting that - instead of going to the general fund, restricting it to investments in traffic safety and road safety, maybe dedicating it to being able to implement some of the design changes that would make things safer. But if we restrict that and only allow reinvestment in areas that increase safety, that seems like that's - one, more aligned with what this revenue is really targeted for and supposed to do and reduces the incentive for ticket's sake. Because when it comes to cameras, they do ticket a lot more than officers just standing in different spots will, which is one of the reasons why it's more effective. It's always there, and it targets everyone. But it does then create this as a revenue line item. So lots of people, as we've seen in many different areas, will do toxic things, whether it's seizing property or giving speeding tickets to raise revenue, and that is not a positive thing. So we'll continue to follow this conversation. We will continue to follow along and see how this goes. The Seattle Department of Transportation, certainly - and I'm sure many others across the state - are interested in community feedback about this as they try and navigate through this issue. Automated enforcement is one thing that a lot of cities across the state are looking at to address pedestrian safety. So this is something that lots of people need to engage with and need to make sure that we just don't implement this willy-nilly and have unintended consequences, which sometimes may not be as unintended if people see this as a potential for revenue. So to reduce the harm done on the other side - because harm is harm, and increased targeting, increased stops and contacts that are concentrated in one community does lead to a lot of the problems that we've seen in trying to reduce that. So we'll continue to follow along with that. That is our time today. So we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, March 3, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is a member of The Urbanist Election Committee, one of my favorite follows on social media, and someone who is doing the work every day as the Political Manager at The Washington Bus, as a volunteer for so many other issues, and specializing in legislative advocacy and electoral organizing with young people, Jazmine Smith. You can find Jazmine on Twitter @jazzyspraxis. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me @finchfrii, two i's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast to hear the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Thank you, Jazmine, for joining us, and we will talk to you next time.

Week in Review: February 24, 2023 - Erica Barnett

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2023 34:13

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! During this Seattle-centric episode, they discuss Mayor Bruce Harrell's State of the City speech, the SDOT Vision Zero report about traffic safety, the passage of first in the nation caste legislation, what's next for social housing, questions from the oversight board for the scope of King County Regional Homelessness Authority's five-year plan, an increase in violence against unsheltered people, and the outlook for downtown Seattle. 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 The State of the City is Vibes by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola In State of the City, Seattle Mayor Harrell emphasizes crime, downtown by Sarah Grace Taylor from Seattle Times Vision Zero | Our top-to-bottom review provides a roadmap and new actions to reverse challenging trends in traffic safety by Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle must do more to prevent traffic deaths, report says by David Kroman from Seattle Times Councilmember Tammy Morales responds to the release of SDOT's vision zero review: "this report stops short of calling for dramatic or swift action to combat the unprecedented number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities on our streets, particularly in District 2.” by Tammy Morales on Twitter Seattle becomes the first city to ban caste discrimination by Lilly Ana Fowler from KNKX Opinion: Confessions of an American Caste Traitor by Prashant Nema from South Seattle Emerald What's next now that Seattle's Social Housing Developer initiative has passed by Capitol Hill Seattle Study: Human Service Wages Are Even Worse Than You Imagined by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola Violence Against Unsheltered People Spikes, Social Housing Moves Into Startup Mode by Publicola Plan to Eliminate Visible Homelessness Downtown is “Clearly Behind Schedule,” but Backers Remain Optimistic by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola Oversight Board Questions Price Tag, Exclusion of Tiny Houses from Homeless Agency's Five-Year Plan by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola As Downtown recovers, Seattle reimagines what it could be by Josh Cohen from Crosscut #ThePostman - D'Vonne Pickett Jr. Memorialized With Street Sign in the Central District by Cesar Canizales from Converge Media Qualified Immunity Bill Passes Key Hurdle as Other Criminal Justice Reforms Stall Out by Andrew Engelson from Publicola Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. 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. [00:01:11] Erica Barnett: Hi, Crystal. Great to be here. [00:01:13] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. I want to start off talking about an annual event that happens in the City of Seattle every year - the State of the City address by Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. What did he say and what was your impression of his State of the City speech? [00:01:31] Erica Barnett: As I said in my headline and a story I wrote about this, the message that I got from it was vibes. What I mean by that is it was a lot of positive talk about the future of the city - everything's looking brighter - the future of the city is bright, optimism, innovation, Downtown that's going to be wonderful for everyone. But a lot of what he actually proposed or said he's going to do in the coming year, which is the point of the State of the City speech, was either stuff that he promised in his first State of the City speech last year or sort of small scale stuff - white papers, activation plans, executive orders, and a vision for the future of public safety - which is basically what he said last year as well. So not a lot of substance - quite a lot of fluff and good vibes talk - which resonated really well in the room, I have to say. It felt like a good speech, but when you read the words or paid attention to them at the time, there just wasn't a whole lot there. [00:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think one thing - and you called this out also in your article, I think - is that especially on the heels of Mayor Jenny Durkan, who was not the most charismatic mayor that we've ever had and didn't particularly seem to enjoy the job, Bruce brings charisma to his speeches, to his interactions with people - and that goes a long way to building goodwill, at least in the reception of what he's saying. The vibes feel good, but as you said, it wasn't packed with substantive promises, goals, but there were a few that were included in there. What did those include? [00:03:17] Erica Barnett: Yeah. So he said - so I mentioned this "downtown activation plan" - so reading between the lines, he talked about how great it is that Amazon is forcing people to come back to work, essentially - which a lot of them are not very happy with - but saying that as everybody returns to work and downtown kind of returns somewhat to normal, we're going to activate it, there's going to be new small businesses and storefronts, art spaces, possibly - and again, this gets into kind of the vague part - he kept saying may, possibly, maybe we'll have an arts corridor, a 24/7 street, this kind of vision of downtown, but yeah, as far as concrete actions, he says there'll be a plan. He also said there's going to be a new executive order about fentanyl and other synthetic drugs. Again, executive order - I don't know what that - that can mean a range of things. It's not the same thing as legislation. And then he says that he's going to propose a suite of legislation to hire more officers and release a vision for the future of public safety, which again - I think that what that actually translates to, particularly on the recruitment side - is they're going to hire a marketing manager who's going to do some ads. He mentioned digital ads aimed at Gen Z trying to get more younger recruits, but yeah - again, really, I'm really reaching to find substance because there just wasn't a lot of it there. [00:04:44] Crystal Fincher: There was not - it doesn't appear - did he say anything about the planned public safety department that has been talked about for a year now? [00:04:55] Erica Barnett: Oh, yeah. So that was another thing that he talked about in his first State of the City speech. He said within the year, we'll have a plan for this department - and I don't remember the exact language or whether there's anything solid there - but this year, a year later, he's saying that pretty soon there's going to be a white paper that sort of lays out what this department might look like. I think that that's a really good example of something where - he does not deliver on that third department, which is supposed to be a kind of non-police public safety response department. It does have a name, which is the CARE Department, the Civilian Assisted Response and Engagement Department - so they've gotten that done. But if he doesn't deliver on that this year, I think there's going to be some pushback, maybe, for not actually accomplishing all these lofty goals. It's been more than a year and he hasn't delivered on it yet, but a white paper is, allegedly, coming. [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think a lot of people are definitely looking forward to the white paper as a precursor to further action. Hopefully, certainly people want to stand up responses that are appropriate to the type of call that are coming, and there seems to be a broad recognition - because of the creation of this department and certainly by the residents - that a variety of different types of responses are needed. Having a cop with a gun show up to every single circumstance doesn't make sense, and certainly with the staffing challenges that they say they have doesn't seem to be the wisest thing. So it looks like we're going to stay tuned for the white paper. How that translates to actual action and creating this department and getting this off of the ground, which they have been talking about, remains to be seen. [00:06:45] Erica Barnett: And I will say the white paper was supposed to be out last year. It was - the deadline was fourth quarter - the sort of loose deadline was fourth quarter of last year, so it's late. [00:06:54] Crystal Fincher: That seems to be a recurring theme, but we will continue to pay attention with eagerness and an open mind to see what actually happens. Another long-awaited report this week was the Vision Zero report that was just released yesterday. What is this and what did it say? [00:07:14] Erica Barnett: Yeah, speaking of things that are behind schedule - this was supposed to come out last year and got delayed. It was billed as a top-to-bottom review of Vision Zero, which is the plan to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. It is titled the Top-to-Bottom Review of Vision Zero, which I find funny just because it's so literal. But what does it say? Basically it says the City has taken a lot of great actions to try to reduce traffic deaths and where it hasn't been able to take actions, it has tried really hard. It's a defensive report in a lot of ways - blaming other agencies, blaming the state and the fact that the state has control over a lot of our streets like Aurora, and then outlining a bunch of different steps that the City could take in the future to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries, most of which I should say are pretty underwhelming. There's a top five list that includes stuff like phasing in an unknown number of additional "No Turn on Red" signs downtown in time for tourist season - and I'm quoting here, "in time for tourist season and the Major League Baseball All-Star game." Another one is to accelerate leading pedestrian intervals, which is where if you approach an intersection, the light will turn for pedestrian first so you can start crossing before cars start coming. So we're going to do more of that. So it's a lot of - let's do a little more of the things that we're already doing and maybe that'll work. Nothing particularly bold in terms of things like street design that allows cars to drive, or for people to drive as fast as they do - mostly focused on individual behavior, automated traffic enforcement, that sort of stuff, but no real big bold vision here. [00:09:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I was a little bit surprised by its billing as a top-to-bottom review, and that doesn't seem to be necessarily what we received. It seemed to be a review of things that they were doing - and I don't know if I want to say avoidance - but not necessarily on focusing on many things that as you said, weren't already planned. There was not an analysis, as Ryan Packer pointed out on Twitter, of what was the impact of reducing speed limits. Was that helpful? Was that not helpful? That was certainly done as part of the Vision Zero program. Also as you said, there seemed to be no focus on road design, which has so much to do with whether or not it's possible for drivers and cars to even get into those dangerous situations. I saw Councilmember Tammy Morales released a statement calling out the same thing that you did - Hey, this seems to lack design features. She said that she would be helping identify some of the missing money to finish going after grant money to implement projects that had already been planned, but that were in jeopardy or delayed because they did not have the funding. But also it seemed like there was a lack of recognition of just the severity of the problem. You just pointed out - Hey, we want to have this done basically for tourist attractions - while every day we are seeing people being killed and maimed by these pedestrian collisions. And so it just doesn't seem like there was the kind of urgency or thoroughness. And maybe this was something where - hey, they started this and there was a limited scope. They realized it was a problem later on and the report didn't quite get there? Seems like they should have realized this has been a problem for quite some time, given all of the discussion around it. But left a lot of people wanting, I think. What are you looking forward to seeing come out of this? [00:11:08] Erica Barnett: I hope that SDOT will listen to some of the feedback. Just looking through the summary report, which is the one with more graphics and stuff, it just feels like - and again, this was late, so they spent extra time on it, or waited to release it - but it just feels like a book report that somebody did at the last minute before it was due. There's data in here that goes all the way back to 2011 - the 25 mph issue that you were mentioning. So it says, Oh, it does, 25 mph is good and here's how we know - it's data from 2018. Data from 2018 is now almost five years old and that is before the City actually implemented more widespread 25 mph speed limits. So I don't know, did it do anything? Did we study that? Are we studying that? There's just so much missing information in here. And I'll just reiterate - in this 22 pages, a chart is repeated twice. I don't know if anybody copy edited it, if that was intentional. There are two pages that are just a graphic and a big - a blue field. It just, it feels like - and do those things matter? I don't know. It makes it feel like there's a lot of filler in here. And when you look at the content, it's just really like back patting - let's do more of the same and that'll maybe make things better, and blame for why they can't do certain things. [00:12:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I don't think this is egregious in terms of the report and how it's put together, but I think people are feeling particularly frustrated because this is an emergency. This is a crisis. This is something impacting the health and wellbeing of so many residents, and so many others are at risk, by just the design of the roads and the community. And so it just feels like maybe it wasn't done, or it's not conveying the urgency of the situation, and really conveying that they are planning to do everything they can to reduce this for the residents that live here now, not the tourists coming into town. I know that SDOT and the City has plenty of people who care, who I'm sure are balancing issues of funding and staffing and prioritization. So what I don't want to do is imply that everybody involved with this is careless and doesn't - I think that a lot of people care very deeply about this. But it does come to prioritization - from the executive on down - and maybe there's a tension between what people know is helpful and right to do and what is actually being authorized and funded. And the people pushing for accountability have been pushing on those meaningful levers beyond rhetoric, saying - Okay, what is actually going to be done? What is being built, revised? Let's put this into action. So eager to see the issues that they identified get into practice and hopefully this is definitely a springboard for more. And I think the way they characterized it was also - these actions to build momentum towards further actions with the first five things that I think they identified. So we'll continue to pay attention. [00:14:14] Erica Barnett: One of the action plans in this, which I thought was an action plan - one of the actions is to create an action plan. And it's - Okay, wait, I thought that this was supposed to be the action plan. When is the action plan coming? So I don't know how long people are willing to wait for an action plan since this top-to-bottom review took all the way into February, more than a year into Harrell's term. So we'll see. [00:14:36] Crystal Fincher: It feels a lot like the infamous Seattle process, but we will see. One thing that happened that made national headlines this week was the passing of first-in-the-nation caste legislation led by Councilmember Sawant - what does this do and why did it happen? [00:14:56] Erica Barnett: Essentially, it adds a caste to the list of protected classes in the City's anti-discrimination laws. So those laws protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability, etc - and so it adds caste to that list. And the concern as I understand it, and I did not cover this story myself, but is - there is in fact caste discrimination among, against people of South Asian descent, particularly in the tech sector. And that this is a problem that was brought to Councilmember Sawant - and she proposes legislation, which as you said, is getting national and international coverage because it's the first of its kind in the US. [00:15:37] Crystal Fincher: It is. And it didn't pass without some pushback and controversy. What were detractors of the legislation saying? [00:15:46] Erica Barnett: There was quite a bit of controversy. And again, I'm going to do this - I'm going to explain this at a very high level because I'm a little out of my depth and I don't want to misstate anything - but the controversy revolved around whether this was discriminatory against Hindus in America, because it calls out that caste discrimination among Hindu castes and against people in lower castes. And so there was opposition from a Hindu American saying that it'd create a discriminatory system. There was also opposition on the City Council itself from the one person who voted against it - Councilmember Sara Nelson, who said essentially that it was unnecessary, agreed with some of the arguments against it, and also said that it would open the City to litigation and she didn't want to take that risk. [00:16:29] Crystal Fincher: And she was notably the only councilmember to vote against that - all of the others present did. I will say - I appreciate the conversation that this legislation has opened up. Certainly I have done a lot of learning around this issue - was not up to speed and familiar, still not completely, but it does highlight how many things that can seem invisible and innocuous to people who are not familiar with this - just as covered in some of the articles and coverage about this, just questions like, Hey, do you eat meat? That may seem innocent and unproblematic to people who are listening to that - can be very impactful and discriminatory in this context. So I appreciate the opportunity to learn more. And this has been covered and lauded across the country, really, and covered in international papers. So certainly groundbreaking legislation led by Councilmember Sawant. Also this week, we saw continuing coverage of the winning social housing legislation, which I'm still personally excited about - the opportunities that this unlocks and also just starting to figure this whole thing out. I'm sure it's not going to happen without some bumps and bruises along the way, but that's how new legislation and new programs and implementations work. What is next in the implementation process for social housing? [00:17:56] Erica Barnett: So I talked to both of the proponents, Real Change and House Our Neighbors, as well as former House Speaker State Rep Frank Chopp, about this. And what's happening in the immediate term is Chopp - in the Legislature session that's going on now - is trying to get funding to basically pay for the agency's first 18 months or so of operations, the new public developer. The City of Seattle is obligated to provide in-kind assistance, but of course they have their own budget challenges and so this would essentially provide state funding through the budget to get them up and running and allow them to set up a taxing proposal, which then might have to go before the voters again - in yet another initiative - if it is a local tax. Chopp also said, when we talked, that there could be some state options - like there's an expansion that's being proposed of a real estate excise tax that would create sort of a new tier of taxing for property sales over $5 million. And there's a local option there that could be used for social housing, he said. There's a number of different possibilities that they're considering, but they've got 18 months to figure that out and potentially get something on the ballot and pass to actually pay for the housing. [00:19:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And there's also going to be a board established and some hires made. What will that process look like? [00:19:19] Erica Barnett: They're making a couple of hires. So that would be - that's something that $750,000-800,000 would pay for is - I believe it's an Executive Director and a Chief Operating Officer. And then the board is going to be made up of 13 people - 7 of them would be appointed by the City's Renters' Commission. And then it's - the other 6 are appointed by various folks - the mayor, the City Council, and some other local groups with housing expertise. And that board - Tammy Morales is spearheading getting that process rolling. And then the board starts meeting and starts discussing all these things that we're talking about - how to move forward. They're going to be the decision makers. And ultimately, that's a temporary board. Assuming housing does get built, there's going to be a new board that's going to be made up mostly of people who actually rent in the buildings. But that's a few steps down the line. [00:20:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we will continue to follow the implementation, follow what's happening with this. But that initiative is passing, will become official - I actually forget the day that the election is certified - but coming up here soon. [00:20:21] Erica Barnett: I think it's today, February 24th - if not, it's Monday. [00:20:23] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Yeah - excellent. Thank you - I'm like, it's around now, but so it will be officially official soon. Again, just bang up work to the people doing that and looking at how many of the volunteers are pivoting now to the Renton minimum wage initiative that is happening. I'm just excited about what organizers are doing in the region to try and help improve the everyday lives of folks. Also this week, we saw some King County Regional Homelessness Authority meetings - discussion about their scope and budget moving forward. What were those conversations? [00:21:05] Erica Barnett: Yeah. The regional authority has released its five-year plan and it's in a draft form - it's going to be finalized, I believe, in April. And it's a somewhat novel approach to doing an implementation plan for an agency. Basically what they've done is created a plan that would end unsheltered homelessness within five years and at huge cost. You've probably discussed this on Hacks & Wonks before, but the price tag is in the billions per year plus billions more for capital costs to set up shelters and other types of temporary housing. And there's been pushback from - everyone from Councilmember Andrew Lewis in Seattle, to regional leaders, to Claudia Balducci from the King County Council, to Mayor Bruce Harrell saying - This is a nice aspirational plan, but we can't even come close to actually doing this. Just one year's worth of funding for this plan is two City budgets. There's been pushback about whether this is realistic, can we start smaller? And it's almost like the opposite of the Vision Zero plan - it's too ambitious in some ways - some would argue. I think the agency would argue that it's not too ambitious, it's just realistic. But there is a gap between reality on the ground right now, in terms of the agency's funding and reality as they define it, which is we need to spend these billions of dollars to actually address the problem. [00:22:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we actually have a conversation with the head of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, Marc Dones, coming up on this week's midweek show where we go into that in a little bit more detail and why that's necessary, what that's comprised of. But I think there is a big conversation to be had. They're saying that they need more federal dollars and support, that there needs to be a lot more financially. I think they're really saying - Hey, now that we have gotten staffed up, have started to implement the plan, and we're doing some targeted things that are working - it's time to scale this up. And the real conversation seems to be, can we afford to scale it up? And if not, where does that leave us and what do we do? So that'll be interesting - to see how this conversation unfolds, and how cities view their contribution to this regional solution, and their individual responsibilities within their city - how they balance that and what types of approaches they move forward with. But it does seem like there are some things that are working and that are positive that should be, hopefully will be expanded. Certainly I think most people agree that the job is not done, more needs to be done. And so what is enough is really going to be part of a conversation. And people who are elected are going to have to stand up for what they've advocated for and what they're saying to attempt to address the challenges here. But it'll be interesting to see. Also in related troubling news, we got more evidence and information about violence against unsheltered people. What did we learn? [00:24:10] Erica Barnett: This is really troubling. The issue of homelessness and the issue of public safety are often conflated, with people saying that having homeless encampments nearby is unsafe for nearby children, people living in houses nearby. But in reality, the people who are most vulnerable in living in encampments are the people in the encampments themselves. So a new crime report from SPD showed a 229% increase in hate crimes, specifically targeting homeless people because they're homeless. Police Chief Adrian Diaz told me that this is an example of people "taking things into their own hands" because they're frustrated with encampments existing in their presence and the associated litter and perceived just disorder that goes with that - they've been attacking more homeless people. Additionally, there's been more gun violence deaths involving people who are homeless. So it's incredibly dangerous to be homeless and it's becoming more dangerous. And I think this gets lost in conversations about whether violent crime is up or whether property crime is up. A lot of these victims are people experiencing homelessness themselves. And I really think that gets lost in narratives about homeless people being inherently dangerous or a threat to neighborhoods. [00:25:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it has been a chronic problem, has led to them specifically being targeted, dehumanizing language around them. And certainly regionally, we've seen a lot of direct attacks on their - I'm thinking of a couple in Tacoma right now where people went in there because of narratives about them being criminals, going in to find stolen property, and it winds up with violence - but without that stolen property. It's a challenge, and I hope we understand how vulnerable that population is and we follow the data and evidence about what seems to be effective in addressing those issues. Certainly we hear a lot about downtown Seattle. And there was an article this week, and continued conversations that we have in the region, in the wake of Amazon announcing that they are recalling people back to the office on at least a part-time basis and requiring people work from the office, which Mayor Bruce Harrell applauded and said was a good thing. But the state of downtown, the state of the central business district - should it be and remain and should we try and invest resources in keeping it predominantly a business district? Or are people really looking for something else? What was your take on that article and on the conversation about what we should be doing with downtown? [00:26:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, it's been really interesting to see the backlash among Amazon employees themselves to this idea that they are - to not the idea - to the mandate that they go back to work three days a week. The City, of course, has a two day a week mandate that is observed by some and ignored by some, I would say. And I think that the State of the City speech actually highlighted this kind of dichotomy that you're talking about, because on the one hand, Harrell said, It's great that Amazon is coming back downtown and we're going to have this dynamic downtown that returns to normal again. And at the same time, he was saying - maybe, in that list of maybes that he had - Maybe what downtown looks like is going to be different, and we'll have housing in some of these office spaces and other types of businesses in the retail spaces. And so I think that we're still figuring that out. But I just do not believe that we're going to return to the way it was before, because I think a lot of people have realized that they're more productive at home, they've realized that not getting paid for a long commute that is essentially unnecessary to doing their job feels unfair. And there's a whole lot of reasons that people liked working from home during the pandemic - people who have caregiving responsibilities have had a lot more flexibility to do that stuff. And primarily, we're talking about women with those responsibilities. So I don't think it's going to work to just say - everybody has to come back to the way it used to be. We also have a tight labor market, so forcing workers who can leave and take other jobs to do something like come back to downtown Seattle is not going to work in the short term for sure. [00:28:30] Crystal Fincher: And this is being lauded because some people are saying, Great, this is going to be great for businesses downtown revitalizing, re-energizing downtown Seattle in this circumstance and situation - because foot traffic, as measured by downtown employees, has been down under 50% to what it was pre-pandemic levels. And although hotels have seen basically a return to pre-pandemic level activity from people traveling, visiting - they are not seeing that in terms, or coming from workers. And so it seems like there are a number of signals from the public saying, Okay, downtown should have another purpose besides just a place that people commute to and from to work. And that comes with its own challenges and that - it's long been a problem. Even in terms of just public safety and having safe activated spaces - meaning spaces where people are at - it's not like you're in a desolate, barren area after 7, 8 PM and people have left for the day. There's not that much going on in the core of downtown. Also more people live downtown now than have ever before - thousands more people than at the beginning of the pandemic. And just basic things like childcare and just some basic things to have and raise a family are missing in downtown and people need to go to other neighborhoods. And it seems like people are looking to downtown Seattle and a lot of other downtowns to fulfill desires for culture and community a lot more now, or to a much greater degree than they were before, where it was just business. And so re-imagining or reconstituting downtowns where maybe driving to the office every day is not the main draw - seems like that has to be a focus for the future or else downtown is going to get left behind. How do you see that? [00:30:29] Erica Barnett: Yeah. This is a conversation that has been going on for almost as long as I have lived here, or actually probably longer, about downtown. Especially - when I moved here more than 20 years ago - downtown really shut down at night. And I'm downtown at night a fair amount - I think that the sort of tumbleweeds idea that downtown just turns into, rolls up the blinds or whatever the saying is - it's not that - at 5 o'clock, it's not - that's exaggerated. There are people downtown now, especially Belltown bleeds into South Lake Union - there's stuff going on. But the thing is, we've been saying for decades now and more intensely lately, I think with the pandemic, that downtown needs to have a different focus and different reasons for people being there other than office work. And yet, we still have, again, a mayor saying maybe that's something that should happen. If you're the mayor, or you're a City leader, there are things you can actually do to make it affordable for childcare to be downtown. And I won't go into all the different mechanisms for stuff like that, because it's pretty boring. But the only thing the mayor mentioned was changing zoning codes to allow housing - and actually housing is already allowed everywhere downtown. What you need to do is provide incentives and money to make it possible to convert office buildings into housing, because that's not going to happen by just saying, Maybe it should. And so we just haven't seen action on these things. And it actually does take action and money and spending to make some of these things happen. Childcare is not going to materialize because we wish it into existence. Neither are art spaces, all these things - we have to take action, there have to be grant programs, there has to be actual legislation and priorities and spending - because we can't just wish it into existence. It hasn't worked so far. And it's not going to work now. [00:32:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Lots of talk about activating spaces, vacant storefronts. I think he did say that there was going to be a pilot, or actually not even a pilot, a competition to kick off innovation for how to convert commercial spaces into residential spaces - which has its share of complications and isn't necessarily simple and straightforward, can be done. But it does seem like we're in the beginning stages and just dipping our toe in the water a little bit with a number of these things instead of taking concrete action, which I think a lot of people would be eager to see. So that's another thing we'll continue to stay on top of and see how that unfolds. We do thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 24th, 2023. 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 the Seattle Nice podcast, and 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 you can find me there also @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or anywhere 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 midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

#1,538 - Seattle couple explains why/how they're building a home in the median of an interstate ramp

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 31, 2023 16:23

Drivers who enter I-5 at Seattle's Mercer Street on-ramp pass by a growing encampment for the unhoused that is obscured behind trees and repurposed "welcome to South Lake Union" banners.Inside the camp, Kandice and Mark, who asked to be identified only by their first names, are busy building their home.99 percent of this house is stuff that came out of dumpsters," Mark told KOMO. "We don't have a house or a home right now and this is how we know to survive.Mark said it's taken him about a month to build the tiny house, which includes an A-framed roof, foundation, window, and door."We found ourselves on the sidewalk after that with all our stuff just trying to guard it. We figured we'd build this structure here because it's better than just a tent," he said.The house is going up in the same encampment where KOMO reported last week about a series of fires, threats with weapons, and damage to the Seattle City and Light power infrastructure.The property where they are building the house belongs in part to the Seattle Department of Transportation and Washington Department of Transportation. Both agencies told KOMO they are aware of the encampment and coordinating on how to deal with it.Support the showSign Up For Exclusive Episodes At: https://reasonabletv.com/LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. https://www.youtube.com/c/NewsForReasonablePeople

seattle couple rebuilding transportation drivers interstate ramp median komo kandice washington department south lake union mercer street seattle department

Week in Review: November 18, 2022 - with Nicole Thomas-Kennedy

transportation trae alar department of transportation finance friday seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2022 61:32

On this week's Hacks & Wonks, Crystal is joined by friend of the show, defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy! They start catching up with the Seattle City Budget. The City Council revealed their proposed budget earlier this week, and in general it proposes putting back funding for programs that were originally given fewer resources under Mayor Harrell's proposal - most notably restoring the raises for frontline homeless service workers, which were cut in Harrell's budget. The Council's proposal also uses JumpStart funds as originally intended, cuts ghost cop positions, and eliminates funding for the controversial ShotSpotter program. After the horrific incident last week that involved a shooting at Seattle's Ingraham High School, students staged a walkout and protest on Monday to ask city leaders for resources to help prevent gun violence. The students are asking for anti-racism and de-escalation training for school security, assault weapon bans, and more school counselors and mental health resources. What they have made clear they don't want is more cops in schools, but despite that Mayor Harrell and some of his advisory boards are advocating for an increased police presence in schools. Housing updates this week start with positive news: Mayor Harrell is asking for affordable housing to be exempt from the much maligned design review process. Allowing affordable housing to skip design review will encourage developers to build affordable housing, and will help us battle our housing shortage faster than we could otherwise. In frustrating housing news, KING5 released some upsetting reporting outlining some overt racial housing discrimination against Black families in Seattle, including one story about family who received a significantly higher appraisal when they dressed their home to look like it was owned by a white family. Carolyn Bick from the South Seattle Emerald reported on potential City and State records laws violations by the Office of Police Accountability. The OPA has been manually deleting emails, or allowing them to automatically be deleted, before the two-year mark prescribed by City and State laws. It's another example of a city office failing to hold itself accountable to basic records standards. The Seattle Department of Transportation seemed to once again be more responsive to concerns about administrative liability than community concerns about pedestrian safety amid rising fatalities. When locals painted an unauthorized crosswalk at the intersection of E Olive Way and Harvard, SDOT workers removed the crosswalk within 24 hours. This is happening while many people and business owners, most notably Councilmember Sara Nelson, have been placing illegal “eco blocks” without removals or consequences. Finally, the Chair of Washington State Democrats is being criticized for threats to withhold resources against Washington House candidates if they showed support for nonpartisan Secretary of State candidate Julie Anderson. This is a high-profile extension of a question that party groups–big and small–are dealing with: how do we handle Democrats' support of nonpartisan or third party candidates? As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, on Twitter at @NTKallday. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources “City Council's ‘anti-austerity' budget package: Aiming JumpStart back where it belongs, preserving parking enforcement's move out of SPD, nuking ShotSpotter, and giving mayor his ‘Unified Care Team'” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog “Morales Hopes to Resurrect Social Housing Amendment That Didn't Make Balancing Package Cut” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link. “Care, Not Cops” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “Seattle proposal would free affordable projects from design review — and give all developers path to skip public meetings” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog “After a low appraisal, Black Seattle family 'whitewashes' home, gets higher price” by PJ Randhawa from KING5 “Why housing discrimination is worse today than it was in the 1960s” by PJ Randhawa from KING5 “OPA May Have Broken City and State Records Laws By Not Retaining Emails” by Carolyn Bick from The South Seattle Emerald “SDOT Decries Tactical Urbanism While Allowing Eco-Blocks All Over the City” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola “Rent a Capitol Hill apartment from one of these companies? You ‘may have rights under antitrust laws to compensation' as lawsuit alleges price-fixing violations in Seattle” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog “Scoop: State Democratic Party chair under fire for alleged threats” by Melissa Santos from Axios Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full text 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 with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's cohost: defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Hey. [00:00:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hey - thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back. Great to have you back. So we have a few things going on this week. We will start with the Seattle budget. The mayor introduced his budget a few weeks back - this is now the Council, and the President of the Council, being able to introduce their own budget and their take on things. What did you see here that was notable? [00:01:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think the things that were really notable were that JumpStart was headed back to where it was originally planned. That tax was created for affordable housing and things like that, and the mayor tried to take it a different direction that I don't think addresses the City's needs at all - so it was good to see that. Keeping - not giving SPD the money for those ghost cops - the officers that don't actually work there, that haven't actually worked there for a while - their salaries, SPD was allowed to keep for a long time, and so taking that away. And I think really most importantly - to me, given what I do - is taking out the money for ShotSpotter, which is something that the mayor has pushed really hard for, but has shown to not work and actually be detrimental to marginalized communities in other cities. And that was a million dollars, so it was great to see that taken out. [00:02:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that was definitely an improvement, I think, in a lot of people's minds. That was something that did seem to be oddly championed by the mayor and very few other people, regardless of what their political orientation or leaning is. It is just something that - a decade ago, people were wondering if it had some potential, and then it was implemented in a number of cities with a number of very well-documented problems. One thing that it does not seem to be able to accomplish is to reduce gun violence, which is its ultimate goal. But it did introduce a lot of other problems. It was expensive. It seemed to increase surveillance and harassment, particularly of Black and Brown communities, without intervening or interrupting any kind of violence. And that is just an inexpensive and ineffective use of funds. Given a budget shortfall, it seems like we should not be wasting money on things that have proven not to work and not to make anyone safer. I think another notable difference in this budget, between the mayor's budget, was he had proposed a reduction in salary for some of the frontline workers for homelessness services and outreach services there. Those are critical positions and crucial to being able to address homelessness, reduce homelessness. A lot has been covered over the years across the country about how important having comfortable, well-paid frontline workers is so that they're not living in poverty, they aren't in unstable positions - creating a lot of turnover and uncertainty with the workers on the frontline - so that they do have the capacity and ability to do that kind of frontline outreach work and getting people into services that meet their needs. And so there was definitely a repudiation of the idea of reducing their pay and making sure that their pay will continue to rise with the cost of living and the Consumer Price Index. So that was nice to see. A few other things, like you talked about, just making sure that the JumpStart funds, which it seems now everybody is acknowledging, have been very helpful. And even people who previously opposed it are now backing its use to backfill their own plans. But really just making sure that it is spent in a way consistent with its original charter, basically. And so more of a right-sizing and being more consistent with the spending that Seattle voters have backed, that these candidates were elected and reelected with mandates to go forward with - that we're seeing that there. Moving forward here, there was just an opportunity for public comment earlier this year. There is one more opportunity for councilmembers to introduce amendments to this budget before it's going to be ultimately passed. So I encourage everyone, if you have thoughts about the budget, we'll include some links just explaining it. There was a really good Capitol Hill Seattle story just breaking down the budget and what's happening there to make sure we go there. But a few notable other investments from there include $20 million each year for equitable development initiative projects that advance economic opportunity and prevent displacement. $20 million Green New Deal investments each year, including $4 million to create community climate resilience labs. $4.6 million for indigenous-led sustainability projects and $1.8 million for community-led environmental justice projects. $9 million for school-based health centers, which is a really big deal, including a new $3 million across the biennium for mental health services in response to the demand for more health providers from teachers and students - we'll talk a little bit more about the student walkout and strike and their demands later in the show. Also created a combined total of $1.5 million for abortion care in 2023, to ensure access to reproductive care for uninsured people in Seattle. And a $253 million investment into the Office of Housing for affordable housing - and that's over $50 million more than the last budget for building rental housing, more supportive services, first-time ownership opportunities. I know a lot of people are also hoping that Councilmember Tammy Morales' proviso makes it back into the budget to support social housing and securing City-owned property for rental housing that has a much better shot of being able to be affordable for regular people working in the City, especially those who don't have six-figure incomes and can't afford a million dollar home. This is going to be crucial to making sure that we have dedicated land and space and capacity to build permanent affordable housing. [00:07:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and I hope that makes it back in very - I really hope that makes it back in. The thing that I see with the Council's - what they're proposing to put back in, or the changes they're making from Harrell's budget - is most all of them address things that would enhance public safety. And when I hear about things like old technology that's been shown not to work, that gives more or giving more money to police or things like that, I think people think that that's about public safety, but it's not. Those are reactionary things, those are things that have been shown not to address the problems, we really do need to be looking at those upstream things like housing, helping marginalized communities, mental health - all of these things are things that are actually going to result in more safety for everyone. And so I'm happy to see that their proposals are addressing those things. And I hope that they make it into the final budget. [00:08:52] Crystal Fincher: I agree. And I also think that we saw - with just these past election results that we received - that residents of Seattle, really across the county, but especially in Seattle, once again, show through their votes for candidates who are talking about addressing root causes, the rejection of candidates for the Legislature for King County Prosecuting Attorney who were talking about punitive punishment-based approaches, lock-em-up approaches, which the city and the county continually have rejected. And I think voters are just at the point where they're saying, no, please listen - you have already increased funding for police, but we have these big gaps in all of these other areas that we need you to address and fill, and it's - just talking about police is doing the overall public safety conversation a disservice because it takes so many other things to make sure that we are building communities that are safer, and where fewer people get victimized, and where we are not creating conditions that cause disorder. And so I hope that they are listening. And I hope that that gives both the Budget Chair and councilmembers faith and strength and motivation to move forward with these kinds of investments in community - that center community and that center addressing the root causes of crime, preventing crime - which is the most important thing that we can do. I don't think anyone is looking around and saying - things are great, things are fine - but I think people are fed up with the inaction or bad action and ineffective action taken. So we will stay tuned and continue to report on that. [00:10:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Very helpful. [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: We just alluded to, but talked about this week - following last week's shooting of an Ingraham High School student by another student - extremely extremely tragic situation - that student wound up dying. This is a traumatic thing for the school community to go through, for the entire community to go through. And we saw students walk out to cause awareness and with a list of demands. What were they demanding? [00:11:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I'm not going to get it perfectly off the top of my head, but they want more resources for students. They want more mental health care. They want access to those things. They want things that are preventative. They're not asking for punitive retribution or more metal detectors or cops in schools or something like that. They're asking for things that are actually going to be preventative, that are going to encourage the wellbeing of all students. And they know that that's what's going to keep them safe. And from what I've seen from SPS - they seem responsive to those demands in some way. It remains to see what will be actually followed through on. But the response I've seen so far from SPS, just being the parent of an SPS student, is that they are listening to what these kids are actually saying and what the data actually shows will make these kids safer. So I find that to be hopeful. I hope you can verbalize what their list of demands were more succinctly than that, because I don't want to misrepresent what they're saying at all. But when I read through what they were asking for and saw what they were asking for, it was all stuff that was aimed at prevention - because that's what - they don't want to be shot. And that's very valid. And they shouldn't have to worry about those things. And the things that have been implemented for years, like more police in school, those lockdown drills and things like that - it's not working. It's just like we were talking about with the budget stuff, we need to get to those root causes. [00:13:04] Crystal Fincher: You're exactly right. And what these students want really does, to your point, cover the gamut of preventative measures. So there are a few different things. One, they want the district to increase anti-racist and de-escalation training for any security at Seattle Public Schools. They also demand that the state update safe storage laws and ban assault rifles. Students asked the Council to reroute $9 million from SPD to pay for counselors. They want one counselor - to be paid a living wage - but at least at a ratio of 1 for every 200 students. Right now, the district is averaging about 1 for every 350 students, so that is a significant increase in counselors. But I don't think there is anyone here who does not acknowledge the need for more mental health resources for students. And this is especially pronounced in the middle schools across the district. So that is a pretty substantial one. They did say that they don't want cops in schools. They don't want the introduction of more guns, more people with guns in schools - but they want the things that will prevent them. They want mental health resources and community-based resources, therapy resources, and intentional de-escalation and communication training, DBT therapy training - really for students there, so they can figure out how to use words to disarm and de-escalate conflicts instead of getting physically violent, encouraging gun violence, that type of thing. They really want to - they understand that there's a gap with many kids that they're trying to navigate through and this is a normal thing for students anyway. We need to equip them with the tools to work through conflict, to work through their emotions, even when they're very big. They recognize that and they're calling for that. So these are all things that are backed by data and evidence, that have shown to reduce conflict, to reduce violence of all kinds, definitely gun violence. And that are evidence-based, have worked in other areas - pretty reasonable. And so there are a few areas where this could come from. They're certainly asking the Legislature for action, but also with the City and the mental health money. I think Teresa Mosqueda said that she was allocating $2 million and saying that's a down payment on what the students are asking for. Another source that was talked about by some people online was the Families & Education Levy in the City of Seattle, which is tailor-made for things like this. And so that, I think, should be part of this conversation going forward. But we absolutely do need more mental health resources in the schools. And we heard that post - as students were returning back to school after schools were closed due to COVID, and as they were returning, there were certainly a lot of parents who wanted to reopen schools, get their students back in there, but also talked about the challenges that students were dealing with - with anxiety and a range of mental health needs. They seemed to acknowledge that students, in connection with violent events happening and needing to deal with that - we need to figure out a way to get this done. I think the student demands are entirely reasonable and the entire community needs to listen. Now, one dimension of the story that we have seen, there was a story - and I forget at this point who came out with it - but it was like the district is exploring basically putting armed police officers back in school. Upon reading the story, it was like no, actually the district, no one in the district was considering that. The students specifically said they didn't want that. School board members said that they were not currently examining that. But it does seem like the mayor and some of his advisory boards are advocating for armed police officers to return to schools. It seems like the people directly impacted are saying, no, please no, again, not anymore. But the mayor has a different viewpoint here. How do you see that? [00:17:57] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: First of all - yes, the student demands are very reasonable and it's, I don't know, I'm constantly impressed by youth - just how informed they are, the way they present their ideas, and just - they're deeply rooted in this. They are the ones that are impacted. We didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with COVID. I didn't have to deal with the Internet. I didn't have to deal with guns in schools. This is new territory for these kids and they are the ones that are able to tell us what they need and they do so so well. And it is backed by data and research. And I think the mayor has suggested or wants to do this cops-back-in-school thing, but kids know this isn't what has made us safe. We have seen very, very good - horrible, tragic examples of how school resource officers fail to keep kids safe. And I think a lot of people's eyes have been open to that. And while I see the suggestion, I acknowledge the suggestion, I don't think it's serious. I don't think you can keep talking about more cops, more cops - putting more cops here - and be serious about safety. We know that doesn't work. And I think that there's enough kids, there's enough parents, there's enough people, there's enough people on the Council that know these things that - if he wants to push forward that kind of agenda, I think the pushback is going to be really big. And we can't keep pretending that that's the solution - I think that a lot of people are ready to stop doing that and to be able to push back. And I love this walkout. I think it's so encouraging that these kids are really pushing for what they know to be true. And they're not just sitting there saying, there's nothing we can do about it. They know that there's something they can do about it. So I think that's very encouraging. And I would expect that any sort of really serious pushing forward of that idea of more cops in school, I would expect there to be really very large community and student backlash to those ideas. [00:20:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there would be pretty ferocious backlash to that. We will see how that proceeds and continue to keep you up to date on that. Now, something that Bruce Harrell announced this week, that actually seems like it's going to have a positive reception and that can move things in a positive direction - he's looking to exempt affordable housing from design review - from the much-maligned design review process. What's he proposing to do here? [00:20:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: He's proposing sort of a moratorium on affordable housing projects having to go through design review. So if people don't know - design review is a lengthy process where there's - I'm doing air quotes - "community input" on housing design, and it really drags out housing projects for so long. If you see an empty lot and there's a billboard up that says that they're going to build a nine-story building with mixed use - there'll be commercial space on the bottom - and then nothing happens for years and years and years. There's a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary ones is that really long design review process, which is shown not to be actually that democratic when it comes to the community. So exempting affordable housing from that is such a huge and awesome idea that I think someone said, why didn't we do this before when there was a homelessness crisis declared? Ed Murray could have done this when he declared that crisis, but instead that there's all these projects that are languishing and really upping the price for developers to even build these things. So I think there's - not only is it going to get affordable housing built more quickly if this is actually implemented, which I hope it is, but it's also going to make building affordable housing more attractive to developers because just having that land sit there and having those plans sit there for years and years - it makes it very expensive for developers to undertake projects. And when they do, they're going to want to get as much return on their investment as possible. And so you have to make up for those lost years of the land just sitting there. And so allowing this to go forward is going to provide more housing for the community, which we desperately, desperately need, but it's also going to encourage developers to build affordable housing over other types of housing. So I think this is fantastic and I really hope it goes through. [00:22:55] Crystal Fincher: I think it is fantastic. I think this is a good example of listening to the community. This is a win all the way across for developers who are trying to build projects more economically and more quickly, for just the community who is waiting for housing prices to be more affordable - and not just because interest rates are changing the equation for a lot of people, but to get more supply online quickly. And so this was done with Mayor Bruce Harrell and with Councilmembers Dan Strauss and Teresa Mosqueda. And it would begin a one-year interim period exempting affordable housing projects from design review and then use that trial year to conduct what Harrell says will be a full State Environmental Policy Act review of legislation to try and make this exemption permanent. And so it would permanently exempt, or they're hoping to permanently exempt, housing projects from design review - exempting housing projects that use the mandatory housing affordability program to produce their units on site for a two-year pilot and also allow other housing projects to choose whether to participate in full design review or administrative design review as a two-year pilot. So this is something that hopefully does get more affordable housing units online quickly, cut through the bureaucracy - so a positive development here and excited to see it. What I was not excited to see was a story on KING5 about one of the elements that is part of the wealth disparity, the wealth gap that we see. We've seen stories, sometimes from across the country, talking about whitewashing homes and homes owned by Black people getting lower appraisals than other homes for no other reason, seemingly, than that they're Black. And this happened with a Black family in Seattle who got an initial home appraisal - they had their family pictures in there, they had some African art up. The home was visibly owned by Black people. So with this, this family got an appraisal that was initially $670,000 - under the median home price in Seattle. They thought - well, that seems low, that seems out-of-spec for what we've seen others in this area. So they decided to take down their personal pictures. They put up pictures from a white family. They had a white friend stand in the house presented now as if it was owned by a white family. And instead of the $670,000 appraisal, they got a $929,000 appraisal. The only difference was that it was a home owned by a white person, that appeared to be owned by a white person, versus one that is owned by a Black person - right here in Seattle. What did you think of this? [00:26:09] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Personally, I was not surprised. I saw that this had happened in other areas. I think there was a famous example from a couple of years ago where the difference was half a million dollars. But I think that there's an idea that - in Seattle, we're so progressive, we're so liberal that this kind of thing doesn't happen here. And it does. And I think it's dangerous to think that it doesn't. I think that the Black community gets gaslighted a lot about these things when this is a really clear, very obvious example. But how many other times has this happened? Probably quite a bit. And it's really contributing to the wealth gap. And this is something that Black people have been saying for years has been happening. And it's just now starting to catch on. People are starting to catch on that this is a thing. And when I say people, I mean people who are not Black because they already know about this. But it's really starting to be something that's obvious, that's happening here, that's happening everywhere. And there's all of these little things that happen to maintain that wealth gap - because it's the appraisal value, it's also Black homeowners being targeted for mortgage takeovers by banks, by realty companies. This is not something that a lot of white homeowners deal with - I think in one of the articles, a parent had died. And so then they kept getting calls from different groups asking to buy the home for cash and asking to do some sort of weird backhand reverse mortgage and things like - there's a lot of predatory things out there aimed at Black people and Black homeowners that white homeowners don't deal with. And I'm glad to see KING5 do this story. It's awful that it's happening, but I think the public needs to know that this is something that's happening and that in progressive Seattle, we are not - by any stretch of the imagination - immune to things like this happening on a regular basis. [00:28:23] Crystal Fincher: We are not at all immune. It impacts us in so many ways. Just where we still deal with the legacy of redlining and where Black people in Black communities have been. And then as there is this new displacement happening - that kind of difference in home valuation can very much determine whether that family can afford to buy again in Seattle or be forced out of Seattle. This is just such a major problem and just another manifestation of it here. So yeah, unfortunately not something that I found surprising, but just still really infuriating all the same. And I just hope more people wake up to see what's happening and engage in how they can help make this community more inclusive and do the work that needs to be done because there is work that needs to be done. [00:29:15] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely. [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: Other news this week - the Office of Police Accountability may have broken records laws in what - how they've been operating. What happened here? [00:29:29] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So in this case, I believe Carolyn Bick from the Emerald had put in a public disclosure request for some emails. And what she got back from OPA was that they didn't retain it because they followed SPD's policy of record retention, which is different than the City's policy of record retention, which - they say they're part of SPD or they initially said they were a part of SPD, but they're not. They're not a law enforcement agency. They're a City agency. But I would like to point out one thing too - that the City's record retention policy is wild compared to other bigger entities. If you're a City employee, you're required to archive emails or communications that could be of public interest. So instead of automatically retaining everything and then deleting spam or needing this manual deletion, you have to manually save it. But what's in the public interest is huge. So there should be a default to be saving these things all the time. And of course, we've seen with other communications, like the mayor's texts or Carmen Best's texts, that absolutely those things should have been saved and they set them to delete instead. I think the argument here is about what is the record retention policy for OPA and it's just - it's just interesting that this is the Office of Police Accountability, but yet they're not accountable for their own record keeping. And then the City Attorney's Office said, we can't give you an answer to the question about, do they have SPD's retention policy or the City's retention policy? They said that calls for a legal opinion, so we can't give you one - which to me is just like, what do you do then? Isn't that your job - to make those determinations? So just another way that the Office of Police Accountability is - it's just an HR department for SPD. They just whitewash everything and put righteous complaints through a long bureaucratic process that they tell people to trust in, that ends at being a big old nothing - that even that process - that they can't keep correct records for. So it's shocking really just how much it is all the time that we're hearing about this stuff. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's what is notable to me. It's just yet another thing from a body that is supposed to hold other entities accountable - and seems to have challenges doing that - just seeming to skirt accountability itself and being a hub of so much controversy. Just really makes you evaluate - what is the purpose, what is happening, what is going on? Are we doing more harm than good here? And it just seems like we don't ever receive answers, that there are very alarming things that happen. And the answers are to - well, we'll reshuffle some staff and we won't really address the substance of what happened. We'll just call it a day, wrap it up, put a stamp on it, and close it out. We just won't talk about it anymore. It's just - what is happening, why are we doing this? And jeez, if this is just going to be a farce, can we just save the money and do something else? Why are we investing in something that continues to break rules, and to seemingly break accountability processes? Just really confusing there. [00:33:30] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, very much so. [00:33:32] Crystal Fincher: Also really confusing this week - SDOT once again very quickly erased a crosswalk - a crossswalk that a community put up at a dangerous intersection, that is clearly an intersection where people are designed to cross - indicated by the curb cut and the ADA-compliant rumble strip. But it was a dangerous place to cross. It was a place where community had brought up concerns that had seemingly not been listened to or addressed. They decided, as has happened before in the City, to put up their own crosswalk to increase the safety of people who need to cross the street. And there are people who need to cross the street more safely. But once again, seemingly - within 24 hours, I think - SDOT appeared and took action, not based off of calls for increased safety and taking action to make this intersection more safe, but came and removed the paint creating the crosswalk, saying for reasons of safety and liability, they can't stand by and let the community paint a crosswalk, even if it is painted to standards. But they immediately removed it. And the new head of SDOT said, hey, we are trying to move in a new direction, but we can't. We'll never be comfortable with people painting their own crosswalks for liability reasons. And then receiving pushback from the community saying, we ask you to take action to make this more safe. You don't. People get killed on the street. People get run into and hurt. Our street designs are nearly exclusively car-centric in most of the City. So hey, neighbors took action to make the road safer for their neighbors, for kids who need to cross the street, for elderly people, disabled people who need to cross the street. And it just seems that the action comes when people take their own actions - [00:35:50] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Sometimes [00:35:51] Crystal Fincher: - to make the street safer. That will get resources out to remove it, but we don't seem to be wanting to deploy the resources necessary to make these intersections safer. How did you see this? [00:36:05] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I applaud the effort of the community to make those streets safer. And I thought that the reasoning given - safety and liability - was thin. There's nothing about not having a crosswalk that makes it safer, obviously - that's what the community has been complaining about. And in terms of liability, it's always interesting to me that the liability that they're talking about is liability for a crosswalk that, "shouldn't be there," that they didn't sanction. But apparently there's no liability for people who are continually injured or killed in a place where the community has asked repeatedly for a crosswalk. And I think that it seems disingenuous to me. And yes, and it doesn't really mesh with the other things that they're talking about. So they can have someone come out and pressure wash off something that's supposed to be for community safety - like you said, for kids, for elders, for disabled people, for everyone - because we all walk if we're able. But the streets belong to everybody. But then they'll have someone come out and pressure wash this crosswalk off overnight. But at the same time, we have seen, for over a year, these ecoblocks, the big concrete blocks - that I think the most famous example of them is Councilmember Sara Nelson putting them around her business - so RVs, or people who are unfortunately having to live in their car, can't park near her business. Those are popping up all over the City now. And SDOT says, we're unwilling to pull people off safety projects to move those. But yet, they'll get someone out there overnight to erase something that's making public safety, but they won't do anything about these ecoblocks. And I think that's really another disingenuous argument, because there is more that they could be doing about that. There's ticketing. There's not just going and every day removing whatever's put there. There's a lot of things - there's fines, there's ticketing - that they could do to discourage this, and they're just not doing it. And to me, I think back to 2020 - when SPD built that ecoblock fort around the East Precinct and the West Precinct too. They built a little fort out of these City-owned ecoblocks around their precinct. And when there was things that ecoblocks were needed for, the City said, we don't have any more ecoblocks right now because they're being used for SPD's fort. And so now it seems like we have a glut of ecoblocks in the city - they're just everywhere. So I don't really understand where they're coming from. If they're not coming from SDOT, where are they coming from? And if they're not coming from SDOT and these are people buying ecoblocks and putting them there - on city streets - seems like it would be fairly advantageous for SDOT to go and pick them up. They're on public property. We didn't have enough of them before. Why not just collect them then? Or like I said, especially when they're on a private business, there's so much more the City could be doing about it. And obviously there's someone on the Council that does it. It's never been addressed. And it shakes, I think, people's faith and trust in City government and City agencies when they so clearly don't - their actions don't match up with what they're saying that they want to do. And so I expect more of these sort of crosswalks to pop up. And the community has been having these conversations with SDOT forever and nothing has happened. If this is what's moving the conversation forward, if this is what's creating safety - to me, that's the most important thing. People shouldn't be dying on the street. That's the most important thing. So whatever creates safety, whatever moves that conversation forward to protect people's lives, I think that's great that the community is doing that. I hope it pushes the conversation forward and really creates this infrastructure that we so desperately need. [00:40:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I think those ecoblocks - some people I've seen refer to them now as Nelson blocks since Councilmember Sara Nelson, despite seeming acknowledgement that they are illegal, continues to use and deploy them and exclude others from public space that they are entitled to be in. And that just does not seem to be a priority, like some other things in this community that seemingly have lower costs or impacts. But just, yeah, that the responses don't seem to make sense. The interventions don't seem to be consistent. And I would really like to hear a coherent and consistent approach to safety in Seattle. Or at least start by understanding and acknowledging that what is happening is unacceptable. And instead of running to defend - and I understand that there are concerns about liability, that is a fact - but we do need to expand the conversation to - let's be not just concerned about getting sued, let's be concerned about one of the residents in the City, that we're responsible for, being killed. Because that is happening. And what are we doing to mitigate against that risk? - is really the bottom-line question I think people want some better answers to. [00:42:12] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and they deserve them. [00:42:14] Crystal Fincher: They do. Another activity that maybe deserves - some Capitol Hill tenants are suing some landlords. What's happening here? [00:42:22] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So they are suing - there's, I don't know if people know this, but there are a few corporations, big housing corporations that own a lot of the housing in Capitol Hill and all around Seattle. And so many of them have started using an algorithm, through a company called RealPage, that collects all the information about whatever the company-owned property is, but then also all of the surrounding properties - to raise rents. So to tell landlords the maximum asking price that they can have for rent, based on what's going on around the city, around the neighborhood, from all this data from other places. And it's caused a lot of - and it's something that these big companies can hide behind for rental hikes too - they say, oh, a computer algorithm sets our rental prices and this is what it's set as. And RealPage CEOs have been very open about saying this is more than most landlords could ask for - I wouldn't feel comfortable as a human being asking for this rent, but it's set by a computer, so I can't do anything about it. And it's really caused rents around Seattle and Capitol Hill to skyrocket. There's many factors that go into skyrocketing rents, but this is absolutely one of them. And so the lawsuit is alleging illegal price fixing by these tenants, or by these landlords. And they're not the small mom-and-pop landlords that we're talking about. We're talking about the big housing conglomerates that own so much of our rental housing here in Seattle. And it alleges that it's basically illegal price fixing by having all of these groups that just continuously raise the rent - at the same time, along the same lines - and it's driving up prices everywhere. And I'm very happy to see this lawsuit personally. Rents are out of control in Seattle, and some of that is tied to supply, obviously. Obviously, there's no doubt about that. But what we don't need is businesses taking advantage of data aggregation to make rents go higher and higher and higher. And what I hear sometimes is - the market supports this. And I think that's a really misguided argument. People need housing. It's very, very dangerous to live on the street. Nobody's living on the street because that's a good time. No one's having an urban camping vacation out there in the middle of November. People don't want to live on the street. Housing - like food, like water - is something that we all need. So just because the market supports it doesn't mean it's affordable or good for the rest of the city. When people are paying 50% or 60% of their income to rent, that hurts everyone. That makes it - as food prices go up, as rent goes up, we have people that have to lean on social services. They have to go without things that are - really, it's a detriment to our entire community. So I'm very happy to see this lawsuit. Anything we can do to bring rents down and rebalance the - there's never going to be a full balance between landlord and tenant, obviously, but there needs to be some sort of rebalancing that's going on to make it so people can actually afford to live in this city. [00:46:01] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We still have areas in the state where people's rent can double. We still have areas just - where we are displacing people in the name of profit. And this is an essential need. This is something that people need to survive. We are seeing an explosion in homelessness because people cannot afford a place to live. Fundamental causes of homelessness are the inability to afford rent. People try and blame - people dealing with substance use disorder or people with mental illnesses - and those are issues and often become worse issues after someone is out on the streets because that is such a rough environment. But the biggest contributor is the inability to pay rent. And that's why we see other areas that have higher instances of people dealing with substance abuse, higher instances of people dealing with those issues - that don't have the degree of homelessness that we do in areas like Seattle, where things are just simply so unaffordable for so many. So we absolutely need to do that. To your point, we need more supply and action - to get more supply is great, but we aren't going to fully address this issue until we bring this landlord and renter situation into greater balance, until there are more rent controls, renter protections in place. That is also a necessary piece of this scenario. And taking this action is necessary - what we've seen has been predatory and has contributed to homelessness. And if we don't get a handle on this, we're not going to get more people housed anywhere around here. So I think this is a justified action. I think that - no, we actually need to stand up and say, you are not entitled to ever-escalating and increasing profits on the backs of people who are providing valuable services and who are valuable people in our communities. We just can't allow that to happen. It's not that - no one can make a profit, right? It's not that we're outlawing being able to be a landlord. But there are responsibilities that should come with that. This is not just a great area for profit and speculation. You're dealing with people in their housing, you're dealing with families in their housing. And there should be a greater amount of care and responsibility that we demand from that. So I am also happy to see this happening. [00:48:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah. I also think it's important to realize that when there are so many housing - when there are so many landlords and companies raising these rents - like you said, they are also causing homelessness. These rising prices cause homelessness. So what is actually happening is they are externalizing the cost of homelessness to the community while they make ever greater profits. And as I really like to point out - that this is to the detriment of everyone. So it is the community that is paying for them to make ever greater profits. And that's what we're really talking about. It's not just, people should be able to make money - of course they should be able to make money - but this is something that you can't ignore. This is not like an expensive handbag. People need shelter. And so when we are talking about those things, there will be a community cost if those things aren't brought back in line. And it's important to recognize that the market can't fix all of this. There has to be something else when it comes to things that people - that are basic human needs. And I like the idea that housing is a human right. We need it. We can't live without it. And I think that more and more people are getting behind the idea of that - that housing is a human right, that we all deserve the dignity of living in a home. But I also hope people realize that it is these profiteering landlords that are externalizing the cost of their profits to the community. So yeah, I welcome this too. It's hopeful. [00:50:45] Crystal Fincher: It is. And the last thing we'll cover today - there was a story by Melissa Santos in Axios talking about the State Democratic Party Chair under fire for being a staunch defender of Democrats Steve Hobbs, and really discouraging and going after folks who endorsed non-partisan Julie Anderson and her race against Democrat Steve Hobbs for Secretary of State. You have Joe Fitzgibbon, who chairs the House Democrats Campaign Committee, saying that Tina made threats about withholding resources from Washington House candidates because Democratic House Speaker Laurie Jinkins supported the non-partisan candidate instead of the Democrat. And then you have folks - Tina Podlodowski, certainly, but also others saying that - hey, this is what happens in the Democratic Party. Either you back Democrats or you're not. You're free to support who you want, but not within the Democratic Party. How did you see this? [00:51:58] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I thought this was a kind of a nothing, really. She's the Chair of the Democratic Party. Think whatever you want about Democrats - the job of the chair of the Democratic Party - there's many things to it, but pushing forward Democrat candidates, Democratic candidates, and a Democratic agenda is what she does. And I was really surprised - the headline of the article, which I know is not written by the journalist, said something about "alleged threats," which makes it sound so much more intense than it was - I think that it's - we really need to get serious about politics and about what we're doing. Republicans are on board with just voting for whoever has an R by their name, and that's something that Democrats haven't necessarily been doing. They've been trying to do that, but they haven't necessarily done it. But to think that the Chair of the Democratic Party is not going to try to push hard for Democratic candidates - I just thought was ridiculous, really. It just seemed like an absurd story. I have a limited - I had a limited experience with politics, but from what I experienced - this was nothing. This was really not much compared to what actually goes on in politics. To me, this just seems like she's trying to get Democratic candidates in there, which is what she's doing, that's what she's supposed to be doing. So I thought it was a kind of a weird story - the way it was framed, the choice of using the word "threat" without really talking about, until much later in the story, about what those "threats" really were - which were not direct, and which were about using Democratic Party funds and resources. And those are things that she's responsible for. I just really thought it was a kind of a nothing of a story, really. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think what made it a story was that you had a House leader making these accusations directly, and that's something that we don't really see that often. And I think just the - I think it is largely to be expected that a Democratic Party Chair is not going to be happy with the endorsement of a Democrat. I think what caused more of the question is not just saying, hey, Joe Fitzgibbon or Laurie Jinkins, you took this action, and therefore I'm not happy with this - with you - and maybe not supporting you, but the extension to Democratic candidates overall across the state, potentially, because of that. Which Tina Podlodowski and her team said wasn't serious and was par for the course, after being confronted with the existence of them, after I think initially saying that nothing was said. But then, I think this is interesting - not necessarily for this instance - although I do think there's a healthy conversation to be had about is holding the support of unrelated candidates fair play or not. But also just because it does talk about - in this instance, we're talking about a nonpartisan - some of these issues become very simple if we're talking about Republicans. They become a little more complicated when we talk about nonpartisans, when we talk about - especially in the Seattle area - folks from the DSA or People's Party, who may not label themselves as Democrats, but may be aligned on values. And so, is the Democratic Party a party of a label where just the - vote blue, no matter who - if they have a D by their name, great. Or is it a party of principles underneath that label, and you're more searching for someone who adheres to those principles, which may be someone who doesn't necessarily identify as a Democrat. I think that this conversation has been happening within local party organizations for a while, and different LPOs [Local Party Organizations] have come up with different stances themselves. Some are fine with endorsing folks outside of the party if they align on values, and others are very not fine with that. I think we see where Tina Podlodowski and the State Party is on that. But it is, it's not a straightforward equation. Because you do have these resources for the - it is the Democratic Party - doesn't prevent anyone from aligning with another party in doing that. Although that's a flip remark - if you're a Democrat or if you're a Republican, that alignment comes with significant resources that are available or not available with that. So I think, especially with those resources at stake, especially with candidates who may not be affiliated, I understand where people paused and said, wait, what is going on here? But I do think there's a bigger conversation to be had just within the party about - is it about a label? Is it not? Usually that's a much simpler equation when you get to a general election in a partisan race, but we had a situation with a nonpartisan running. And in Seattle - in city council races and other local races, we have situations where non-Democrats run, who are in the same place or further to the left of Democrats. So it just really depends here. But I think there is further exploration and conversation that needs to happen about this, even on the local level. [00:58:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I think that's - those are all really good points. And I guess, when I was running, I saw people in the LDs going hard for Nikkita Oliver, who didn't identify as a Democrat. And a lot of non-endorsements of Sara Nelson, for instance, who was a Democrat. And to me, it seemed like there was robust conversation in the LDs and they did not all agree. And they did not all do the same thing. And I - yeah, I think there is room for conversation about that. To me, it just - I get a little bit - it seems very - what am I trying to think of? What am I trying to think of when something's pot-kettle-type thing - like the right does this stuff constantly. And there's a total double standard when it comes to liberals, Democrats, progressives, the left. And I ran in a race where my opponent was not nonpartisan, but presented themselves that way. And it's hard to know, as a voter, what you're truly looking at. And so I wish - yeah, I think there - I definitely agree there needs to be a more robust conversation. At the same time, I think the Chair of the Democratic Party should probably be - whoever the Democratic Party has endorsed would be like someone that they would be pushing forward. But yeah, it does get really murky. And you're right, it comes with a lot of resources and access to voter databases and things like that - that has been shared with some groups and not others. There is - it isn't a straightforward situation, like it is with the right, where it's just - he's the nominee, so that's who we vote for - which is also breaking down on the right, it seems like, because they seem like they maybe took that too far. But there's a lot of nuanced conversation that needs to take place. [01:00:28] Crystal Fincher: And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 18, 2022. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co host today is defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. You can find Nicole on Twitter @NTKallday - that's NTK-A-L-L-D-A-Y. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. Please leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [01:01:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Thanks for having me - this was great.

covid-19 spotify black president school internet house washington moving state care office seattle african students harvard republicans democrats council hacks democratic housing secretary transportation capitol hill fundamental democratic party city council jumpstart green new deal spd legislature emerald lds opa axios rents harrell dbt dsa rvs consumer price index sps chs police accountability city attorney shotspotter realpage sara nelson seattle public schools julie anderson sdot wonks melissa santos nicole thomas king5 thomas kennedy washington house east precinct seattle department nikkita oliver south seattle emerald ed murray mayor bruce harrell teresa mosqueda erica c barnett mayor harrell city attorney's office nicole thomas kennedy ingraham high school

CMN The Day With Trae Oct. 21, 2022 | Christine Alar from Seattle Department of Transportation

Converge Media Network

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2022 38:14

Today Trae is joined by Christine Alar from Seattle Department of Transportation, to hear all about the new bus only lanes on Rainier Ave S. It's also another Finance Friday with Kimaria Howard, giving us more finance tips you don't want to miss!

Napcast Ep39 - What is "Normal" Anyways Part 2

Napcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2022 52:57

Coming back for part 2 of 2, we continue our conversation with our colleague Suzette (she/they), an educator, mother, and advocate who currently serves as the Senior Education Specialist for the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning. In this episode, you'll hear our thoughts around how we can create space for different needs and abilities, what healing for neurodiverse people could look like, and what we want to see in an equitable world. If you haven't listened to part 1, go back and listen! Since meeting over 5 years ago at Hilltop Children's Center and Educator Institute in Seattle, WA (Coast Salish Territory), Nick Terrones (he/him) and Mike Browne (he/him) have been working towards a critical reimagination of ECE spaces for BIPOC educators and youth. In 2020, they teamed up to deliver a podcast titled Napcast, where they explore the intersection of early childhood education with race, identity, and culture. Now in new roles, Nick as the Program Director of Daybreak Star Preschool at United Indians of All Tribes, and Mike, Sr. Director of Community Engagement at Cultivate Learning, they combine their experience from their time in the classroom with their insights as ECE leaders in order to challenge your perspective on the ways we teach, play, and love society's youngest citizens. Please share your questions, comments, and thoughts at our new email address - Napcast206@gmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hilltopcc/support

director education seattle normal sr bipoc program directors community engagement ece early learning mike browne seattle department

Hour 1 - Big Problems

The Jason Rantz Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2022 42:01

What's Trending: Former president Trump says an indictment would bring 'big problems', SPU students are suing over anti-LGBTQ hiring policies and some students are getting refunds for loan payments. // VP Harris claims border security as bus full of migrants arrives in DC. // The interesting new Seattle Department of Transportation Director and his thoughts on cars.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

donald trump dc lgbtq harris big problems spu transportation director seattle department

Napcast Ep38 - What is "Normal" Anyways?

Napcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2022 46:57

Go outside and look at the trees, the sea life, the people you see. What do you notice? Each day we witness, marvel at, and celebrate the bio and cultural diversity of our world. But what about the diversity we can't quite see? How do we celebrate the diversity of our brains? In part 1 of 2, we chat with our colleague Suzette (she/they), an educator, mother, and advocate who currently serves as the Senior Education Specialist for the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning. In this episode, you'll hear a multitude of thoughts including how neurodiversity is an identity, the many different strengths of neurodiverse children, and the damage that can be done if we continue to minimize their lived experiences in our early learning environments. Since meeting over 5 years ago at Hilltop Children's Center and Educator Institute in Seattle, WA (Coast Salish Territory), Nick Terrones (he/him) and Mike Browne (he/him) have been working towards a critical reimagination of ECE spaces for BIPOC educators and youth. In 2020, they teamed up to deliver a podcast titled Napcast, where they explore the intersection of early childhood education with race, identity, and culture. Now in new roles, Nick as the Program Director of Daybreak Star Preschool at United Indians of All Tribes, and Mike, Sr. Director of Community Engagement at Cultivate Learning, they combine their experience from their time in the classroom with their insights as ECE leaders in order to challenge your perspective on the ways we teach, play, and love society's youngest citizens. Please share your questions, comments, and thoughts at our new email address - Napcast206@gmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hilltopcc/support

director education seattle normal sr bipoc program directors community engagement ece early learning mike browne seattle department

Seattle Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: How to JumpStart Seattle's Future

Common Caws for Sustainability Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2022 35:38

Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, newly re-elected to citywide Position 8, joins Crystal with thoughts and next steps on the SPD ruse scandal, a run-down of ambitious plans for the broadly-supported JumpStart economic stimulus, and discussion of the urgent need to shore up our childcare infrastructure. The show closes with a call to action for electeds everywhere to not hesitate and take the bold, progressive action voters want. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda at @CMTMosqueda Resources “Seattle council questions watchdog about police lies, investigation into faked radio chatter” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-officials-face-questions-about-police-lies-investigation-into-faked-radio-chatter/ “As negotiations with city loom, Seattle's police union has had an outsized influence on police accountability measures” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/as-negotiations-with-city-loom-seattles-police-union-has-had-an-outsized-influence-on-police-accountability-measures/ “Council Passes Mosqueda's JumpStart Seattle Progressive Revenue Plan to Address COVID Response, Essential City Services, Affordable Housing” from Council Connection: https://council.seattle.gov/2020/07/06/council-passes-mosquedas-jumpstart-seattle-progressive-revenue-plan-to-address-covid-response-essential-city-services-affordable-housing/ “Councilmember Mosqueda Moves Forward with Transparency and Accountability Measures for JumpStart Seattle” from Council Connection: https://council.seattle.gov/2021/07/19/councilmember-mosqueda-moves-forward-with-transparency-and-accountability-measures-for-jumpstart-seattle/ “Durkan Budget Would Gut JumpStart Spending Plan, Increase Funding for Encampment Response” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/09/28/durkan-budget-would-gut-jumpstart-spending-plan-increase-funding-for-encampment-response/ “NPI's July 2021 survey of Seattle voters found deep support for JumpStart revenue plan” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/09/npis-july-2021-survey-of-seattle-voters-found-deep-support-for-jumpstart-revenue-plan.html Seattle City Council - Seattle Rescue Plan: https://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/seattle-rescue-plan “Child care was already dysfunctional. COVID-19 could break it completely” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/focus/2020/09/child-care-was-already-dysfunctional-covid-19-could-break-it-completely “DEEL Awards Nearly $3M to Child Care Workers in Appreciation of Their Service to Seattle Families Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Sage Leibenson from Seattle Department of Early Education and Learning: https://education.seattle.gov/deel-awards-nearly-3m-to-child-care-workers-in-appreciation-of-their-service-to-seattle-families-throughout-the-covid-19-pandemic/ Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well today, I'm thrilled to be welcoming Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda - Position 8, the citywide position. Just got new committee assignments, so she is the Chair of Finance and Housing - lot going on there - Vice-Chair of Public Assets and Homelessness. She is a member on the Governance, Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee, Land Use Committee, and Public Safety and Human Services Committee. And we are just thrilled to have you. Welcome to the program. [00:01:08] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I'm so excited to be here. Thank you for the invitation. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I just want to start off real quick since we're in the middle of it right now - it's in the news - and talking about what is happening with SPD. The ruse issue, which certainly seemed to escalate and inflame tensions while protestors were protesting downtown, was near the beginning of CHOP and CHAZ, City resources were deployed thinking that it was real - what do you think about that? And what do you think should happen next? [00:01:47] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: It erodes public trust. I think that it's a real problem that we have misinformation that's intentionally being used and - apparently - allowed for in policy. We had a hearing that Councilmember Herbold led through her committee on Public Safety where a lot of questions were asked, and I think the main question is - are we going to allow for this type of "ruse" to continue? I think if you'll remember at the time there was almost daily press conferences being held with the mayor and then the chief - Chief Best. I remember that this issue was talked about out in those press conferences and it just wasn't accurate. It was misleading, not only the folks who were calling for action and for accountability, but it misled the broader community. And I think that it has the effect of potentially eroding public trust when a real threat is there. So I think there's a lot more policy changes that need to be put into place. I just finished compiling a list of questions as well that we're sending over to Councilmember Herbold that she's going to send over to the chief and the new mayoral administration, because there was also a lot of conversation about how the East Precinct was under attack and at the time, that was the justification for why the East Precinct was abandoned. I'm not sure that that was accurate. I'm not sure if that was a ruse or not. And if there's federal threats that were being assumed or spouted out in press conferences, I want to see what those details were because we need to be able to grow trust with the community, we need to be able to make sure folks know that there's not misinformation being spread. And if it's allowed for or sanctioned in public policy, then that public policy needs to change. [00:03:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - certainly seems to be the case. Certainly just a continuation of eroding trust. What can be done - I guess there's an issue about the texts also happening at that time, which are still missing. What can be done to get that information or to compel that information? Are there options there? [00:03:59] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, I'm going to be working with Councilmember Herbold as the Chair of Public Safety - I think she has some follow-up questions that she's going to be asking as well. I think that number one, text messages shouldn't go missing and for four to five months of text messages to be missing - from a handful of people in the previous administration - I'm surprised that that hasn't gotten more attention, frankly. And I think that it's really problematic. Problematic both again, from the policy standpoint, we want to know that good public policies are being adhered to and from public trust. I do think that we shouldn't have policies that allow for a "ruse" to be used, and we should change that. And I know Councilmember Herbold - this isn't the last time that she's going to be talking about it. And I'm very much interested in making sure that we can give folks a better sense of assurance that this type of misinformation will be used intentionally in the future. That's, I think, just scratching the surface, right? You mentioned a lot of other areas that haven't been fully investigated or concluded yet. And we have a new mayor - I think that there's conversations right now about who will be a new chief. I know that there's been conversations about who will be interviewed for that. And during the inauguration, Mayor Harrell mentioned that they were going to have conversations with our existing chief, but I think across cities across this country, we need chiefs and leadership within police departments who are willing and ready to accept that reform - and the status quo - the status quo is not going to be permitted and reform alone isn't enough. We need to invest upstream in making sure that people have education, and housing, and that we invest in gun violence reduction strategies, and youth violence reduction strategies, that we create greater economic security and opportunity for everyone. And I'm interested in a chief and leaders that want to embrace that broader vision of what public safety looks like. [00:05:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and they've mentioned being sometimes limited by the consent decree, and some of what the judge overseeing that feels. And also with the union contract, the SPOG contract. As you - I don't know if - what is going on there certainly with the new administration. The new mayoral administration - they're talking about how negotiations are going to unfold and who's going to be involved in them, but is there anything that you're specifically looking to get out of that contract in terms of accountability? [00:06:37] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, number one, I think that we should have had these conversations a lot earlier. When I came into office in 2017, we were already years delayed in having a renewed contract. So finally, when the contract was passed, it was supposed to be short-term in nature because there was only about 12 more months left of what should have been the contract. And I and other council members called for the mayor to convene the Labor Relations Committee meetings so that we could start negotiating faster. Those convenings didn't happen in, I think, a timely manner, and we're still here on the cusp of beginning our negotiations. And I think what's going to be important is to make sure that the accountability pieces are truly not negotiable, right? We want to negotiate the things that relate to workplace standards, but on what I think is a broad consensus of needing reforms overall - items that we saw in the public safety legislation that Councilmember González led on in the past - we wanted those items to be statute, we wanted them to be law, and they shouldn't be negotiable. So those are going to be some of our core components that I know we'll continue working on in the upcoming contract. [00:07:48] Crystal Fincher: Certainly, a lot more to come - a lot to unfold there. We'll keep an eye on it. I do want to talk to what you just spoke about and making meaningful investments in - really, it boils down to people, to prevention, to meeting needs, to addressing root causes of the problems that we're seeing, instead of just trying to address symptoms downstream. I wanted to start off talking about one of your signature pieces of legislation, the JumpStart Tax. And one, just to recap for people who are listening - what is it, what does it do, who does it help? [00:08:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: This is one of the biggest pieces of legislation that I am so proud of, but it is one of the largest pieces of progressive revenue that has passed in Seattle's history. There's been a long road to have this actually passed, and I want to thank all of the community members for their calls for progressive revenue to turn our regressive system right side up and actually make it progressive. And in a city that has seen such tremendous growth in terms of the wealth of not only individuals, but corporations - it is the right thing to do to make sure that we have progressive policies that allow for dollars to be invested in our community, into our most vulnerable. And it is the right thing to do for our economy as well - this is actually an economic stimulus when you think about the ways in which these JumpStart dollars will be used. They're going into affordable housing, into economic resilience, into Green New Deal policies. I just want to, from the outset here, say how important this is for our local economy. We cannot have a prosperous local economy when we have folks who are living in the door steps and entryways of the largest corporations across our country. And in the time that we find ourselves in with growing economic inequality that was existing before COVID, but has only been made worse by the pandemic, we have to invest these dollars into creating a healthy, more resilient local economy and that starts with housing. So JumpStart progressive revenue is going to invest over $214 million a year into housing, economic resilience, equitable development, and Green New Deal priorities. 68% of the funds, so the vast majority - over two thirds - is going into affordable housing. This is for building affordable housing, low income housing, not just for individuals - like one bedrooms - but we're talking two, three and four bedrooms. We're putting funding into building first-time home ownership opportunities. Funding specifically going to smaller developers who are trying to build affordable housing in communities hardest hit by displacement, so that we can truly create ownership and liberty and self-determination among community members who've been hardest hit by displacement. And really address the past legacy of discriminatory policies as well. Then 15% of the funds is going into economic resilience, especially into small, BIPOC, women, minority-owned businesses. In this time where we've seen folks really lose their livelihoods as small business owners as well, this is going to be critical. Equitable Development Initiative, obviously - this is one of the biggest areas for us to invest in that creates, I think, greater equity and a more just local economy, because these are dollars that go into things like childcare, space for small businesses, community centers, creating community. As we've all been isolated for so long in our homes, if folks have been able to work from home, we're disconnected from family due to isolation and quarantining - we want our community, when it's safe for people to reconvene again, to be able to have a community plaza or a community center. And to be able to gather in markets and childcare settings so that we can create a sense of community. And that's what that Equitable Development Initiative really goes towards. And the Green New Deal - this is the first time we've been able to allocate funding for the Green New Deal through JumpStart in a significant way. We have funding that's gone in - to the tune of, I think, near $20 million - that's going into helping set up Green New Deal investments. And this again, is not just something that we came up with on our own, either in my office or on council - this is what community has called for. So this broad group of over a hundred businesses, and small community organizations, and Green New Deal advocates, and housing advocates, immigrant refugee advocates, union members helped pass this. And now, it's the critical time to make sure that it actually gets captured and that it gets deployed the way that we said it would. So we had to pass, as I'm sure you know, the implementation plan twice and make sure that it was truly codified in statutes so that those dollars didn't get swept for other items. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: As a former mayor was trying to sweep that money for other items, and making conflicting statements about them, and just really trying to take this money - which clearly is doing a ton of good - and use it for other things and pitting interests against each other, which turned out not to work, thankfully. In talking to people, I don't know that a lot of people recognize just how comprehensive this is. Everything you just talked about - sometimes people look at one section of it or another - and you can look at one individual section and it is making a huge difference. But to meaningfully address small business - investing in small business - to meaningfully address affordable housing, the Green New Deal. At this time, it really is speaking to the most pressing issues that we're facing as a city - to your point, as defined by the residents - and saying, "This is where we're saying we need help." And really said, "Well, here is a comprehensive plan to do that in a progressive way." In this state, which is coming from the most regressive tax structure, to really trying to rightsize that in a way that truly asks - just asks people to pay their fair share, is not asking for stuff from ma and pa businesses, stuff for employees who are making low or even medium wages. This is really just looking at - hey, if you're a business who is one of the most successful businesses that we're dealing with, who has profited from what this community has provided you, the resources that the City has provided, and on the other side has created some challenges that the City has to deal with. We are looking at the rise in prices for homes that are now out of the reach of lots of people because of high-wage earners coming here to work for the Amazons of the world, so it certainly makes sense that for those super high earners - that a small tax on that - when we're asking so many other people to sacrifice so much. And they're already dealing with such burdens - and with fees and taxes and all that - while the richest just haven't been paying their fair share. And just look at what's possible when we ask people just to rightsize this whole thing. It's really wonderful. [00:15:20] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I was just going to say - thank you. And also, thanks to Seattleites, who I think are absolutely recognizing exactly what you said. The Seattle Business Journal said that they did a poll and 67% of Seattleites support JumpStart. And maybe they're thinking about the specific areas of interest that you noted - whether it's childcare assistance, or small business assistance, or housing assistance - but 67% of Seattleites embracing a progressive payroll tax is really exciting. And I think, as a reminder, this is not a tax on individuals or individual wage earners. This is a tax on those large corporations that have more than $7 million in Seattle payroll. And it's only on the highest salaries, so if an individual makes more than $150,000 a year, then the tax applies to that employee. We're going to see how the work-from-home nature of COVID is going to affect the projected revenue, but what's clear is that those largest companies - that especially are in the tech sector - that had the ability to work, have their employees work from home. Those companies, with so many people doing online transactions, they saw their profits grow exponentially. It is absolutely still a fair tax, it is absolutely still the right thing to do, and it's going directly into providing COVID relief in the first year. In the second year, making sure that we had childcare and support for our most vulnerable and warded off austerity budgeting. And then this year and going forward, those investments in housing, Green New Deal, economic resilience - this is truly how we have avoided deep austerity cuts to budgeting. And you're right - the previous mayor used those dollars after vetoing our bill. Then we, as a Council, came back and said, no, we're going to maintain this tax and we're going to put into statute the implementation plan. But for JumpStart, we would have been in the red last year. I think that it's going to be really important to build on that because even JumpStart alone isn't enough when you look at the sheer amount of housing needs that we have in this community and the infrastructure needs. And just the fact that, as you noted, our population's grown by 21% in the last 10 years, and we haven't kept up with the housing, childcare, and infrastructure needs. So we're going to need to do more, and this was a tax on payroll and corporations. We got a lot to do to recognize the individual wealth and, I think, CEO distribution of the pay between workers and CEOs that we can catch up on as well. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: I think the public is more ready for it now than they have been. It says something about this that people see a direct benefit for them in this program in at least one, if not many of the areas. Because support has actually only grown for this. Before, when you were talking about it, support was still a majority of people supported it, but it has actually grown over the past year as this has been implemented, despite the really - opposition to this, a legal challenge - largely it's Amazon - who's opposing this - this is a big corporate pushback. One of the things I think was made plain over the past couple years is that small businesses and Amazon are not necessarily aligned on a lot of things. You have a huge coalition of small businesses who came together to pass this - business coalitions like the GSBA talking about how crucial this is for their membership - providing direct support to businesses who are here in Seattle, who are hiring people, who live in Seattle, and it's a huge benefit. There really is one source of big mega-corporate pushback - because they seem to push back against any fees, taxes, anything, anywhere where they're at. The residents are just not in the mood for it after really bearing the brunt of some of the fallout from the economic inequality - from resources being used and exploited for mega corporation profit, but not then reinvested or invested in the surrounding community. Certainly, I'm a big fan of this legislation. This is the kind of leadership I think people are looking for where, "Hey, we have some really big problems that we're facing that are going to take big, bold solutions." But man, when people do provide those big, bold solutions - they're rewarded. This is what people want - people support this, they support you by a large margin. I just hope people look at this and cities across the country, certainly the state, as a blueprint on how to move forward and how to rightsize their municipal budgets and provide services to the people who need them, and the revenue necessary to do it. [00:20:34] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I so appreciate that. Thank you. When we were considering JumpStart, we had a forum that brought in Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and In The Public Interest and a handful of other national groups - and they showed the charts that proved that. When you invest in public services and you prevent against austerity, when you raise taxes on the largest corporations and put those dollars into the public good - you actually make recessions shorter, you create greater economic activity, and you create greater wealth that is shared amongst the population. It's so counterintuitive that the Chamber of Commerce is the one who is leading this legal challenge when it's actually good for the smallest businesses. If they were representing those voices, it would be good for those local small businesses to allow for these dollars to go forward. I'm really thankful that we had such broad support on Council and that that broad support was really generated by the community who saw the need for this. I think, like you're saying, in the wake of COVID too. This conversation around payroll taxes and our taxes - it predates COVID, but people have seen how these largest corporations have just become more and more wealthy as corporations and also as the wealthiest individuals that help run them. Now, folks are saying, "I lost my job. I lost my small business. I lost loved ones in this time and you've made profit. How are we going to recover from this in a way that doesn't bring us back to the normal that was before, and actually a more equitable recovery?" And JumpStart was part of that and I'm really proud. But also we need it at the state level, right? And I want to thank Representative Macri who was really spearheading the progressive payroll tax at the same year. It didn't happen that session, so we picked up where she left off - we still need it at the state level. Representative Noel Frame, who was able to get capital gains passed in the state legislature. We need so much more so that we can actually rightsize our upside down tax system. They've been great champions as well, and I'm hoping that we can see more from our state partners as well on revenue. [00:22:43] Crystal Fincher: Certainly, that's an excellent point. Sometimes we hear the tired excuse of, "Oh, it's going to chase business away. Oh, it's going to run jobs out of town." And time and time again - we've heard that with raising the minimum wage - that has shown not to be the case. In fact, Seattle has been attracting businesses at a greater rate than many other areas in the country. And even Amazon, the company that is pushing against this - as anything that would impede profit - there seems to be pushback against, but they have more jobs listed here in the Seattle area currently than they do anywhere else. It looks like the landscape for hiring and then feeling comfortable that they can continue to work here profitably and are looking to continue to hire here would suggest that maybe all the fearmongering isn't quite connected with reality. Once again. [00:23:43] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: That's right, that's right. And even in the region where they're expanding, they're expanding places where we're going to have light rail - light rail which takes public investments, light rail which takes taxation and financing. To try to lure or encourage people to come to our region and take these jobs, they are benefiting from our infrastructure - whether it's light rail, or our roads and buses. Obviously, the limited housing stock that we have - we are going to benefit by having these large corporations pay into creating greater housing density, infrastructure, childcare, economic opportunities. This is actually good for the local economy. And we, as public policy makers, need to stay strong and recognize that these taxation strategies are a good thing for our local economy as well. To your point, every time the fearmongering has been levied, the data proves it wrong. When we pass minimum wage in Seattle, all of these conversations were happening about how businesses are going to close and they're going to move out of Seattle. Literally, two years later, when the minimum wage went into effect, the headline of The Seattle Times read, "The Sky Did Not Fall." That is the letters that they used - the words that they used, because the sky did not fall and twice as many restaurants opened than closed. Restaurant industry is a really challenging area to open a business - I hear that all the time from entrepreneurs. I know that from my family who owns Tasty Tacos in Des Moines, Iowa - get your tacos there when you go, voted Best Taco every year - but it's a very challenging industry to start up in. There's always closures and opening, but twice as many opened than closed? I think that's a good indication of our strong economy. We're constantly rated among Forbes listing of one of the best places to have, to start your business, and grow your business. We also want that to be a good thing for the workers in those businesses. I want it to be a good thing for the folks who are cleaning the buildings in those businesses. I want it to be a good thing for the folks to take care of kiddos for people who work for those businesses. That's where I think, by looking at the investments that we can get from JumpStart, and investing into worker safety standards, childcare investments, small business support - that is actually the antidote to the crisis that's been worsened by COVID. The public health crisis that is upon us is worsening the economic inequality that we previously had and we have to have antidotes against that type of crisis. Those are public health crises, too. As councilmembers will talk about, economic stress and chronic poverty - that affects our public health, that affects our health and well-being, and it's creating a shadow pandemic. Stress and the physical wear and tear on our bodies during these times - just the income inequality that we live in in the United States is actually worsening our health. I'll just give a shout out to this one professor at University of Washington, Stephen Bezruchka, who talks about how income inequality, especially in the United States where income inequality is the worst - it is actually causing all of us, including the wealthy, to die earlier, our babies are dying at higher rates, our elders are dying faster, and we're living with more chronic health conditions because of income inequality. In countries where they have less income inequality, everybody lives longer and healthier. So if you don't care about income inequality from a social justice and economic justice perspective, at least care from your own self-interest, that you could have a better quality of life if we all had greater income equality across our area. [00:27:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, I appreciate it. [00:27:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I'm nerding out on this. I love this. [00:27:28] Crystal Fincher: I love it - I love it so much. I also want to talk about another big challenge and really a crisis situation that we're in with childcare. Working families having a very hard time to deal with childcare - certainly, with a PAC that I'm involved with, Persist PAC, we have started reimbursing political candidates for childcare expenses to try and lower the barrier there. But the amount of childcare facilities and providers was dwindling anyway, the cost of childcare was getting out of control before the pandemic. There are several counties in the state who have reported losing 30% to 40% of their providers through the pandemic, so you have families who are searching and scraping - sometimes can't find childcare, which is a barrier for people being able to fully participate in society, to work, it hinders economic mobility. What are you working on in that area? [00:28:32] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Well, this is an area I'm really passionate about and I think probably a lot of your listeners have been in a similar situation where if they are interested in having a kiddo, a lot of people are told you should get on a wait list before you can get pregnant. You should get on a wait list before you even begin the process of adopting a kiddo because of how long it takes to get into a childcare facility. And that is precisely because we do not have the capacity of childcare centers or in-home based centers to meet the need of our growing population. Headline-wise - we saw a headline recently in The Seattle Times - I think last year that said we saw more kiddos born in our city than any time in recent history, and we don't have the childcare to keep up with that. We see people spending more on childcare than they do on their rent and their mortgage in some cases. We know that this is a crisis, especially for families who have kids between the ages of 0 and 3, where it is more expensive to provide care for those kiddos. And yet childcare providers often are earning minimum wage and the childcare providers themselves are often women and people of color and sometimes come from immigrant and refugee communities. And so the disparity in terms of both who is not getting an equitable wage and the impact of not being able to find affordable childcare directly impacts women and folks of color who are working in that area and also need to be able to have affordable childcare coverage. What we're trying to do is a number of things. Number one, downtown core, right? Before COVID, anecdotally, we had heard more doggy daycares were opening than childcare centers in downtown Seattle, which makes a lot of sense if you look around. If there's younger single folks moving to Seattle to work maybe in the tech sector and we want to welcome folks, that's great. But doggy daycare was being provided at those places of work and not childcare. We need to be trying to create more childcare opportunities in all of our downtown buildings if we're wanting to think about how we encourage more workers to come back downtown in the wake of COVID. I think we should have started with City Hall. There's an empty room down there that has windows on the first floor that has a bathroom and a kitchen. We should be using that for childcare and opening it up to more folks to be able to have their kiddos there. For the fourth year in a row, we've been stymied on that, but I'm going to keep working on it. And in terms of supporting our childcare providers that are out there right now, we passed $3 million in the Seattle Rescue Plan to provide direct cash assistance to childcare providers. It penciled out to about $835 per childcare provider before taxes and then the childcare providers got their portion of that before the holidays, which was really great. We put $5 million in for new childcare facilities and those are rolling applications, so we'll get you information about how to apply for that if you're interested and put that on our social media. But what we have to do right now, I think number one, is support childcare providers. These are the folks who, if they don't keep their doors open, then folks can't go to work. And if they're barely making it, if they've had increased costs due to COVID and need additional support, we need to be supporting them. And also make sure that more people are able to work as childcare providers and really investing in those wages as a true profession that it is. I think that's in partnership with our state legislative members who are investing dollars into childcare. We need to be doing more to subsidize the cost of childcare. In every other country, this is a public good. In the United States, we treat it as a commodity and it should be treated as a public good. Childcare is a necessity for local economies and it is a necessity from an economic and gender justice perspective because the number of women, specifically - folks who are parents who are women - who had to take themselves out of the workforce in the wake of COVID has led to this being as she-cession because they did not have places to take their kiddos when so many childcares were closing in the wake of COVID. And as you mentioned, this was an issue pre-existing before COVID - so invest in childcare providers, invest in their wages, invest in career ladders, making sure that they have additional support for running those entities because they really shouldn't be treated as businesses, they should be treated as a public good. And that means we've got to pass public policies to make sure that we're supporting more workers and organizations and small businesses in that sector. [00:32:57] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm over here just saying amen to everything. [00:32:59] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: I hear a hoot hoot from your train in your background. [00:33:04] Crystal Fincher: You can hear this train in the background here - always in the background at some point in time, usually. But we are just about at time - I could talk to you all day long - you get so many things and are such a fierce advocate for policies that help regular people. And that are delivering results for regular people right now, which is really the bottom line. A lot of times, people look at the success as signing the legislation, but it really is about getting help to people who need it in ways that they feel on the ground. Certainly, that is happening with a lot of what you spearheaded and so, you should be proud, and thank you, and keep it up. And thank you for joining us - just appreciate you spending the time and hope to have you back again soon. [00:33:56] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I really appreciate it. And thanks for your note across the country to look at Seattle to do things like investing in revenue and public policy. And I hope this last election was also a good indication to folks locally, whether it's in Seattle or at the state level - now is not the time to sit there and wring your hands and think about your next election. If you want to get the highest percentage of votes like I did in Seattle - [00:34:22] Crystal Fincher: Like you did. [00:34:25] Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda: - you got to get out there, be progressive. Be collaborative obviously, but aggressively committed to passing public policies that make radical change for people. And don't sit back and wring your hands and think about your next election because what voters want to see is action. So I'm thankful for your podcast and I'm thankful for the call to action that you put out there at the beginning as well. I'll keep working on it, and I know there's so much more to do - and look forward to doing that with you and our community. [00:34:53] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast - just type "Hacks & 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 a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. 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.

The Future of Transportation - Transportation in a Sustainable Style - Ep.4 (Mini-Series)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2021 36:18

In this final episode of the mini-series Transportation in a Sustainable Style, our hosts Connor and Leo discuss the future of transportation in Washington and how the state can act as a leader when it comes to sustainable methods of transportation. To dive deeper into this subject, they interviewed Dongho Chang, a city traffic engineer for the city of Seattle. Learn more about the Seattle Department of Transportation: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation Learn more about the Link Lightrail expansion plan: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion Contact us at arusso45@uw.edu and sclassen@cascadia.edu Follow us on Instagram @uwbsustainability or @sustainabilityatcascadia Check out our website at uwb.edu/sustainability or cascadia.edu/bassp Image art by Sarah Blechner

washington seattle transportation miniseries sustainable style seattle department

#868 - Fremont Brewing is Still Using Concrete "Eco Blocks" To Prevent RV Parking

business seattle prevent transportation blocks parking concrete ballard rvs sara nelson fremont brewing seattle department

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 5, 2021 34:26

After at least one formal complaint, the Seattle Department of Transportation has issued a warning—but no penalty—to Fremont Brewing, the company co-owned by city council member-elect Sara Nelson, for obstructing the public right-of-way around its Ballard brewing facility with massive concrete “ecology blocks.”As PubliCola reported last summer, eco blocks—so called because they are a byproduct of concrete production that uses waste that would otherwise occupy landfills—are an inexpensive way for business owners to prevent people living in their vehicles from parking on the street next to their properties.Since the beginning of the pandemic, when the city stopped enforcing a law requiring people to move their vehicles every three days, the blocks have proliferated throughout Seattle's industrial areas, which are the only places where people living in oversized vehicles can legally park. Business owners say that the presence of RVs and other types of large vehicles, such as box trucks, discourages patrons, and that large concentrations of RVs can lead to health and safety problems that impact their customers and employees.https://publicola.com/2021/11/30/fremont-brewing-is-still-using-concrete-blocks-to-prevent-rv-parking-so-are-the-city-of-seattle-and-the-us-postal-service/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

#860 - Ballard homeowner claims enforcement double standard in dispute with 'Lawnmower Man'