Podcasts about The Seattle Times

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 47:10

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Co-Founder and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. They start off breaking down the Supreme Court's official opinion on Dobbs, which overturns Roe v. Wade. They discuss how we got here, the immediate repercussions on Washington and the country, and what we can do about it. Next, they look at the motivations behind Seattle Pride's decision to ask for no uniformed police to participate in this year's festivities. In housing news, they question Mayor Harrell's decision to veto a bill from the City Council asking landlords to report how much rent they charge, and look at what's next for Seattle's Social Housing Initiative now that it's gathered enough votes to qualify for the November ballot. Finally, they discuss the reasoning behind Gov. Inslee signaling that he's not interested in following Biden's lead in creating a gas tax holiday in Washington state. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources Abortion Funds: Northwest Abortion Access Fund - https://nwaafund.org/donate Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest - https://www.weareplannedparenthood.org/onlineactions/cOJVhOyrzkq4uBcxVekXFA2?sourceid=1000065&affiliateID=091810&_ga=2.195968876.195061633.1656097315-413517584.1656097315 National Network of Abortion Funds - https://secure.actblue.com/donate/supportabortionfunds?refcode=nnafwebsite –--------------- “What the end of Roe v. Wade means for Washington state” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/24/end-roe-v-wade-means-washington-state “Democrats seek to stop hospital mergers that limit abortion access” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/22/democrats-stop-hospital-mergers-limit-abortions “Seattle Police officers won't march in pride parade, frustrated chief says” by Anika Varty from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/uniformed-seattle-police-officers-will-not-march-at-seattle-pride-parade/ “Harrell vetoes plan to require Seattle landlords to report the rent they charge” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/harrell-vetoes-plan-to-require-seattle-landlords-to-report-the-rent-they-charge/ “Social Housing Initiative Pushes Forward, Fact Checking-Harrell on Homelessness” from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/06/23/social-housing-initiative-pushes-forward-fact-checking-harrell-on-homelessness/ “A Photo-Finish for Seattle's Social Housing Initiative” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/22/75442679/a-photo-finish-for-seattles-social-housing-initiative “Inslee signals no interest in WA gas tax ‘holiday'; others skeptical too” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/inslee-signals-no-interest-in-a-wa-gas-tax-holiday-others-skeptical-too/ Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks and 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. If you like the show, please feel free to leave us a good review. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's cohost: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, cohost of the Seattle Nice podcast and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:02] Erica Barnett: Hey Crystal. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Hey, Erica. Well, it's been a morning. [00:01:09] Erica Barnett: It sure has. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Because the overturning of the Roe vs Wade decision is now official. The Supreme Court, with the Dobbs decision, has ended the right to abortion for women in this country and signaled a potential end to other critical rights that are pretty basic and fundamental. And it's just rough. Where are you at with this? [00:01:44] Erica Barnett: Yeah. I tweeted out this morning, because if you're not on Twitter, do you even exist? I said basically - don't interpret the silence of people who re suffering today and who will continue to suffer because of the end of abortion rights - don't interpret our silence as consent or believing that this is okay. We've been screaming our heads off about this for years and no one listened. And now all of a sudden, everybody is screaming too. Boy, with the way I'm describing this, is way too long for a tweet. I said something much more pithy, but basically - look, I am feeling overwhelmed, but I'm also not in the state of shock that the New York Times Editorial Board appears to be, or a lot of mainstream pundits appear to be, because we knew this was coming. And we knew it was coming long before the Supreme Court even took up this case, and before the the leaked opinion - this is part of the theocracy that I would argue started long before Trump, but certainly accelerated with Trump - an illegitimate president installing Supreme Court justices for life, so I'm feeling - emotionally, I'm feeling pretty numb. But yeah, that is not by any means, it's not meant to imply that I am okay with this, or complacent, or anything of the sort. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Of course. [00:03:19] Erica Barnett: I'm very upset. I'm just so upset, I can't - I can barely talk about it. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think a lot of us are in a similar situation - certainly, there is, I will say there is, some frustration that I feel with people who are shocked about this right now, or even shocked about it when the opinion leak came out. I get how people land there, so I totally get it, but there have been so many people warning that this was coming for years. And this basically became the inevitable conclusion as soon as Trump was elected, and we knew that he was going to be making more Supreme Court picks and making a Roe vs Wade-proof majority on the Court. And so there's - I've also on Twitter, this morning, and have tweeted some stuff about it, been in some group chats about it. But man, I've said this before, listen to the people who are impacted. They know what's coming, they have to be vigilant because they know that they're going to be the people most exposed to the problem first. So yes, they're great at picking up the warning signs before other people are, and yes, they're warning and no, it may not have been on the front page of the New York Times until years later and lots of pundits, especially white male pundits, have downplayed this outcome. But this was so obvious this was coming, and the time to fight against it and to get serious about fighting against it was a long time ago. Does not mean that we cannot still fight and we absolutely need to, but I wish we would get better collectively about listening to people who are in the most impacted, most marginalized groups, most subject to harm - when they warn about things, we need to take it seriously. [00:05:33] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I feel like what's gonna happen now is a lot of women, and people who take contraception of any kind, have been warning that contraception is next. There's a lot of things that I think are "next" on the list of rights that the Court's gonna try to strip away, but I think contraception is probably one of the very next. And I think that still, to this day, when you bring that up and you say they're gonna start banning the women's right, people's right, not to get pregnant - that people - you get laughed at, like that's absurd. In the same way that the notion of overturning Roe was absurd, maybe I don't know, back in the 90s when it was still, in retrospect, a fairly new decision, 20, 25 years old. It seemed absurd and now I think everything is just accelerated, and I think the right to access an IUD is going to be next because a lot of sort of Christian-ist right-wing pundits and politicians and people in the Court believe that that is abortion. And I won't go into all the details about their thinking there because it's absurd, but that is going to be next. And then it's going to be all kinds of rights that the Supreme Court will use this decision in the reasoning to say - that it wasn't in the Constitution and it hasn't been established law - it wasn't established law at the time in the 1800s and before, so it can't be established law now. It's everything from same sex marriage, same sex relationships, interracial marriage. The list just goes on and on and on of rights that could be impacted and probably will be impacted by this decision. So, I feel like also - in screaming my head off all these years, I have tried to say - it is not just women I know that no one cares about women. That is a well-established right, or well-established fact, that I have seen again and again in my lifetime. But this isn't "just women" and people who can get pregnant - it's all marginalized people who are going to have their rights stripped away because of the reasoning behind this decision. [00:08:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we're talking about the stripping away of a lot of fundamental privacy rights, really, and that does impact marginalized populations. And this occurring at the same time where we basically have a surveillance-based economy is just really alarming, and people are justifiably scared, and harm is going to occur because of this to lots of different people, not only women. And so it is just - it's a challenge. This morning in a chat I was in, lots of people were - this is hard, distraught, and really troubled and furious. And just feeling the whole range of emotions. And someone asks - well, where is our power in this? - and people just wondering what do we do. And I think that's an important question to ask, I absolutely think the range of feelings that people are feeling are entirely justified - this is hard and rough. I hope people have grace for people that they're around because this is just another thing on top of so many other things that we're dealing with that is just hard and unjust and unnecessarily cruel, but we do still have power and we need to exercise all of our power, all of the levers that we have - because this is so critical and so fundamental, and just the beginning of the attempt to dismantle rights and dismantle privacy for people who they just view as beneath them, or they financially benefit from being beneath them. So I think it's important to continue to, at every turn, even if federal action has not occurred and they are not jumping to do that now. They do respond to pressure and if we apply all of the levers of pressure to let them know that this is a priority - we've gotta be in the streets, every town hall, every meeting, every fundraiser - people should be asking - Hey, are you, do you support ending the filibuster, do you support taking this vote? We have to codify it. There has to be a vote. We have to do what's necessary, which does involve ending the filibuster for this and so many other things, ways to protect rights - the filibuster is not more important than that. They should be asked about this by Democrats, by everyone, all of the time. They should know that this is front and center on people's minds and that people are not willing to accept anything less than action, urgent action. And so we should be demanding that of them - organizations who do endorsements should reopen those endorsements - and ending the filibuster, calling for a vote should be a basic requirement for an endorsement. It's a different change in process, but part of the signaling of this is an emergency, this is urgent is treating things like that from an institutional and from organizational points of view. Organizations have to signal that this is a right that we can't do without. Even organizations that are not thought of as women's organizations or reproductive rights organizations - this affects everyone who you deal with - this affects our community, this affects people's financial mobility, ability to not live in poverty, to dictate their own healthcare - everyone should be standing in solidarity. Every organization should be saying - okay, you want support, then these are the basic things that are gonna need to happen. You can choose not to, but we need to put our energy and effort and resources towards people who are. In the State, legislatively - we absolutely need to make sure that our legislators take action to make sure that access is available. We have a lot of areas in this state where there have been mergers - Catholic hospitals, in some cities, are the only hospitals that some communities have access to - who don't provide abortion care. We're gonna be seeing an influx of people coming from other states to get abortion care - those who have enough money to come from other states - we need to be taking action now, legislatively, to ensure that that access is available and that we're supporting just the capacity of our healthcare system to provide that. And Jay Inslee should call a special session to make that happen. He says he wants to, he supports the introduction of a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. I think that is a great idea. Even if it doesn't - may be close or they're saying, okay, well, Republicans may not vote for it, it may not hit the threshold - well, let's get people on record and see what they say. Let's actually force the vote. Let's let people know who stands where and what they're voting for 'cause there's been a lot of silence from Republicans in this state. And everyone should be held accountable and everyone should have the opportunity to act to do this and it should happen now. These are things that we absolutely need to do. And being involved just in mutual aid organizations, supporting those that already exist - abortion care funds - supporting those reputable ones that already exist is absolutely necessary. We're gonna have to be here for each other in community like we have not been in a long time, and organizing starts with your neighbors and being there for one another and building that network out. So just there are things that we can do, that we need to do, that we can demand of our legislators that can help protect and fortify abortion rights and access in this state, while we work hard and apply pressure to get them reinstated federally. [00:14:18] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I think also, your point on abortion access right now is really key, because overturning the filibuster and then getting a law and then getting a law that will hold up in court, given this decision, and et cetera, et cetera is a very long process that has many maybes in it. But one thing you can do right now is give money, if you have it, to local abortion funds. And because I was mentioning to you Crystal, before we went on air, that I used to work at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington - we would get a lot of calls from people who were trying to come in from out of state, from Alaska, from Idaho to access abortion because a lot of states that even do technically have access, it is much, much harder to get a later-in-pregnancy abortion. It has been for a long time. So, if you don't have the money early on, if you don't have the access, if you don't have the permission of your parents, all sorts of reasons. And the fact was that people would call and say - can you give me money to get out here? And we didn't do that - we were an advocacy group - so we would refer them to the abortion funds in the state that have very, very limited resources. And so, the way that - there's going to be, there's this notion that there's going to be a flood of abortion refugees to Washington State, and I think that is true - in the same way that New Mexico has become a refuge state for people seeking abortions from Texas. But the fact is that you can't get an abortion out-of-state unless you have the means independently, or you're lucky enough to get funding from an abortion fund that doesn't have enough money for everybody. And so, if you have money, that is a critical place to put it right now. [00:16:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Very well said. Absolutely true. We'll continue to follow this. There is also another piece of legislation that has been introduced, that can be taken up in the special session or soon thereafter, to prevent mergers. We're giving our state's Attorney General the power to deny mergers if it does impact access to abortion and other critical healthcare needs. So there are definitely things that can happen locally, there's pressure that can be applied nationally. This is going to take everybody getting involved, it's gonna take ally organizations signaling that this is critical and an emergency. This is literally a life-or-death situation for some women. And again, this is the beginning. This is the beginning of - we've seen laws in other states forcing, explicitly saying that women must be forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy. That's a death sentence. And just people who have no understanding of what basic biology actually is, and how women's cycles work and can vary - and they vary all the time - and applying and attaching punishments to things that happen naturally and that aren't preventable at all is - it's terrifying as a person needing healthcare. And I just - we have to hold power accountable. This is not a - hopefully they get to it. This is a - they need to get to it and we need to let them know that votes are at stake. [00:17:59] Erica Barnett: And can I just say, just real quickly before we get off this topic, that's great that the Attorney General is now concerned to this extent about the mergers of Catholic hospitals, but this is another thing that abortion rights advocates have been absolutely screaming our heads off about for years and years. And it is frankly infuriating to me to see - great, go for it, by all means, better incredibly late than never, I guess. But this is something that needed to happen 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And again, we were told we're hysterical and there's never gonna really be a problem. And there's always gonna be other options you can choose to go to if you're having, for example, a miscarriage and it's an emergency - you can have the ambulance take you to the hospital that you happen to know will actually let you have a managed miscarriage. And we were just told we were hysterical. And it's so infuriating now - and this is why I can't talk about it, honestly, 'cause as soon as I start going down an avenue, I start getting so mad - but this is one that really does piss me off because this is something that was actionable at the State level years ago and the State took no action. [00:19:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely justifiable point and I will say to those listening, there's - I'm a political consultant, I work for Democrats - but hearing the mantra "Vote Blue, No Matter Who," just "Vote Blue, this is wrong - Vote Blue." Well, we vote blue to prevent things like this from happening. We vote blue and we elect a president and congressional majorities and legislative majorities to ensure that things like this don't happen, so that they take action to prevent things like this from happening, so that they do everything in their power to keep women from losing this right. And everything in their power does include ending the filibuster - that's within their power - and just being in the situation where it's like voting rights, disability rights, women's rights, healthcare just falling at the whim of one or two Congresspeople in a filibuster - when we see more energy being applied to sometimes more progressive people for rocking the boat. Well, yeah, we're gonna rock the boat if this is where the boat is headed - we've gotta turn this thing around and you have to earn the ability to say - we vote for Democrats so that this won't happen. You can't let this happen. You have to fight with everything you have and do everything in your power. They have not done everything in their power, right? So we have to see that - I'm gonna be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, right? I'm going to, but I'm not going to be surprised at low turnout and bad outcomes, if we don't have leaders who are willing to step up and use their power to prevent real, immediate, tangible harm. And in some cases, death, which absolutely will occur, which absolutely will occur. You have to earn this. You have to act. You can't find it easier to give an excuse than to fight to convince people why it's worth taking this vote and taking this fight on. If we spent as much energy collectively making the case for why this needs to happen, instead of coming up with excuses why it can't, and applying pressure - so at least we're doing everything in our power to pressure Joe Manchin to make it happen, in the way that we've seen other people pressured. And not - well, we'll wait for his - when they wanna make life hard for someone, they can. When they want to apply pressure, they can. They choose when to and when not to, and to allow everyone else to experience these consequences while we're watching people in relative comfort not take action, is absolutely infuriating to people being harmed. They're looking at people, they're like - I hear sometimes - well, why aren't we just mad at Republicans? Trust me, we are. But we know who they are. And Democrats are saying that they're people who stand against this and who fight against this, so we're waiting to see the fight. We need to see the fight. We need to see action now. And I am as frustrated as anyone else by not seeing people do everything in their power to help this, because this has such wide-ranging ramifications immediately. There are several states that have trigger laws that make abortion illegal immediately, or sometimes up to a month in these states. But it is coming and we need action, and we should hold people accountable for taking action. I also get furious about this. You can tell I'm a bit frustrated and trying to moderate the emotion but it's infuriating, it's absolutely infuriating. It's something in a long line of things that are infuriating. Just - I'll leave it there. With that said, there are some other things that happened this week that we could talk about, including - Pride is coming up, Pride Parade is coming up this weekend. We're coming back together in person, it's an exciting time for a lot of people. But we've had a conversation here locally that has taken place in a lot of different cities and countries - in should police be allowed to march in Pride? Should they be excluded from Pride? What is happening here? [00:24:33] Erica Barnett: Well, I would say, and perhaps this'll be an odd framing, but I would say that the police department in Seattle has sort of - Pride has asked, the main Pride Parade organizers have asked, have said that they are not, that police officers in uniform are not welcome. The way that I would frame it though, is that the police department then sort of made it into a bigger story than it would've been by issuing a lengthy statement from Police Chief Adrian Diaz, saying that this is unacceptable and almost prejudicial to not allow this. The sort of reasoning, which may be obvious, is that LGBTQ+ rights were were won against the force of the state - Stonewall was a riot sparked by police violence. [00:25:27] Crystal Fincher: Against police brutality. Yeah. [00:25:29] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and so it would be inappropriate for armed police officers to be marching in the parade and sort of giving a rainbow sheen to the police department. And so that's what's happened - this is the, I believe the second year in a row, there's been a clash over this, maybe the third year. No second year, 'cause obviously we had a pandemic. But I think the police are being a little provocative. They are still permitted and there are many LGBTQ+ police officers - and I think that is something that is somewhat getting lost in this debate and something that Diaz did attempt to rather clumsily to point out - but the issue is not whether those officers are themselves individually allowed to participate in the parade. The issue is marching in uniform and sort of saying the police are big supporters of LGBTQ rights, and so I think that is the crux of the issue. And ultimately, Pride can say what they wanna say and they can ban who they wanna ban, and what are the police gonna do - show up unwanted? That just seems that would be an act of provocation that would be absolutely outrageous and a distraction, I think, from the joyfulness and the excitement of Pride weekend. [00:26:54] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely would be, also wouldn't be a surprise to see that happen. But to me it's pretty simple - given the origin of Pride, it absolutely makes sense that you would not want to have armed officers. It was about literally fighting against that, fighting against the harm that it has caused. I think the community being impacted and harmed has the right to dictate their response to that harm. And I - it's one thing if the police want to characterize themselves as wonderful, lots of people wanna characterize themselves as wonderful. But if a person is saying you have harmed me, you've continued to harm me, you've been a harmful force in my community - that's their thing, that's their right, they have experienced that harm. And this is their community celebration. I wouldn't walk into a religious celebration and say - you must allow different people - this is a community that has been harmed, that this celebration came out of fighting to reduce that harm and fighting for themselves and for their survival. And so why are we not centering whatever it is around the concerns and cares of that community and letting this group force themselves, feel entitled to be part of it? It just seems like - they are being provocative. They're also finding time to meet about this and spending a lot of time talking in the media and everything. Where was this time at, when they decided they couldn't investigate sexual assault? [00:28:53] Erica Barnett: Well, I do wanna introduce just a tiny bit of nuance, which is that - that no community is is monolithic and to say that LGBT people have certain political beliefs on - or LGBTQ+ people in the military or in the police force are not real members of that community - I know it's not what you're saying, but there is a slippery slope there. And I do think that it is important to acknowledge that the people who are in SPD, who are members of that community, do exist. They are legitimate members of that community. And I understand some of the hurt that they are feeling as well. And I don't wanna just totally diminish that by saying - cops are bad and they shouldn't be allowed to participate because of the origin of Pride. But I do think, but again, that is a bit of nuance - I think that the mutual provocations here are around this issue of whether they should be able to be essentially marching in formation, in military-style uniforms, in the middle of a Pride Parade. And I think - let's just take that off the table and say that's not gonna happen. And how are we going to invite individual officers, not in uniform, to participate in a celebration of their community - that's a more appropriate question and let's just leave the whole possibility of cops marching in formation out of it. [00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: I would just say two things. One, you're absolutely correct. The community is not a monolith - no community is - and that's evidenced in the variety of Pride celebrations. And we've seen that, and have talked about that in various ways before. But I do think as the organizers of this particular event, if not legally - but certainly seems like they can legally - but just ethically and morally, they get to dictate the terms of participation. And especially if they feel they're centering the safety of the community that they're putting on this event to celebrate. And the other thing I would say is that I don't think it's always so easy to just dismiss the possibility of the police showing up. People have to prepare for that, because they have in other situations and because that can create harm, it can escalate it. So organizers have to think about that, the community needs to plan around that, people who may be impacted by that do have to think about that. And they have to think about that because of provocations that they've seen in other situations. So it's almost a privilege to not be, to be like - ah, don't worry about it. Because you do have to worry about it - and that's the crux of the problem - that is something that is a known possibility. And that, in and of itself, is its own thing that you have to prepare for that's not that pleasant, and have contingency plans for and all of that, because that is a wild card that could happen. Or some escalation happens, right? So it's - I just don't think it's as simple as - ah, let them be nice. They have a - we see the complaints and the reports and the investigations - there is a history in town here of them engaging in harmful ways, and escalating in situations, and inserting themselves into situations, where investigations of them have found that they have escalated situations. So I think they have to think about it, right? But they shouldn't - it would be nice that they didn't have to. At the same time, your point that there are people in the LGBTQ community, in the Seattle Police Department and others, is absolutely true. And - hey, if they wanna have a Cop Pride Parade, where they're marching in uniform, they could absolutely do that. I haven't seen those, but that seems like that would be a great thing for the police department, if they are primarily concerned with supporting their community and their officers, that they could do. And yeah, I think that's the thing, but it'll continue - we'll see how it goes. Also this week, or within the past couple weeks, Mayor Harrell vetoed a plan that would have required Seattle landlords to report the rent they charge. Why did he do that? [00:34:05] Erica Barnett: Well, this is a really interesting bill, which I covered from the beginning back in March when they first started discussing it, because the original purpose of the bill - and it came from Alex Pedersen, one of the more conservative members of the council - the original purpose was to basically get landlords to provide some information about the rents they charge, in order to essentially demonstrate that small landlords are good and need to be preserved. Because the theory, the hypothesis went that they charge lower rents. And so, during the upcoming comprehensive plan - this is really a zoning bill, weirdly enough - during the upcoming comprehensive plan, they could not make changes that would increase density, so as to preserve these small landlords. So it was conceived as a pro-landlord bill. Then it got support from Councilmember Sawant and Tammy Morales on the left, who are eager to get just this information out there, because it's really hard to know when you're renting an apartment, what the average rent is in that area. You can go on all kinds of websites that tell you all different things, you can sort of look and see what else is available in the area, but that doesn't give you a real sense. And so they were like - this is great, we need more information so that renters can have the same kind of information that home buyers do about mortgages and housing costs. So, the mayor, to answer your question, ultimately vetoed it 'cause he said it was too anti-landlord and that it would've been too onerous on landlords, it would've violated their rights by requiring them to reveal so-called proprietary information, i.e. what they were charging in rents. And that it would be unreliable because people, landlords would essentially just choose to opt-out or they would choose to lie. So, a whole bunch of what I would call very unconvincing arguments. I think the real purpose was to protect landlords from having to to reveal something that might ultimately have caused them to have to lower their rent because the rents they're charging are unreasonable, and it also would've increased renter's ability to have some information parity, if no other kind of parity with the landlords that charge them rent. So, it was an anti-renter and a pro-landlord veto in very, very short. [00:36:32] Crystal Fincher: No, I think you summed it up quite well, and in this time where Bruce Harrell loves a dashboard - he talks about data and wanting to get more information. It seems like when there is a widely acknowledged housing affordability crisis that is exacerbating the homelessness crisis, doing everything we can - and the Harrell administration, all of it, all of the plans and all of his announcements have started with we need to gather the data and we'll get a dashboard up and all of that. This seems like a very basic step to do that. Landlords ostensibly advertise their rent when they're doing that anyway, which was one of the very basic things and I think Alex Pedersen - who is one of the more conservative members of the Council - it sounded perfectly reasonable, and he's taking this step to address housing affordability. I love the - funny enough, it comes down to zoning - as a former land use and planning board commissioner - man, everything comes down to zoning. [00:37:40] Erica Barnett: Yep. [00:37:41] Crystal Fincher: But it's - this was so basic and common sense, and it just seems - wow, we ask a lot from homeowners. We actually require homeowners to give a ton of personal, extremely personal information to landlords. We require people getting rental assistance and other assistance to give a ton of extremely personal information over to government entities and man, what a difference when it just comes to asking landlords to report what they're charging - which they have to report already in various formats - just really confounding and seems like a very clear and bold statement about where, who's being centered in this policy. And where, if we're talking about this housing affordability crisis, where help is not likely to come from. And it's just unfortunate 'cause if this is hard, then doing the actual things to increase affordability are a lot harder than this. So it's just troubling that that was a hard thing, when it initially would've been very basic - received a lot of pushback from Sara Nelson on the Council, and it looks like Mayor Harrell wound up feeling very similarly to Councilmember Nelson. [00:39:12] Erica Barnett: Well, it's very interesting that Councilmember Nelson sort of said several times - well, renters can just go and look on Craigslist or whatever - obviously a statement from somebody who hasn't had to rent in a very, very long time. It is so hard to know. It is so hard to even know what the place that you're trying to rent rents for, honestly, because a lot of times it'll be a range, and it'll be five months free or whatever, and then the deposit is huge. So in comparison - you wanna buy a house - you can go see what it's sold for the last five times it sold, you can see what the asking price is, you can see what the adjacent houses sold for - just, there's a tremendous amount of information. And this information, by the way, used to be available - there was a private company that provided it. And that company went out of business and that is what precipitated this legislation. So there's a long precedent of this information actually being available. The fact that it is not available is a new thing, not a longstanding situation. [00:40:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and relevant to so many people in the City - about half of the City's residents are renters. And so this is very meaningful and very impactful for a lot of people in the City. And so we'll see what the next plan is, but action is needed. Housing is so expensive and continues to rise in and around Seattle and the State. So hopefully more action is figured out, or there are questions brought to Bruce Harrell to say - okay, so what is the plan? If we can't gather basic data, what are you going to do to make housing more affordable? Lots of things are on the table, action is needed - what is going to get done? Also - that we see here - is the Social Housing Initiative turned in their signatures. They exceeded the threshold. What happened here? [00:41:19] Erica Barnett: So this is the initiative to create a public development authority which would, and I'm sure your listeners already know this - I'm repeating myself, I'm sure - but basically it would create an authority that could build affordable housing, publicly-owned housing, permanently affordable housing. They turned in, I believe, around 29,000-something signatures, and they did not get as many signatures as they wanted. So when you turn in signatures for an initiative, a lot of them tend to get thrown out because they are illegible, they have addresses outside of Seattle, they're not eligible voters, et cetera. So they had hoped to turn in 35,000, they got around 29,000. And I think it remains to be seen, and they said this week at a press conference that it remains to be seen, whether that's going to end up being enough valid signatures. They do have an opportunity if it's just a few, or a few hundred, short to go out and collect those signatures. They get 20 days to do that, so this very well could be on the ballot in November. They did say that if they don't achieve their goal this time, they're not giving up, they're gonna keep pushing for this social housing measure. So either way, it's not gonna go away, but it could be on the ballot as soon as November. [00:42:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, and the very last thing that we'll cover super quickly - Inslee signaling no interest in suspending Washington's gas tax, as President Biden has signaled a potential easing of the federal gas tax for a period. What is Inslee thinking? [00:43:03] Erica Barnett: Well, I don't know exactly what Inslee's logic is, but my guess is that, in the same way that the the Biden proposal is not certain to lower gas taxes, neither is a local proposal or a state proposal, and you lose a lot of money. The gas tax in Washington State funds transportation projects and primarily, almost exclusively roads. So you can argue over some of those specific roadway expansion projects, but nonetheless it's a blunt instrument to suddenly eliminate a huge tax resource, without any real guarantee that gas companies won't just further increase the prices so that they make even more profit, since in the same way that this is not Biden's fault - Biden does not hold the main levers to actually decrease gas prices substantially, the oil companies do and they're making record profits. So I think that there's probably some caution about that. Are we gonna cut this tax, lose a lot of money, and gain nothing for consumers - that's a real risk. [00:44:11] Crystal Fincher: That is definitely a real risk and Biden is certainly receiving some of that feedback on his proposal. Gas prices are up around the world, the percentage increases that we're seeing in the United States are not close to the highest increases that other people have seen in some other countries. A lot of this is a supply problem, which easing the gas tax does not allow, and in fact it could make the supply problem a little worse if it encourages more people to buy gas. And it does rob folks of revenue, it does allow oil companies to - essentially if they wanted to - just pocket the difference and not pass along this to consumers. We're funneling this through essentially Big Oil, who is not known for being really generous and magnanimous and they like a lot of profit for themselves. And if anything - man, this money could be invested in helping reduce our reliance on this, to build infrastructure that enables more people to safely and efficiently use other methods of travel for short or long trips or commutes or all of the above. It just is - it's something, but sometimes doing something, even though it is something - if it doesn't fix the problem, why do it? And so I actually think Inslee is right on on this, because it's not actually a solution to the problem. With that, we will conclude today's conversation. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 24th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler - who just had a baby! - and assistant producer Shannon Cheng with assistance from Bryce Cannatelli, and our wonderful cohost today is Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett - that's Erica with a "c", and then another "c", Barnett - and on PubliCola.com. And you can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii and all those things. You can find Hacks & Wonks on wherever you get your podcasts - just make sure to subscribe so you get our midweek and our end of week show. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to all of the resources referenced in the show. We will also have abortion fund resources in the show notes also and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Saving local forests, with help from big business

washington local saving delaware big business forests seattle times issaquah

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2022 13:55

Earlier this month, a blockchain company based in Delaware struck the biggest carbon offset deal in history with the city of Issaquah. This kind of deal is a new frontier in both saving local forests and tackling climate change. We talked to Seattle Times environment reporter Lynda Mapes about how this all works back when the state of Washington announced they're getting into this game. Today we're revisiting that episode.

S3E11 - Talking Sue Bird with one Stone

Menschwarmers

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2022 42:46

Basketball legend Sue Bird rocked the sports world last week by announcing her retirement at the end of the 2022 season. One of the most decorated Jewish athletes of all time, the five-time Olympic gold medalist and four-time WNBA champion spent her entire 21-year career with the Seattle Storm. She's the all-time WNBA leader in assists and games started, and ranks in the top 10 for career three-pointers made, steals and points. To discuss the legacy she's leaving behind, we're joined by Larry Stone, a sportswriter with the Seattle Times, who's covered her career for years. Plus, Gabe and Jamie catch up on Jewish sports news, from Lance Stroll's latest race to Mike Jacobs all-star Moritz Seider winning the NHL's rookie of the year award. And Producer Michael pops in to discuss the new Adam Sandler movie Hustle, which is more Jewish than you might think. Read Larry Stone's article, "Sue Bird gets to retire on her terms. But the void she'll leave will be substantial" Credits Menschwarmers is hosted by James Hirsh and Gabe Pulver, and produced and edited by Michael Fraiman. Our intro music is by Coby Lipovitch, and our outro music is "Organ Grinder Swing" by chēēZ π. This show is a member of The CJN Podcast Network. Follow the Menschwarmers on Twitter @menschwarmers or TikTok @menschwarmers. To learn how to support the show by subscribing to this podcast, please watch this video.

tiktok olympic games jewish basketball nhl hustle gabe adam sandler wnba seattle times sue bird seattle storm one stone lance stroll mike jacobs larry stone

BFT SHOW: Mike Vorel, Jordon Schultz

Bald Faced Truth with John Canzano

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2022 137:29

John Canzano talks to the Seattle Times' Mike Vorel about the Huskies' upcoming football season, the state of the Pac-12, and how the Ducks look from an outside perspective. Then Jordon Schultz joins the show share his insight on the re-emerging card collecting hobby. We also play Punch It! Audio, the 5@5, and more! Subscribe NOW to this podcast for more great content. And tune in to the BFT with John Canzano live every weekday from 3-6 p.m. on 750 The Game! Follow @JohnCanzanoBFT on Twitter

game pac ducks schultz huskies seattle times jordon show mike bft john canzano vorel punch it

BFT Interview: Mike Vorel

Bald Faced Truth with John Canzano

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 16:33

John Canzano talks to Mike Vorel of the Seattle Times about the University of Washington's upcoming football season, what he thinks about the state of the Pac-12, and looks at University of Oregon from the outside. Subscribe NOW to this podcast for more great content. And tune in to the BFT with John Canzano live every weekday from 3-6 p.m. on 750 The Game! Follow @JohnCanzanoBFT on Twitter

university game washington oregon pac seattle times bft john canzano vorel

MacVoices #22131 - Jeff Carlson on Computational Photography (2)

MacVoices Video

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 22:59

In the second part of our conversation with Jeff Carlson about his new computational photography column, we take a hard look at some examples that go way beyond just making your photos look good. Jeff also covers some examples of how computational photography can help you do things that you might never be able to do on your own, and why we do't see more computational power built into traditional cameras. (Part 2) This edition of MacVoices is supported by Kolide. Get important, timely, and relevant security recommendations for your Mac, right inside Slack. Try Kolide with all its features on an unlimited number of devices for free for 14 days; no credit card required, at Kolide.com/macvoices. Show Notes: Links: DxO PureRAW 2 Guests: Author and photographer Jeff Carlson (@jeffcarlson, jeff@necoffee.com) is a columnist for the Seattle Times, a contributing editor at TidBITS (tidbits.com), and writes for publications such as Macworld and Photographic Elements Techniques. He is the author of The Connected Apple Family, The iPad for Photographers, Third Edition, iPad & iPhone Video: Film, Edit, and Share the Apple Way, and Take Control of Your Digital Photos on the Mac, among many other books. He believes there's never enough coffee, and does his best to test that theory. You can find him podcasting about photography on both PhotoActive and Photocombobulate. He is also authoring a computational photography column at PopPhoto.com. Support: Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon http://patreon.com/macvoices Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect: Web: http://macvoices.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner http://www.twitter.com/macvoices Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner MacVoices Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/ MacVoices Group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe: Audio in iTunes Video in iTunes Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher: Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

video mac ipads photographers slack take control tidbits seattle times macworld third edition jeff carlson computational photography macvoices photoactive your digital photos macvoices group macvoices page

MacVoices #22131 - Jeff Carlson on Computational Photography (2)

MacVoices Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 23:00

video ai iphone cancer mac ipads photographers raw slack scenes machine learning take control tidbits seattle times lightroom macworld third edition jeff carlson computational photography macvoices photoactive your digital photos macvoices group macvoices page

2022 Episode 26: Traffic Fatalities Report, City Light Rate Increases, Mayor Harrell's First Veto, and More

Seattle News, Views, and Brews

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 29:37

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss how the City's goal of zero fatalities by the year 2030 is heading in the opposite direction, what new rate increases mean for City Light ratepayers, a response to Mayor Harrell's first veto, an approval voting measure, and a three-plus-year stalemate over a repair on 4th Avenue South. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

mayors traffic transportation increases veto harrell seattle times fatalities seattle city council citylight sawant avenue south seattle channel david kroman brian callanan

The Interrupters: St Augustine | Darren Stott | Seattle Revival Center

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 76:44

Title: ST. Augustine Series: The Interrupters Speaker: Darren Stott Date: June 19, 2022 CCLI Church Copyright License #2271707 Darren Stott is a Pastor, Author, Podcaster, Former Radio Host, and Founder of Supernaturalist Ministries. Darren was awarded the Dennis Yarnell Inspiration Award for outstanding contribution to the City of Newcastle in 2016 and has been featured in several prominent publications including The Seattle Times, King 5 News, NPR, Charisma Magazine, Renton Reporter, The Religion News Service, and Evening Magazine. Darren began to flex his ministerial muscles at the age of 27 when he became the Lead Pastor at Seattle Revival Center on Easter of 2009. In 2016 his first book was released, Pattern Interrupt: Dismantle Defeat, Overcome Ordinary, and become a Rumbler. Today, he has helped hundreds of thousands with spiritual and practical guidance through pastoring, public speaking, conferences, consulting, and mentoring. In 2021 Darren released his second book in 2021, Carve: How to Steward and Sustain a Move of God. Darren holds a Bachelor of Arts specializing in Bible & Theology from Global University. By blending his education and many experiences, he has the aptness to help people deconstruct their incorrect framework of God. He engages people in reconstructing a healthy theology and opportunity for divine encounters that lead to personal and spiritual growth. Darren consults with two neighboring cities, and serves on multiple boards for churches, non-profits, and schools. On May 8th, 2021, Darren Stott was installed as President of the global ministry network now known as Renaissance Coalition, an organization established by John G. Lake in South Africa (International Faith Congress) and then incorporated in Spokane, Washington in 1947 by his daughter and son-in-law, Wilford and Gertrude Reidt. The organization exist to birth Kingdom Realities on the Earth through relationships, gatherings, equipping, and empowerment. Darren's greatest joy is his lovely wife, Andrea, and four beautiful kids: Abigail, Peter, Sophia, and Victoria. His call is to catalyze joy in the lives of others. Connect with Darren at www.darrenstott.com or on social media @theDarrenStott.

Somewhere Over The Rainbow | Darren Stott | Seattle Revival Center

america black black lives matter george floyd minneapolis racial reckoning seattle times talk about race ijeoma oluo oluo

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2022 49:50

Title: Somewhere Over The Rainbow Series: (None) Speaker: Darren Stott Date: June 19, 2022 CCLI Church Copyright License #2271707 Darren Stott is a Pastor, Author, Podcaster, Former Radio Host, and Founder of Supernaturalist Ministries. Darren was awarded the Dennis Yarnell Inspiration Award for outstanding contribution to the City of Newcastle in 2016 and has been featured in several prominent publications including The Seattle Times, King 5 News, NPR, Charisma Magazine, Renton Reporter, The Religion News Service, and Evening Magazine. Darren began to flex his ministerial muscles at the age of 27 when he became the Lead Pastor at Seattle Revival Center on Easter of 2009. In 2016 his first book was released, Pattern Interrupt: Dismantle Defeat, Overcome Ordinary, and become a Rumbler. Today, he has helped hundreds of thousands with spiritual and practical guidance through pastoring, public speaking, conferences, consulting, and mentoring. In 2021 Darren released his second book in 2021, Carve: How to Steward and Sustain a Move of God. Darren holds a Bachelor of Arts specializing in Bible & Theology from Global University. By blending his education and many experiences, he has the aptness to help people deconstruct their incorrect framework of God. He engages people in reconstructing a healthy theology and opportunity for divine encounters that lead to personal and spiritual growth. Darren consults with two neighboring cities, and serves on multiple boards for churches, non-profits, and schools. On May 8th, 2021, Darren Stott was installed as President of the global ministry network now known as Renaissance Coalition, an organization established by John G. Lake in South Africa (International Faith Congress) and then incorporated in Spokane, Washington in 1947 by his daughter and son-in-law, Wilford and Gertrude Reidt. The organization exist to birth Kingdom Realities on the Earth through relationships, gatherings, equipping, and empowerment. Darren's greatest joy is his lovely wife, Andrea, and four beautiful kids: Abigail, Peter, Sophia, and Victoria. His call is to catalyze joy in the lives of others. Connect with Darren at www.darrenstott.com or on social media @theDarrenStott.

MacVoices #22130 - Jeff Carlson on Computational Photography (1)

MacVoices Video

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2022 32:19

Jeff Carlson has a new column at PopPhoto where he is covering computational photography. What is there to know beyond the iPhone? Quite a bit, actually. Jeff explains why computational photography is a real thing for not just taking but also editing photos as well as changing photo workflows. He shares some examples of each and explains why this enhances, not detracts from or replaces, your existing photography skills. (Part 1) This edition of MacVoices is supported by Kolide. Get important, timely, and relevant security recommendations for your Mac, right inside Slack. Try Kolide with all its features on an unlimited number of devices for free for 14 days; no credit card required, at Kolide.com/macvoices. Show Notes: Links: DxO PureRAW 2 Guests: Author and photographer Jeff Carlson (@jeffcarlson, jeff@necoffee.com) is a columnist for the Seattle Times, a contributing editor at TidBITS (tidbits.com), and writes for publications such as Macworld and Photographic Elements Techniques. He is the author of The Connected Apple Family, The iPad for Photographers, Third Edition, iPad & iPhone Video: Film, Edit, and Share the Apple Way, and Take Control of Your Digital Photos on the Mac, among many other books. He believes there's never enough coffee, and does his best to test that theory. You can find him podcasting about photography on both PhotoActive and Photocombobulate. He is also authoring a computational photography column at PopPhoto.com. Support: Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon http://patreon.com/macvoices Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect: Web: http://macvoices.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner http://www.twitter.com/macvoices Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner MacVoices Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/ MacVoices Group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe: Audio in iTunes Video in iTunes Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher: Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

video iphone mac ipads photographers slack take control tidbits seattle times macworld third edition jeff carlson computational photography macvoices photoactive your digital photos macvoices group macvoices page

MacVoices #22130 - Jeff Carlson on Computational Photography (1)

MacVoices Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2022 32:20

video ai iphone mac ipads photographers raw slack machine learning take control tidbits seattle times lightroom macworld third edition jeff carlson computational photography macvoices photoactive your digital photos macvoices group macvoices page

Ijeoma Oluo on the State of America's Racial Reckoning

Crosscut Talks

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 20, 2022 46:45

The author of So You Want to Talk About Race discusses how the conversation around race has evolved since the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in the spring of 2020 fueled a nationwide conversation about race. It drew hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets, elicited commitments from businesses to do better when it comes to equity and sent books that tangled with systemic racism, white supremacy and the experience being Black in America up the bestseller lists. But two years on, where has all that conversation and commitment led us? And where do we go from here? That is the topic of this episode of the Crosscut Talks podcast, which features a conversation with author Ijeoma Oluo, whose book So You Want to Talk About Race was central to many of the conversations happening in 2020. In this talk with Seattle Times journalist Naomi Ishisaka, which took place in early May as part of the Crosscut Festival, Oluo offers a clear-eyed appraisal of the state of race in the country right now. Her assessment may not come as a surprise to anyone who has been tracking the faltering efforts to rethink policing in America, the continued inequities in our health care system or the backlash against educators who acknowledge the role that white supremacy plays in our history and culture. But, in addition to seeing things as they are, Oluo also shares what she believes it would take for them to truly change in a meaningful way. Credits Host: Mark Baumgarten Producer: Sara Bernard Event producers: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Engineers: Resti Bagcal, Viktoria Ralph

Author Lynda V. Mapes on Saving Salmon and the Southern Resident Orcas

Skaana | Orcas and Oceans Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 19, 2022 73:34

Seattle Times (@seattletimes) environment reporter Lynda V Mapes (@LyndaVMapes) on dams versus salmon, saving the southern resident orcas and how Tahlequah changed the world. "All the things we do for our comfort, convenience and commerce are not good for the southern residents. And that's just fact."

saving salmon seattle times tahlequah southern resident orcas lynda v mapes

Spouting Off, June 17, 2022

Spouting Off with Karen Kataline

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2022 53:50

Spouting Off with Karen Kataline and guests Dave Workman and Dr. Naomi Wolfe Guest #1: Dave Workman Dave Workman is an award-winning career journalist and senior editor of [TheGunMag.com] He writes for Liberty Park Press, Conservative Firing Line, and is communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He has authored Op-Ed pieces in several major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Seattle Times, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and co-authored seven books with Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb. Workman's beat is firearms, from politics to the outdoors. He is widely considered an authority on firearms, concealed carry, and gun politics. Guest #2: Dr. Naomi Wolf Naomi Wolf is one of the world's most influential feminists, Dr. Naomi Wolf doesn't just comment on the world's most pervasive problems, she aims to solve them. Dr. Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist and professor. She is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford. She is co-founder and CEO of DailyClout.io, a successful civic tech company. Wolf has written eight bestselling works of nonfiction, including The Beauty Myth, Give Me Liberty and The End of America **and author of upcoming book: The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, Covid-19 and the War Against the Human.**

Week In Review: June 17, 2022

Town Hall Seattle Arts & Culture Series

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2022 54:33

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by former Seattle mayor and current Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. The show starts with a plug for the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF) graduation party in Seattle this Saturday, 6/18, to celebrate its Class of 2022 completing a program focused on recruiting, training, and promoting the next generation of Democratic civic leaders, and extends an invite to others interested in the program Crystal credits with starting her political career. On the topic of civic leadership, Mike and Crystal note that primary ballots are a month out from arriving in mailboxes and discuss what they each look for in a candidate: where they lie on the urban vs suburban spectrum, whether they hedge or make strong statements on policy, how they demonstrate living the values they espouse, what kind of campaign they run, and a demonstration of being strong in tough scenarios before they are elected. The two then wrap up with a look at the opportunity voters have on the November ballot to make changes to future elections with Seattle set to vote on approval voting and King County Council moving a ballot measure on even-year elections forward. 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, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources Institute for a Democratic Future: https://democraticfuture.org/ IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://www.facebook.com/events/677339030035686 RSVP for IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://secure.anedot.com/idf/graduation “What's The Difference Between Candidates in the 36th Legislative District?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/17/75176294/whats-the-difference-between-candidates-in-the-36th-legislative-district “Voters Could Change How And When We Vote This November” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/15/75135178/voters-could-change-how-and-when-we-vote-this-november “Election Nerds Feud Over Whether or Not Approval Voting Violates Voting Rights” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/01/67571578/election-nerds-feud-over-whether-or-not-approval-voting-violates-voting-rights @GirmayZahilay - Twitter thread on even year vs odd year elections: https://twitter.com/GirmayZahilay/status/1537124459080929280 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. Today, we are 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, super popular cohost, activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle and Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. [00:00:57] Mike McGinn: Glad to be here - again - thank you. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Glad you are here - always a fun time when you are here. So I wanted to start off just by mentioning - we've talked about the Institute for a Democratic Future before, which is pretty much responsible for my political career and the careers of so many people in politics and policy in Washington State and DC. This year's class is actually graduating tomorrow - super proud of all of them. That is actually a public event that people can attend - tickets are on sale and you can attend, so if you're free Saturday, June 18th, in the evening - check out the Institute for a Democratic Future website for tickets - democraticfuture.org. We'll also put a link in the show notes and it'll be available on the website - or just hit me up on Twitter, whatever - would love to see you there, meet some of you. I'll be there. Look forward to that and seeing this current class graduate and a great opportunity just to learn more about the program - see if you might be interested in doing it. Also, ballots arrive in a month for the primary election. Things are coming in quick, time evaporates really quickly. And so lots of people are trying to figure out who's who, what's differentiating the candidates. The Stranger had an article come out this morning talking about - what's the difference between candidates in the 36th? So starting off, Mike, as you evaluate - how do you evaluate how candidates are different, how are you going to be making the decision about how to vote and who to support? How do you go through it? How do you recommend voters go through it? [00:02:48] Mike McGinn: Yeah, now this is such a great question in Seattle elections, right? Because one of the real, and we could carry on about this at length, one of the things about Seattle is - Seattle is, by comparison to national politics, a very progressive place. You find that 90+ percent voted for Biden in this city - I think was the number, if you go back. So it's pretty clear - some people will try to make it "what flavor of progressive are you," but everybody's gonna work to sound like they're progressive. And occasionally we'll see - for some reason, we seem to get this more from the Seattle Times and the more right side of the spectrum - "but they're all really the same, aren't they?" And I'll warn you about something - that that's not always the case, or they try to claim it - that well, one side is more ideological and the other side is more pragmatic or reasonable - something like that. But there is, in fact, a dividing line in Seattle politics that I'd ask people to consider and maybe about where they fit on that dividing line. So nationally, the ends of the spectrum are urban versus rural. In a city like Seattle, I'd suggest to you that it's urban versus suburban and the attitudes that accompany those. Now, of course, Seattle has areas that are suburban in nature - single-family homes on nice, quiet, tree-lined streets and a fair number of the voters come from those precincts. But they have indeed chosen to live in a city, so they're not - there are progressive sensibilities there. And urban is a catchall that could cover a lot of things. But let me see if I can dig into this just a little bit. Housing and zoning - a suburban approach would be single-family houses are great, an urban approach would be we should have lots of different kinds of housing. Policing - a suburban approach might be how do we keep bad people out of the neighborhood and how do we patrol the neighborhood to prevent folks from getting here. And a more urban approach might be - well, bad things are gonna happen. How do we make sure that the police can work effectively with the community and treat 'em fairly? So you see an urban versus suburban divide there. Homelessness - suburban mentality is can we give them a bus ticket to the city - this is an overstatement. An urban mentality is - well, we're gonna have homeless people, what are we gonna do? So I think on every issue that we look at - where do they fit on that spectrum is a way to look at it. And candidates - we already saw it in that article you showed about the 36th - what would you do about single-family zoning - a couple of whom were hedging, were hesitant. Bruce Harrell, as mayor, when he ran was hesitant - I'm not sure, we shouldn't just rezone the whole City. And then when you look at where they get the votes from, they tend to get the votes from the folks who are more resistant to building more housing and more different types of housing in the exclusive or exclusionary neighborhoods of Seattle. So that would be the first thing I'd look at in candidates - is where do they fit on that divide, and how to ask some hard questions to get at it. Like really pin 'em down - 'cause everybody's for more housing, everybody's for affordable housing - but would you upzone single-family neighborhoods is a hard question. You could ask 'em about what laws they might change in the State Legislature to make it easier to hold police accountable - see where they fall on that. There's a whole bunch of different places you can go to try to pin 'em down on something. So that's my first cut. I have a second cut on that, but Nicole - not Nicole - Crystal! I know you have answers to that one. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: That's so funny - you called me Nicole. My name is Nicole, but yes - [00:06:56] Mike McGinn: Is it really? [00:06:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, my family's called me Nicole my entire life - that's my middle name. So yes, lots of people call me Nicole. I don't know if you heard someone call me that, but anyway - [00:07:05] Mike McGinn: No, I think it's just that Nicole - it's been on my brain from prior discussions. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: Anyway, I think that's good - certainly, housing affordability, the approach to getting people housed - basically, whether you're looking to take a housing first approach and house people primarily. Or if people think the problem is visible homelessness - always a red flag to me when I hear people characterize the problem as visible homelessness - the visible is not the problem, the homelessness is the problem. And a lot of times the characterization of visible homelessness positions people who witness homelessness, or have to see it, as the victims - are somehow harmed - when clearly the harm is absolutely being done mainly to the person who doesn't have a house and who is out there in the elements with no shelter, much more likely to be a victim of crime than most other people in the community. And so that's always something to me. And are we okay with sweeping, even if we don't have shelter available. Or is it - hey, we need to find places for people to stay, we need to create places for people to stay. Are we satisfied with shelter, congregate shelter, which we now have so much data showing that it's really counterproductive in some situations - absolutely as emergency shelter, and some situations better than being on the street and some situations it's actually not. So are we providing people with rooms with a bathroom, a door that locks - somewhere where people can stabilize. Just especially in these Seattle elections - where they are D versus D races - we can have a lot richer conversations. And frankly, be pickier about who we decide to support. This is not a situation where the choice is between a Democrat and a Republican who is denying the 2020 election, who doesn't prioritize democracy and one person, one vote, who wants to end abortion protections, and all of that - where it's almost a - it's a harm reduction approach at minimum to vote for a Democrat, but the consequence is horrible. So you stop quibbling on issues and policy and we're talking really broad strokes. That's not the case in Seattle. You can make a choice for a progressive person or someone who is aligned with you on policy. There isn't something as - well, we don't know if we can elect a progressive in Seattle. We absolutely can. People can make that choice. And so one, drilling down further to see - are people hedging? Are they willing to answer strongly? Are people trying to not take a position? Are they saying - this is where I am, and trying to make the case for bringing other people along with them. I think that's a big thing. Another thing I would say is - working in politics for a while - campaigns are actually horrible job interviews for governing. The skills and the stuff that you use on a campaign - lots of them do not translate to governing, and it's just so interesting that we go about things like this. There's a saying that - Hey, we have the worst system except for all the other ones. Who knows, but I do think that there - one thing that I've seen that has been a consistent transfer is, what are the decisions that people make in their campaigns? How are they choosing - they may not have been in a situation where they were in control of a budget before. They may not have been in a situation where they were making hiring decisions and staffing decisions. Well, now that they are - what are they doing? Are they making decisions in alignment with their values and how they're talking? Are they working with people who are aligned with them, or who are aligned with folks who are doing things very different than what they say they anticipate doing? How are they living their values in this situation, in a campaign, where they are the ones making the calls and making the decisions? How are they using their resources? Just things like that are - you can see how someone is processing information. You can see - hey, you talk about workers - are you paying your campaign staff? Everyone has volunteers, but your campaign manager, other people involved - do you have a diverse staff? Lots of people have pictures with lots of diverse people in them. Who are the people that they're paying. It is a question - [00:12:17] Mike McGinn: That's such a great observation. Everybody's got the right pictures. [00:12:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. How are they investing their resources? And that, to me, consistently translates into the decisions that they make when they're elected and how they choose to allocate resources. And so look at their campaigns, see what they're doing, what kinds of decisions they're making, who they're hiring. I think who you hire, a lot of times, speaks a lot more than who you work for. Lots of times people are trying to pay their bills, all that kind of stuff. So - hey, I work for - people, I certainly have lots of issues with Amazon, but am I gonna take issue with someone who works for Amazon? Absolutely not. It's hard to pay bills, it's hard to find a job that - so do that, but once you're doing the hiring, that's a different story. Who are you choosing? How are you going about that? How are you living your values? What have you done that gets away from the rhetoric and more to - are you walking your talk? That is how I look to candidates and campaigns and decisions. I'm looking - this is me, obviously - I'm looking at PDC expense reports to see who they're working with, to see how they're being a steward of the resources in their control. So that would be my recommendation - look and see how they're living the values that they say they're living. That's a good indication of what they're gonna do when they're elected. [00:13:56] Mike McGinn: Those are all great points. So let me see, I'll come around for my second cut and I'll hit some of the ones you hit too. How they run their campaign - are they - is it a top-down campaign which is money and some consultants, or are they really showing the ability to engage and draw volunteers? 'Cause that gives you a sense of how they will operate in office - who's part of their coalition. That's - I think the next one is endorsements matter and they don't matter. I wouldn't - a lot of the endorsing organizations may be trying to figure out who's gonna win as well as their values. But if you look at their money and everybody's gonna have some - everyone's gonna have a mix of checks, but where's the weight of the money coming from? 'Cause the reality is most people, once elected, are gonna serve the base that got them elected. So where's the political base as can be told from looking at all of the data around endorsements and dollars and then again, how they're running the campaign. So does it appear to be a campaign that's built upon a broad coalition of community members volunteering, or is it being financed by certain industries or sectors of the economy? That'll tell you who they'll speak to. So that's worth looking at. Your comments reminded me of two other things. One question I asked, and this is now coming from a Sierra Club background and we interviewed people for endorsements. And again, everybody came in, everybody knew what the right answer was for Seattle politics, and people would hedge a little bit - but this is expanding on one of the things Crystal said. And by the way, your LinkedIn is Crystal Nicole Fincher, so I - [00:15:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I usually put all three names. [00:15:53] Mike McGinn: Nicole is there in a lot of places, so maybe that was there, maybe it was there in my head somewhere. The question is - I would ask - tell me about a time you did something for the environment. Not what's your position on clean air, or what's your position on walking and biking - but tell me about a time you took action because you cared about the environment. And some people have great answers and some people have no answers - and if the answer is, well, I recycle regularly - well, so that's Seattle, right? But if your answer was - oh, I took a summer to volunteer at an animal rescue center or something - okay, this person in their heart really feels something about the world around them. And you could ask that in any number of contexts - tell me a time when you acted on this impulse. The other question I love to ask people and - 'cause people still come to me and ask me for endorsements - and I say, tell me about a time you did something in your life or career that was hard and maybe even unpopular - the time that you had to have some guts and courage. And the reason is 'cause if you don't show guts or courage before you take office, you are not gonna show it once you take office. [00:17:13] Crystal Fincher: That is the truth. [00:17:15] Mike McGinn: This is - yeah, because the dynamic, once you're in office, is really pushing you to not take chances, to go with the flow, to not stand out too much - it's the safer place to be. And those forces only get harder and harder, which is why you end up with elected officials who just - you feel like after a few terms, they don't really seem to be doing anything anymore because it's been taken out - [00:17:43] Crystal Fincher: Ground out of them? [00:17:44] Mike McGinn: Ground out of them, man - it's like a tea bag that's been dipped into the hot water too many times - there's just not much flavor left after they're in for a long time. So that's my thing - tell me about a time you did something hard, unpopular, tough, but you did it anyway. And why you did it 'cause you do want somebody who's gonna be willing to step up on a hard issue and take a chance. My 2 cents - when we're looking at the challenges we face, incremental changes to the status quo in the face of all the challenges we face - you'd like to see people step up and do something hard and take a risk politically for the right thing. And that's what I'd like to see in a candidate too. [00:18:27] Crystal Fincher: That's so good. That's absolutely true. I definitely tell candidates and have conversations with lots of people. To your point, it gets harder after you get elected. There's pressure on candidates sometimes to - well, don't offend these people, you might lose this, don't say this, don't say that don't. And the mindset is almost - well, if I just get elected - I just need to get elected and then I can really do the thing I really wanna do. It does not work like that - it gets harder - the stakes are higher, actually. And so you have to be willing to stand by what you believe before you're elected. If, when it comes down to a negotiation and you're going back and forth on - and we're talking about legislative races - with your colleagues on - well, we can keep this in, I'll agree to keep this in if you take that out. What are the things that aren't going to be compromised on, what are the things that you know you can count on them to say I'm a No vote without this. And that's a big deal. The other thing that I think is really useful and that candidates have to do - they have to be out talking to voters. They have to be out in the community. They have to be knocking on doors. They have to be talking to regular people who are not hacks and wonks, who are not insidery insiders - who are saying this is what I'm dealing with, what are you gonna do about it? And who - you have to talk to them about - I hear you, this is what I think will help - go back and forth, get their feedback on it. Most candidates who are talking to voters regularly - you can tell. And to me, that's the difference between someone who is coming from a philosophical or purely ideological point of view, they may be very online - but you have to engage with your constituents, you have to hear tough feedback, you have to talk to people who are going through rough moments, and you have to see what you can do to help, and explain to them and bring them along with you. You have to actually build a coalition to govern. You have to bring people along to your side. If you want to change policy, you're going to have to change people's minds. And if you don't have practice doing that, if that's not a habit of yours, then it's not gonna happen after you get elected. The pressures to do that lessen after you get elected - schedules get busier. You have to prioritize engaging with people in your district from all different backgrounds, all different walks of life, viewpoints. And if you aren't comfortable with that, if you haven't done that in all of those situations - it does not serve you well as a candidate or as someone who's elected. [00:21:33] Mike McGinn: It's super hard as a candidate too, 'cause candidates - new candidates, in particular, and I'll toss myself - I was pretty engaged in civic affairs before I ran for mayor, but there were still big chunks of issue areas that I was not terribly sophisticated in my thinking on. And so I may have been better than your average new candidate in some areas, but compared to somebody who'd been in office - and so this is one of the traits you see of someone who's been in office for a while - they've got their talking points on every issue, they know where the safe space is on each one. So there's this learning process that occurs when you're running as well. And going back to your point about talking to people, you're not gonna learn if you're not talking to people. So I do like to see that too. It's funny - we're talking about somebody who can hold their principles, but you also want somebody who can be educated by the people they speak to and begin to understand the complexities of the issues. But also understand what really matters to people, and your point is really a strong one. And then be able to say, 'cause if you're running, you're saying you're the best person for the job. If you don't think you're the best person for the job, you shouldn't be in the race. Well, if you think you're the best person for the job, you're gonna have to start challenging yourself to answer the questions in a way that demonstrates that you're capable of making some forward progress on that issue. And I hold new candidates, at the beginning of that race, to a pretty low bar - because they're learning and you're allowed to say - well, I'm learning more about the - I don't recommend any candidates say that in any endorsing interview or to anybody - when you run, you're supposed to have all the answers. It's terrible. And then when you're elected, you're supposed to listen to everybody 'cause you shouldn't have all the answers. So that's another dynamic of running and winning. But when you're running, it is okay to keep learning and I see candidates learn and progress. So that's the other thing I look for in a candidate - just is, are they - what their ability to take up issues, identify, and attach a philosophy to it, and actually start making real recommendations, as opposed to simply talking points. And by talking points, I mean - one of the things to look for is - when you're talking to a candidate, are they just giving you value statements? "Affordable housing is really important. We need to care for every person in our community that's homeless." That's a value statement and it's good - I'm glad to hear people's values - but somebody can say, "We need to fight crime and we need to hold the police accountable." Okay, what's your plan? What's your plan to hold police accountable? How far would you be willing to go, or how far is too far for you as a candidate, and what do you think should be done differently to fight crime? What would you support? So, in a way it's the actual taking a position on an issue. And I also get super suspicious of candidates who don't take a position - who wanna, and I recommend this to candidates too - the way I phrase it now is, if you win votes, sometimes you have to lose votes. If somebody is afraid of losing a vote in the way they talk to you - it's in a way - it's a little bit taking the voter for granted if you're just trying to tell everybody what they want to hear and never take a hard position. Voters can - and I experienced this as a candidate and as a mayor - people will sometimes, people can disagree with you on things and still vote for you. If they like what you say on other issues, or if they like your approach, or if they just think you're coming from the right place, they're gonna work hard to get the right answer even if they don't like your answer then. So don't get hung up on - take a position, particularly on the things that really matter to the voters, so that you can give them some direction. There is a candidate - this is the thing, though - there is a candidate that can get through without taking positions. And this is why I think voters should be suspicious of those candidates. Those candidates can get through without taking a position, 'cause often they're the anointed candidate in the race. Races tend to end up with only one anointed candidate - that's why they're anointed - sometimes you see multiple people fighting for it. And the anointed candidate is the candidate who's wrapping up all the endorsements from the political insiders and the interest groups and the campaign funders. And with those dollars, and then usually with the support of the Seattle Times - in those races, everybody will say what a wonderful person this candidate is. And they will reflect on that person's personal characteristics. And their goal, their way of getting through the campaign is to present themselves to the world as - well, I'm clearly the best person for the job, look at my resume and my wonderful personality. And they don't wanna take a position, 'cause they're gonna count on that to get 'em over the top. The problem with that candidate is they are so beholden to the interests that helped elect them, that they'll never take a hard stance. Now, if you're not the anointed - a lot of candidates make the mistake, then, of trying to be the anointed candidate - getting all the endorsements and not taking a position, 'cause they look at that candidate and they go - so many of those candidates succeed, that's my path too. But there can only be one of them in a race. So what I'd be looking for in a race is who's somebody who's running on something. This is my personal experience, this is my lived experience, these are the things I've thrown myself into, this is the thing I wanna change in the world. Let me tell you how I'm gonna change it. And then evaluate - are they working on the right thing? Does their plan have a good likelihood of success? And that person at least will be willing to take some risks on change. If you want the status quo, elect the anointed candidate. If you think there are problems and unique change, look for the candidate who's willing to take some risks and potentially lose some votes, but hopefully they're gonna win votes because - hopefully the City believes that there are problems that need to be solved and we should elect problem solvers and not defenders of the status quo. [00:27:58] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. Take a stance. You have to know where people stand - your point about value statements, it's so interesting being in a lot of situations where I'm watching how people and audiences react to things or - hey, this person said "Housing is a human right." I believe housing is a human right. Okay, done. And it's like okay, but have they explained how they're going to house people, what they're willing to do and what they're willing to not do, what their priority is, what they will prioritize funding? What are the details of that? What will you actually do? And there also is sometimes a plague of people, a type of candidate, whose priority is to get elected and who doesn't necessarily understand the type of office that they're running for. 'Cause running - what you can do as a legislator is very different than what you can do as a King County Councilmember or Port Commissioner, it's different than a city councilmember or a mayor - those are all very different things, very different jurisdictions. Your levers of power, your tools of change are very different. So do you understand the jurisdiction that you're running for? Or are you running for Legislature, like you're a mayor or a city councilmember? Those are very different things. And even the conversation on public safety is very different - and what they can do and how they can engage with that - or homelessness is different based on what you're running for - what you can actually do and what you can't do is different based on the jurisdiction. Has someone even engaged with that yet? Or are they just - this is me, I've always wanted to be elected, this open seat popped up, and so I'm running for it. This is not a commentary on anyone who's running right now. That was an example - I'm not referencing anyone specific, but that is a thing that I see often, that I see every cycle. And it's just - this person wants to be elected, they don't actually wanna make change. [00:30:08] Mike McGinn: So the - yeah, this is - you're reminding me of one of my other favorite sayings - is the candidate - do they wanna be somebody or they wanna do something? And it's a little unfair, 'cause nobody's a 100% one or the other. Like I definitely thought - I was running to do stuff, but it is fun to have people call you mayor, so I'm not immune to that. And I even think the people who I look at and go - oh, they just wanna be somebody, they've just been positioning themselves for the last 15 years to get an elected office, and spent so much time positioning that they haven't actually gotten anything done - they still have a beating heart and there's still things they wanna do. I think it's a mix of both, but where on that spectrum are they - of wanna be somebody or want to do something. And one of the best ways you can tell if they're people who want to do something is the questions we asked earlier - have they made, have they taken hard choices and taken some hits as a result of it? Have they thrown themselves into a cause to try to make change, even if there was no personal gain attached to it or status attached to it. And those can help answer that question of whether they want to do something or just be somebody. [00:31:22] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Well, this - a lot of times Fridays are Weeks In Review, but we have a unique opportunity here, when we're speaking with Mike McGinn, who has so much experience in activism, as an executive of one of the largest cities in the country. And so I do think this is a helpful conversation, as we're going to begin to hear a lot more from candidates - as candidates are gonna be communicating with voters, and your mailbox is about to fill up, and they're gonna be commercials and videos that you see - all that. But looking beyond that, this is always such an interesting conversation. As a political consultant, I'm involved in doing all of that - to be clear - but if you actually do care about this stuff, you actually want it to be with good people. I'm extremely picky about who I work with for that reason, this cycle I'm working with one person - working for other causes and in support of things, but when it comes to working with a candidate, I want a candidate that I know is in it to create change, has a history of walking their talk, is doing those things. And so - I'm working with Melissa Taylor in the 46th legislative district - there are lots of great candidates everywhere. I also still volunteer for candidates, because it's important who we elect to do that. And it is heartening - I see so many leaders who pass progressive policy, which is a distinction from people who just label themselves as progressive. That's more of a verb - it should be a verb - but it actually matters who we elect and we do have the opportunity in Seattle to not settle because we're scared of how horrific the opponent can be. We have better choices, so let's not settle for the status quo in so many situations - let's move forward, but do it in a way that just applies a little bit more discernment. And I appreciate having this conversation with you, 'cause I think it's really hard for people to figure out how to make this decision. [00:33:41] Mike McGinn: This will be the final point on this that I'll make, which is - I worked on endorsements within the Sierra Club for 10 years or so, I'm asked for my personal endorsement, I've run for office, gone through everyone else's endorsement processes multiple times. But let me just say - in doing endorsements for the Sierra Club, we got tricked more than once. It's hard. Somebody came in, they said all the right things, they seem to be the right person - but then, and it's really hard in this progressive versus progressive space, and then they get into office and you discover that they're not really with you. And it happens. And so, if you're trying to figure it out, and you find it hard, and you make a mistake, you're not - I can assure you - you're not alone here on this. So we're just trying to give you the best tools we can give you to make what can often be a very hard choice. [00:34:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is - I get it - it's actually a big reason why I do this show - to try and - I've seen people in the candidate stage, I've seen 'em in policy, I've seen the intentions of policy and things that seem good and things that I thought were good. And then seeing, time after time, it go through the legislative process and how it ends up. Or, hey, this type of person or this type of profile does well in an election, and this is how it usually turns out when they govern. And you just start to see the patterns. I think it's hard, if you aren't watching this all the time, to pick up on those patterns. And I think that is helpful in trying to determine who actually does - who actually can make change. And a lot of things go into that - having the right principles, but also understanding how to work productively with your colleagues - balancing that line between yeah, absolutely standing by your principles and listening - and that helping to develop your policy. And testing what you're saying - yeah, this is what I believe - and if you encounter something that challenges that, you have to contend with that, you can't just ignore it - does that mean that your policy needs some tweaking or something - all those things. I just hope to contribute to that conversation, to contribute to help people figure out - what's happening, why it's happening, and what they can do about it - who they can vote for to do something about it. But I really appreciate having this conversation. I'm fine with this being this conversation instead of a Week In Review, because hopefully - and there's just tons of news and sometimes - [00:36:30] Mike McGinn: Well, we gotta bunch of races coming up. Speaking of races, we have different voting methods coming up about or under debate right now. One of the things we've seen is that approval voting will be on the ballot this November. And we also see an effort in King County to move King County elections from odd years to even years, which are big, significant changes. [00:37:01] Crystal Fincher: Big significant changes - we've talked about even year elections, just the difference - King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay tweeted actually this week - just a chart of voter turnout and it just looks - it's high, low, high, low, high, low, high, low - such a stark difference. And it's just even year, odd year, even year, odd year - 53%, 36%, 83%, 54%, 65%, 47%, 84%, 50% - that's the difference between even years and odd year elections. 2021 turnout was 44%, 2020 was 87%. And you're like - okay, well that was a presidential year, maybe that was the reason why it was different. 2019 was 49% - still less than half. 2018 - 76% - every single year - 2017 was 43%, 2016 - 82%. You're, in some years, almost doubling the amount of people who participate in that. To make an argument that we're okay with the amount of people being half that participate in our elections just does not make sense. And in this situation, I think we need to do all we can to help make sure everyone can vote. Speaking as someone who works in politics, you certainly see this yourself. It is tough, especially with how much local media has disappeared, how comparatively thin the resources are stretched now than they were 20 years ago - to just let people know that they're - forget a general election in an odd year - a primary election, it's rough and you basically have to pay to communicate with people and let them know. That's part of what drives up the cost of elections. There is almost no way for you to reach a large chunk of the voters without paying to send the mail, paying to target communication at them - that's the only way to let them know you exist. If you are someone who's a non-incumbent or challenging someone, your biggest opponent isn't your opponent, actually. It's just being known, period. So moving these to even years will just do a lot more and hopefully reduce the amount that needs to be spent on elections 'cause they are too expensive. The race I'm working in has - there's a ton of money in this race, which - okay, this is what it takes to win this race, unfortunately now - congressionally. We need to change the system to get some of the money out of it. And it's a tough go, especially for someone who's standing by their principles, not accepting corporate donations - it's rough to be able to try and afford and do those things. And we need to make it easier for people to get engaged without having to pay so much money to make that happen. [00:40:12] Mike McGinn: Well, if you believe in voter turnout - if you believe democracy is better when more people vote, then conversation should be over for you. But it turns out that there are some people who would prefer that fewer people vote. And so, it was not unanimous on the King County Council. And it goes back to that comment I was making earlier 'cause what we know is - when voter turnout is higher, you tend to have greater, more diverse representation in the voting pool. Similarly, you tend to have more people of lower incomes in the voting pool in high turnout years. More renters, more apartment dwellers, so it's more representative of the population as a whole in high turnout years. And low turnout years are less representative of the population as a whole. It tends to skew older, whiter - which then means also more single-family home ownership. We were talking earlier about the suburban or urban approach to city issues. Well, that's the - this is a difference between a more urban voting bloc, or one that trends towards the more suburban sensibilities about how cities should work. And, it's funny - I've used this line before - we talk about urbanists, but trust me, there are suburbanists in the City of Seattle that run for office and win. And that's challenging when you're trying to make sure you have enough housing for everybody, or that you want progressive policies towards - more progressive policies towards policing and the like. So, there are people who will argue - well, this enables more focus on the races and people can make more informed decisions, but it's a smaller pool of people. So they're really arguing for a smaller, less representative pool of people. And if you wanna put this in a national frame - the people arguing for odd year elections, because it does allow for a greater focus - it has the same effect as people who think the electoral college is good because it gives rural voters more say - without them - it's false to say that the electoral college is meant to protect small states and rural voters. Well, the electoral college has the effect of giving voters from smaller states an undue influence in the course of the country, right? The majority of the country believes certain things and that's not reflected in what the majority of the US Senate is, or what a majority of the electoral vote would count. Same thing happens in local elections held in odd years. The people who participate in the elections and the people who get elected don't actually represent the sentiment of the City as a whole, or the county district that they're running in. So moving to even year elections is just the right thing to do if you believe in democracy. And try to come up with a system to reduce turnout or to favor one population or over another - well, that's pretty anti-democratic, so honestly hope no one would speak up for it, but watch what would happen. I'll make you a bet that if Seattle had the opportunity to do it, state law would have to change. You'd see a whole lot of interests arise to argue that it's wrong, because they're used to helping shape and influence and anoint candidates - we talked about this earlier - their ability to anoint the candidate and push 'em through would be lost in a year in which there was bigger turnout than when holding these in low turnout elections. [00:43:46] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. And especially with the momentum that ranked choice voting, which is not on our ballot in King County, at least this year, but there's a lot of support and momentum for here and across the state. It looks like they've actually seen this coming, that they've seen the momentum behind even year elections, ranked choice voting and have launched a preemptive strike in the form of this approval voting initiative, which will land on ballots in the City of Seattle in November. Now Hannah Krieg wrote a story about this and ran into a signature gatherer who told her - hey, ranked choice voting and approval voting are the same thing. That's not true, they're very different. And there's a reason why some of the folks who are supporting the main organization who's supporting this look like it would - this approval voting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. It's not - hey, this is my first choice, second choice, third choice. So that if your first choice doesn't make it, at least you can get your second choice in. And that makes a lot more sense in crowded primaries. This is - just vote for everyone who you like, just vote for everybody - which, in a situation where money counts, pretty much guarantees that the most well-funded candidates will make it through. And I think people have seen a gathering threat, especially in districted elections, and saying - okay, well, hey, the recall against Sawant didn't work, we're seeing these progressives being elected in all these different areas, let's make sure they get through. I am extremely suspicious of approval voting, especially with some of the misrepresentations that some of the signature gatherers have been making. It just strikes me as a preemptive strike against some of these other measures that do seem to be, that do seem like they'll have the result of increasing the amount of people who are engaged in voting these elections. [00:46:03] Mike McGinn: Well, I may have a slightly different view on this than you. I think that there are people who are totally into what's the best election system, 'cause I've gone down that rabbit hole and people have really strong views about that. I have to say, I think that approval voting has some positives to it, and which are - first of all, I know how I'm going to vote - if I have a clear winner, I'm gonna vote for the person I really like. You only have to vote for one person in approval voting, but boy, I've had races where I would've gladly voted for two or three people and said they're okay, just to show my support for 'em. Particularly they - 'cause here's what we know in Seattle - here's the counterargument for it. And by the way, I like ranked choice voting more than approval voting, but ranked choice voting has to be approved by the State, and it's probably gonna take a few years before we get there in Seattle - and we can always go there. But right now in Seattle, we tend to end up almost exclusively with candidates that are either endorsed by the Seattle Times or The Stranger. So I kinda like the ability of approval voting to get somebody, to give somebody else the possibility to get through. And I can think of races where I would've voted for more than one person in the race, rather than have to pick The Stranger or Seattle - and by the way, I almost, I pick The Stranger - cards on the table - between The Stranger and Seattle Times, I pick The Stranger. But I looked at these other candidates and said - boy, I'd really love one of them to get through, but they just don't really stand a chance. And I think approval voting would lead to The Stranger having to identify more than one candidate. They don't have to - they could, like me, identify one candidate they approve, but they might also be able to identify two or three that they approve. And I think that might yield better outcomes in terms of the candidates we get. [00:48:03] Crystal Fincher: It's an interesting argument. One thing - does approval voting, approval voting, does ranked choice voting need to be approved by the State? I don't think it needs to be approved by the State, does it? There are initiatives on the ballot for ranked choice voting in Clark County and maybe one other county right now. [00:48:24] Mike McGinn: I think counties are different. I think counties are different than cities in what people can do. I think that there's a - and same thing is true of the district election, excuse me, not district elections, odd year versus even year elections. Right now, the voting system for cities - there's a state statute that says what system you must follow, and when you must vote. And I think counties have greater flexibility, for whatever reason, under state law. So you need a law to give cities the authority to choose ranked choice voting and/or move into even years. And there have been efforts to do both in the legislature, both of which I support. [00:49:10] Crystal Fincher: So I just texted someone for clarification, really - the answer given to me via text, we can obviously clarify this at a further time - speaking from a county point of view, for non-charter counties, they can implement it. As you just said, for charter counties need - should be able to implement county-level, or charter counties should be able to implement it. Non-charter counties can't. Cities - question marks. You probably you're - yeah, I guess I didn't realize that. You probably dealt with this. [00:49:48] Mike McGinn: I'm pretty sure of this because I've worked on promoting the state legislation that would give authority for this. [00:49:54] Crystal Fincher: So how can we get approval voting? [00:49:58] Mike McGinn: Approval voting - just it, that one, I guess, just works differently. It's a good question, but I think it just works differently in the top-two primary system. I don't have legal analysis for you, but I'm sure if somebody did the legal analysis and concluded that it fit under the statutory system in a way that ranked choice voting did not. Yeah. [00:50:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, very interesting. I'm always learning here, I'm learning every week. [00:50:26] Mike McGinn: Oh, I was all ready to collect signatures for moving Seattle elections to even years until I discovered the State prohibition. So Mia Gregerson has legislation in the State Legislature. I actually think that a lot of the organizing that was done around odd year, even year elections has helped influence the County. In fact, when I met with Girmay, when he was running for office, I now recall this - I told Girmay - hey, by the way, win or lose, I hope you could support an effort to move elections to even years. We'll see if Girmay remembers the conversation the same way - that was at The Station up on Beacon Hill, at The Station coffee house. And he said, absolutely, I'd be all in for that. So Girmay, thank you for being - not just saying it, but doing it. So really cool - really cool to see the leadership he's showing on the King County Council. [00:51:25] Crystal Fincher: I would - back to our prior conversation - I would put Girmay in the category of doers. He wants to do something, is not primarily motivated by being someone. So, I appreciate this conversation. Always an interesting conversation with you, former Mayor Mike McGinn, now Executive Director of America Walks - you talked about your Sierra Club days, your City days, just all of it. And just talking about growing over time - look, I'm one of the people who you have convinced on some policies - back when - when you were "Mayor McSchwinn" - [00:52:08] Mike McGinn: Oh my goodness. And I never even owned a Schwinn - why would they say that? Yeah. [00:52:16] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. Yeah, I have certainly learned a lot, continue to learn a lot - but, and it's one of those hallmarks of someone who is willing to engage in conversations. We've had conversations about policy - I'm like, red, and you're like, blue - and it's well, you know what? [00:52:35] Mike McGinn: Well, you've changed my mind, Crystal - [00:52:37] Crystal Fincher: He's making sense. [00:52:37] Mike McGinn: You changed my mind on things too, for what it's worth. You've absolutely changed my mind. [00:52:42] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate all of you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 17th, a month out from when we get our ballots and can start voting in this primary election. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng - Dr. Shannon Cheng is a United States orienteering champion - once again, we've talked about this a little bit before - she is just dominating in every where and every way, and is just extremely amazing and incredible. With assistance from Bryce Cannatelli - also, Bryce is just so great. Bryce is a newer addition to our team here and just oozes competence and is a delight. The Hacks & Wonks team is absolutely a team, I just wanna reinforce that again - you hear my voice most of the time with a guest, but this does not happen without these other people. It would be impossible to get one show a week done, let alone two - the amount of editing, preparation, just everything from soup to nuts - I am eternally grateful to Lisl, Shannon, and Bryce. You can find Mike McGinn on Twitter @mayormcginn, you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks wherever - wherever podcasts are, Hacks & Wonks is. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. 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.

200. Mimi Gardner Gates with Lynda V. Mapes and Catharina Manchanda: The Innovation of the Olympic Sculpture Park

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 16, 2022 78:31

When the Seattle Art Museum opened the Olympic Sculpture Park on the urban waterfront in 2007, it changed the way people could interact with art and experience the city's environment. The fact that it's free and open to everyone makes the park one of the most inclusive places to see art in the Pacific Northwest. The sculpture park contains pieces like Alexander Calder's red sculpture The Eagle, Jaume Plensa's giant head Echo, and Neukom Vivarium, a 60-foot nurse log in a custom-designed greenhouse, among many others. Although many people believe that the greatest work of art at the park is the park itself and the way it connects with its surroundings. Because of the efforts of the Seattle Art Museum and the city, instead of being filled with private condo buildings, this former industrial site has become a welcoming part of the waterfront for the public to enjoy sculptures, activities, and the gorgeous Elliott Bay views. The new book Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park: A Place for Art, Environment, and an Open Mind, pays homage to the interconnected spirit of the park. Mimi Gardner Gates — the director of the Seattle Art Museum (1994–2009) at the time of the Sculpture Park's conception and creation — edited this collection of writings and images about the park and how public-private partnerships can create innovative civic spaces. Other contributors include Barry Bergdoll, Lisa Graziose Corrin, Renée Devine, Mark Dion, Teresita Fernández, Leonard Garfield, Jerry Gorovoy for Louise Bourgeois, Michael A. Manfredi, Lynda V. Mapes, Roy McMakin, Peter Reed, Pedro Reyes, Maggie Walker, and Marion Weiss. Seattle Times journalist Lynda V. Mapes and SAM curator Catharina Manchanda joined Gates in discussion about the remarkable waterfront park and how it might inspire future innovation in civic spaces. Mimi Gardner Gates was director of the Seattle Art Museum for fifteen years and is now director emerita, overseeing the Gardner Center for Asian Art and Ideas. Previously, she spent nineteen years at Yale University Art Gallery, the last seven-and-a-half of those years as director. She is a fellow of the Yale Corporation; Chairman of the Dunhuang Foundation; Chairman of the Blakemore Foundation; a trustee of the San Francisco Asian Art Museum; a trustee of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, and serves on the boards of the Yale University Art Gallery, the Northwest African American Museum, the Terra Foundation, and Copper Canyon Press. Dr. Gates formerly chaired the National Indemnity Program at the National Endowment for the Arts and served on the Getty Leadership Institute Advisory Committee. Lynda V. Mapes is a journalist, author, and close observer of the natural world, and covers natural history, environmental topics, and issues related to Pacific Northwest indigenous cultures for The Seattle Times. Over the course of her career she has won numerous awards, including the international 2019 and 2012 Kavli gold award for science journalism from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest professional science association. She has written six books, including Orca Shared Waters Shared Home, winner of the 2021 National Outdoor Book Award, and Elwha, a River Reborn. Catharina Manchanda joined the Seattle Art Museum as the Jon & Mary Shirley Curator of Modern & Contemporary Art in 2011. Notable exhibitions for SAM include Pop Departures (2014-15), City Dwellers: Contemporary Art from India (2015), Figuring History: Robert Colescott, Kerry James Marshall, Mickalene Thomas (2017), and Frisson: The Richard E. Lang and Jane Lang Davis Collection (2021). Prior to joining SAM, she was the Senior Curator of Exhibitions at the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, Ohio. She has also worked in curatorial positions at the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, St. Louis; the Museum of Modern Art, New York; the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum; and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. She is the recipient of numerous international awards including an Andy Warhol Foundation grant, Getty Library Research grant, and others. Buy the Book: Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park: A Place For Art, Environment, And An Open Mind from University Book Store Presented by Town Hall Seattle. To become a member or make a donation click here.

Leesa Manion, Candidate for King County Prosecuting Attorney

mac photographers tidbits seattle times macos big sur third edition apfs jeff carlson usb4 digital storage macvoices take control books photoactive your digital photos

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 14, 2022 39:32

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Leesa Manion about her campaign for King County Prosecuting Attorney - why she decided to run, her endorsement by outgoing prosecuting attorney Dan Satterberg, and the experience she brings with 15 years as Chief of Staff in the KC Prosecuting Attorney's office. They then discuss the responsibility of the prosecutor's office in building and maintaining relationships with law enforcement partners, the suitability of diversion versus incarceration as paths in the criminal legal system, and what needs to happen to make prison lead to rehabilitation instead of recidivism. The conversation then shifts to how to balance people's concern about public safety with trust issues with law enforcement and the court system, the ethics of when prosecutors should turn over evidence, her decision to not seek police guild endorsements, and how the system can do better in advocating for victims rather than re-traumatizing them. The show wraps up with the importance of prosecutor accountability and what is at stake in her race against a seemingly more hard-line and punitive opponent. 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 Leesa at https://www.facebook.com/leesaforprosecutor. Resources Campaign Website - Leesa Manion: https://leesamanion.com/ “Juvenile division prosecutor defends Restorative Community Pathways” by Henry Stewart-Wood from The Courier-Herald: https://www.courierherald.com/news/king-countys-juvenile-division-prosecutor-defends-restorative-community-pathways “King County to continue new juvenile restorative justice program, despite pushback” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/king-county-to-continue-new-juvenile-restorative-justice-program-despite-pushback/ Investing For No Return - Final Report from King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office Reentry Summit: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/meetingrecords/2013/cbriefing20130225_4a.pdf Seattle Community Court: https://www.seattle.gov/courts/programs-and-services/specialized-courts/seattle-community-court Filing and Disposition Standards - King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor/criminal-overview/fads.aspx “WA prosecutors who withhold evidence rarely face discipline” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/news/2022/04/wa-prosecutors-who-withhold-evidence-rarely-face-discipline 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. I am very happy to welcome to the show today: candidate for King County Prosecuting Attorney, Leesa Manion. Welcome to the program. [00:00:45] Leesa Manion: Well, hello, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me, it's a pleasure to be here. [00:00:50] Crystal Fincher: Pleasure to have you here. So you have decided to run for King County Prosecutor. What made you decide to run now? [00:00:59] Leesa Manion: Well, I'm running because I care so much about the work of the office - I care about its importance, I care about its impact on our communities, and I also care about the women and men who have dedicated their careers to public service and are looking for experienced and proven leadership. [00:01:15] Crystal Fincher: So you talk about proven leadership - our current King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg, is leaving the office, but has endorsed you and has worked with you. Why do you think he has endorsed you and he supports you? [00:01:29] Leesa Manion: I think it is because of my deep level of experience, I think it's because of my proven leadership. I have had a hand in implementing all of the really good reforms that have come out of the office in the past 15+ years that have earned our office a national reputation of being fair, just, and effective. I am definitely a candidate who can hit the ground running - I'm very deep in operations, I also have very deep ties to our community, and I have really good working relationships with our employees in the office. [00:02:01] Crystal Fincher: So you talk about having a hand in a lot of what has gone on over the past 15 years - what has worked well and what hasn't worked well? [00:02:10] Leesa Manion: One thing that I think has worked well are all of the juvenile justice reforms that we've made - I'm really proud of the fact that I am a co-founding partner of Choose 180. And I have to say - at the time, Choose 180 was revolutionary in the sense that it was the first time that the prosecuting attorney's office intentionally shared power with community, and allowed the community's voice to shape justice and to be equal to ours. And it led the way for a lot of really good reforms that followed. So I think diversion works really well - it doesn't mean that it's foolproof. We've definitely had some pilot projects that didn't yield the types of results that we wanted, but we continued to refine our process, we continue to refine partnerships, we continue to decide how to offer services in a way that is fully funded and effective. And in terms of something that hasn't gone well, I would say - everyone has been affected by the pandemic and we, in the prosecuting attorney's office, aren't any different. I think some of our relationships over the course of pandemic have been frayed, I think our relationships with some of our law enforcement partners have been frayed. And if selected, I would be committed to rebuilding those relationships. And it looks something like this - I think that we have to - as an elected, I would have to go to our Police Chiefs and Sheriffs meeting. I've always said to Dan that I thought it was a mistake that he wasn't in the room as an elected. I think, as an elected, you have to be in the room to develop relationships and to be accountable and to build partnerships. So I would be committed to doing that. [00:03:50] Crystal Fincher: So would you say it's the fault of the prosecutor's office, that there is a frayed relationship? [00:03:57] Leesa Manion: I think we definitely play a role in it, and I think we definitely can take a leadership role in rebuilding that relationship. And I've been doing that in my current role. For example, just last week I met with our Kent Police Chief and our Des Moines Police Chief and our juvenile leadership team to talk about some of the juvenile justice reforms that have gone on in recent years. And talk about the new juvenile diversion program, Restorative Community Pathways. And that was a really good conversation because we had an opportunity to share information, to air some frustrations, to clarify some misunderstandings, and to really start to build an open line of communication. And I really think that we have a lot of opportunity to do that with law enforcement throughout King County, but also with community partners. I really think that we in the prosecutor's office can serve as a bridge. [00:04:49] Crystal Fincher: When you talk about that bridge, it seems like there has been some resistance to moving toward diversion, certainly from some entities in law enforcement. We have recently seen an attempt to move some folks away from diversion from the Seattle City Attorney's office. Do you think that there's a possibility that you have of convincing folks like that to move in a different direction and to partner with you in doing that, or do you also see a hesitance? [00:05:25] Leesa Manion: What I see is a request to partner, I see a request for additional information, I see a request to have a seat at the table to help shape what diversion looks like. And I think that sometimes those questions can be mischaracterized or misunderstood as rejection or maybe resistance. But when I met with law enforcement, I found that they were curious. I found that they wanted to ensure that we were working together. I found that they wanted to ensure that there was some accountability, that if we offered diversion and there were individuals who were not successful - because sadly we will have some individuals who are not successful in diversion, what's the backup plan? What is the next step? What does accountability look like? And I think that we can have those conversations and have some agreed standards of conduct, but in order to do that, we really have to have relationships. We really have to start the conversation. We really have to bring people together to work on a common goal. [00:06:29] Crystal Fincher: So when do you think diversion is appropriate, and do you think incarceration is appropriate in the cases when diversion is not? [00:06:39] Leesa Manion: I think diversion is appropriate for low-level offenses. I think that there are individuals, particularly among youth, who make some poor decisions that shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives, that shouldn't define who they are as individuals. And I think that we can offer some services that look like getting to the root cause of poor decision-making, that give them tools, that provide some guided opportunities - maybe job training - a way to redirect behavior into something that's more positive and that also increases pro-social behavior. I think for violent crimes, of course, incarceration is definitely appropriate. I think that most people can agree that homicides and violent assaults and violent sexual assaults are the type of behaviors where we would expect that the individuals are processed through our traditional legal system, and if convicted are isolated away from our community. I think that there are a lot of areas in between where we can talk about what's appropriate for diversion. I think that there are some low-level first-time felony offenses that would be right for diversion as a way to keep people out of the court system and into something that is more effective - whether it's actually more response, not less response than what we're getting through our regular legal court system. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: And one question I have - when we talk about locking people up and putting them away, certainly we need action to make our streets safer - there's a lot going on that is unacceptable and not okay. And it really is helpful to focus on what makes the community safer. So with evidence and research - a large body of research - pretty conclusively pointing towards - when people get out of prison, prison is actually making them more likely to reoffend. If the goal is to prevent people from being victimized, how do you square that with incarcerating people and the approach that we're taking now? [00:08:58] Leesa Manion: Well, I really think we owe it to ourselves to have an honest conversation about prison reform. I am a strong believer in prison reform. I think that we talk a lot about the Department of Corrections being a place of rehabilitation, but we actually do not fund the level of services that are needed to address trauma, to address substance use disorder, to address underlying health conditions, mental health, or behavioral health issues. And until we get honest about that, we won't actually have the results that we want that help people while they are literally a captive audience, have the tools they need to be released better than when they first entered into prison. I think we have to be really honest about the fact that we have, stepping apart from the criminal justice system but through our legislative process, put up a lot of barriers to people who have criminal convictions or former contact with the criminal justice system. And if we expect people, because we say this a lot - you have served your time - then we have to be honest about the fact that they've served their time, they've paid their debt to society. And not continue to ask them to pay in all kinds of ways that are hidden - that prevent people from getting housing, jobs, access to student loans and education. [00:10:18] Crystal Fincher: I think that's an excellent point. And given that, I'm wondering - they seem to be not the only ones who are paying, that the community is also paying because they - a lot of people coming out of prison and prison itself makes people more likely to reoffend. So until we have those kinds of supports in place that are consistent with people committing less crime, not victimizing people - does it make sense to put people into a system that is creating victims? [00:10:55] Leesa Manion: Well, I think it only makes sense if we're willing to make the investments to get the returns that we want. I do think that when people commit violent crime, I do think that our community is asking for safety. I think our community is asking that certain individuals be isolated until they have, to be quite frank, have been held accountable - and sometimes that means punishment or rehabilitated. And in order to have rehabilitation, we have to have services. There are on average 8,000 women and men released from Washington State prisons every year back into our community - and unless we equip those individuals with the tools they need to be successful, they will go back to committing crime to survive - out of trauma, out of poor decision-making, out of criminogenic both behaviors and maybe patterns. And as a result, we are creating future victims of crime. So if we want to reduce crime and reduce victimization, we have to make the investment in prison reform and in re-entry. [00:12:04] Crystal Fincher: Can you impact that investment from your office? [00:12:08] Leesa Manion: I was really proud to be one of the key stakeholders behind the scenes in our 2012 conversation around re-entry. Dan Satterberg was the name on the door and the elected official who got people into the room, but I was the person who was helping behind the scenes, put all of those reforms into place to help create our report "Investing for No Return," shopping it with lawmakers and legislators, convening voices to weigh in on recommendations. I was meeting with the Black Prisoners' Caucus at Monroe and solicited from them an unedited chapter into the report, because the men and women who are leaving prison are the experts on re-entry and the barriers that they face. So I think I could, as an elected official, continue that conversation. And one thing about being an elected official is that your voice is given a megaphone and you have the power to convene, and convene really important and necessary conversations. [00:13:12] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree those conversations are absolutely necessary and it is really important to include the voices, as you have, of people who have been incarcerated or are currently incarcerated. I guess my question is - we seem to be in complete agreement and I think most of the community probably agrees - that the current system is broken and we are in desperate need of reform. Until it's reformed, and even if we're all pushing for that, does it make sense to keep putting people into that broken system? Is there an alternative that you see, or do you feel that we don't have an alternative? [00:13:49] Leesa Manion: Well, I think diversion, for certain cases, is the alternative that we're all looking for. And connecting young people in particular, or people facing their first offense, into community-based resources - not only is it wise, not only does it help people avoid the criminal justice system and the harmful impacts and collateral consequences of criminal history, I think it's more cost-effective. I think we can also agree that there are certain crimes where, when people are charged and convicted, they are going to go away to prison - and we can still offer services to those individuals. I'm a firm believer that we should be offering services and treatment in our community and our jails and in our prison. [00:14:35] Crystal Fincher: So you talked a little bit about meeting with different departments across the County. You will definitely be working with all of the cities and the counties. How are you going to approach those relationships? And are you asking any of the cities to do anything different than they're doing now? [00:14:56] Leesa Manion: Right now, we are starting a new partnership with the Seattle City Attorney's office. And it's really about how do we share information on individuals who are cycling in and out of our system. And some of that information sharing is how do we best pivot those individuals into services. And then for some who are systematically preying on individuals and small businesses in our communities, how do we trade information so that we can hold that person appropriately accountable? Whether it's with misdemeanor filings or with felony filings. And again, it's because our community is asking for us to take public safety seriously. They're asking us to look at behavior and to make it stop, and they're asking for accountability. And accountability for people who are systematically preying on individuals and communities can look one way, and people who are committing non-violent offenses over and over again, out of mental health disorder, substance use disorder, or to basically survive - that kind of accountability can look different as well. [00:16:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that brings up a question. It seems like the City Attorney, even for people who may not be committing crimes against other people, she's looking to remove them or to eliminate the possibility of diversion for those and move in the opposite direction. Are you aligned with that belief? Do you think that's the right approach? [00:16:27] Leesa Manion: I don't know all of the details of Ann Davison's proposal, but my understanding is that she has it very narrowly drawn - those are individuals who have been referred to the system - I believe it's eight times in a year. That maybe those individuals have been given an opportunity to participate in Community Court, but have committed eight offenses within a short period of time and maybe it's an opportunity to try something different. So I think that having the courage to try something new is something that we should endeavor for. And then we should be willing to pivot if it doesn't yield the results that we want. [00:17:08] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So there have been a wide variety of challenges when it comes to public safety - crime is up, people are very, very concerned - but also people have issues with trust and law enforcement and in the court system. How do you plan to prioritize truth and justice when sometimes there's seemingly a conflict of interest with your relationship with the police? [00:17:41] Leesa Manion: Again, I'm the type of leader - I like to identify common ground and build from there. And I think, when it comes to police, I think that there's so much common ground in terms of police reform. I think we can agree that when we are afraid and we call 911, we want a response. Maybe the response is from a sworn officer, maybe the response is from a social worker, but we all know that we want a response. And I think we can all agree that if we have officers who are abusing their discretion, we want them off the force. We want that, and I think the police want that too. So when I think about building trust, I really think, again, it begins with building relationships. And as I mentioned, I'm hard at work in rebuilding relationships with law enforcement. I presently have very deep ties within our community, and what I'd like to do is take the trust of the community, that they have instilled in me, and be the bridge into convening some conversations with law enforcement. And I also know and recognize that there are law enforcement officers who have really deep ties in the community. And so can we work together to broaden that circle, broaden those partnerships, and build trust together? [00:18:59] Crystal Fincher: There was recently a story in Crosscut by Melissa Santos talking about a challenge and problems with prosecutors sometimes withholding evidence improperly in those situations and that being another issue that is a challenge. It was not about the King County Prosecutor's office, specifically talking about the issue as a whole. Do you see that issue and tension, and how do you approach that? [00:19:29] Leesa Manion: I am really proud of the fact that we have built a model Brady policy. We take that very seriously and we have a conservative filing policy. We endeavor to turn over all evidence as soon as we are able, and I think those practices should continue. One, it's not just about being ethical. It's also about building trust and transparency into our system. And if we aren't transparent, people will never perceive our office as fair. If they don't understand our decision-making, they will never perceive our office as fair. And tying in this issue of fairness and transparency and also talking about trust and our relationship with law enforcement, as a candidate, I have been intentional about not seeking the endorsement of police guilds and it's not because I dislike police, it's because I fought for resources to create a public integrity unit within the office to look at officer-involved shootings and use-of-force cases that are coming to us as a result of I-940. And if I am endorsed by a bunch of police guilds, it doesn't appear to be fair, it doesn't appear to be neutral. And so I just wanted to explain that because it is another action that goes toward trust. And for some people that might seem like a really small thing, but to me it's a really big thing. [00:21:01] Crystal Fincher: Are there any other items like that, or within your office, that you feel you can do to help restore trust in a similar way, and in that same way? Is there anything else that you think would be helpful, or that you have planned, to increase the amount of transparency and trust in the process? [00:21:22] Leesa Manion: I'm currently working with our communications team to create a list of frequently asked questions to put on our website, because there's a lot of confusion about the criminal justice system and the various stakeholders and actors in the justice system. For example, there are a lot of people who are really confused about what's the difference between the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office, the City Attorney's office, the US Attorney's office - and being able to have that information that's readily accessible is super helpful. I'm also a big fan of being really transparent in our decision making. We have long had filing and disposition standards that we share and we share openly, but I think that there are opportunities to invite in media to have them read our FADS, to ask questions. We could do that with community groups as well. I think the more that we can have people understand our work, the more that they will begin to trust the work. [00:22:23] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. That makes sense. Now, a lot of crimes are currently going unreported and victims are hesitant to report - whether it's elder abuse, or intimate partner abuse, sexual abuse - and a lot of people citing that going through the court system and the process of prosecution and investigation is retraumatizing. How would you handle these situations so that further victimization of people, who've already been violated, doesn't happen? [00:22:58] Leesa Manion: I really care about victim services. And one of the things that I've done is I've added 10 victim advocate positions within the office, including some bilingual advocates, because access and representation really matter. I've also secured funding and created a Director of Victim Advocacy. And that's with the sole purpose of really examining and really challenging ourselves within the office of what does it mean to be a victim. And sometimes the victim is someone who is going through the criminal justice system, sometimes it is a person who might have one loved one who's being prosecuted by the system and maybe lost another loved one to gun violence. Sometimes victims don't report crimes because they don't understand the process. Sometimes victims don't report crimes because they don't feel that they have an advocate or someone who will respect their cultural difference and their view of our US justice system. Sometimes people don't report crime because they really want something that's more restorative - they're not looking for retribution, they're looking for explanation and healing. And so I think we have an opportunity to really expand how we provide victim services so that it's more culturally responsive, more inclusive, more understanding - so that we actually have more voices from impacted individuals who help us shape what that looks like. [00:24:24] Crystal Fincher: How would that look different to a victim, or what are you proposing that would look and feel different to someone who has previously been hesitant to come forward or fearful? [00:24:39] Leesa Manion: Well, I think for some individuals, it might be that they need some reassurance that there are not going to be immigration consequences to them reporting their crime. I think for some individuals they're going to need access to an interpreter because language is a barrier. I think for some individuals, they really want to know what's going to happen to the person that they have complaints about. For example, in the realm of domestic violence, I think that there can be some barriers to reporting because maybe the person who's committing the violence is someone who is the father of your children, or it's someone that you care about or love, maybe it's a young person or a sibling or a child. So how can we take this fear - working with communities, because we really have to rely on our communities to help us build those bridges and also to expand the reach of our services. So how can we demystify the process? How can we make it feel more safe? [00:25:38] Crystal Fincher: How do you navigate - you've talked about so many societal challenges, so many challenges from the pandemic. We are dealing with a lack of adequate support in - whether it's substance use disorder, behavioral health, and mental health resources - with that and basically putting people in the criminal legal system, who are suffering from other issues that may prevent them from acting rationally and having a calculation that we may think - okay, I don't want to experience consequences, so I'm not going to do this. Not everyone is in that frame of mind or maybe going through something preventing that. How do you handle, or what is your approach to people who are clearly suffering and the root cause of the issue is a lack of a basic need not being met in a different area? We can put them in jail, we can send them to diversion, but until those needs are met, we're looking at landing in the same place. What do you do in that situation? [00:26:52] Leesa Manion: I think in those situations, we really have to rely on alternatives that are therapeutic. I am a really big supporter of our Drug Court, our Veterans Court, or Mental Health Court. Those are collaborative team models where we have all of the actors - we have the court, we have probation, we have designated crisis responders, we have public defenders, and we have prosecutors - really working together to ensure that the person has access to services, that they have access to housing, that their basic needs are being met, and that they have the supports and the structure they need to be successful. So how can we build more of that? And here's an example of an area that I think I'm curious about and I think it's prime opportunity, but it would require a change in state law - in our Involuntary Treatment Act Court. Right now that's an adversarial model where I have prosecutors representing designated crisis responders and hospitals, trying to get someone committed for services. And on the other side of the table, I have a public defender who is advocating for the release of that individual. And often that leads to nothing and sometimes against the wishes of the family. So if we were able to make that a more therapeutic collaborative model, not only do I think that it would offer better outcomes, we could also use our mental illness, drug dependency tax dollars to support the therapeutic court. So I would really love to work with lawmakers and experts and leaders in this field - to launch that conversation, to see if that's something that we could have happen. [00:28:39] Crystal Fincher: Should we be charging people with crimes related to possession of substances, or is that more appropriately handled in a different way? [00:28:52] Leesa Manion: Well, as you know, because of the Blake decision, the possession of drugs was declared unconstitutional. And in our most recent legislative session, it was re-criminalized for a period of a year, but we have to offer two diversion opportunities. I will be really curious to see what that year experiment reveals, but personally I think those are opportunities for us to try to get to the root cause of behavior. And I don't think there's anything magical about a jail cell or a prison cell - because, as I mentioned earlier in this podcast, there aren't enough services to really adequately address the amount of need that we're seeing behind bars. So how can we, in a more cost-effective way, offer those services in lieu of jail or prison, but still meet the desire for public safety, to still ensure that those individuals are stopping their harmful behavior, to ensure that those individuals are themselves safe and not creating chaos in our communities. [00:30:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Now we have - you talk about being in that conversation about keeping people safe and that being the ultimate goal. Lots of elements in the criminal legal system - you're one of them, you can't control all of them or all of the societal issues that may be contributing to that - but in your role, if you were to be elected as the prosecuting attorney, what changes, could you make that would have the largest impact on preventing people from being victimized? [00:30:41] Leesa Manion: Well, I really think that again goes to the heart of partnership and it really goes to the heart of identifying common ground and building from there. I'm a 'Yes, and...' thinker and that 'Yes, and...' thinking has come to me and been shaped by my lived experience. And I want to share just a little bit of a story and a little bit of my personal story, because it helps explain why I'm a 'Yes, and...' thinker. So I know I've shared with others - I was born in South Korea to a Caucasian father and a Korean mother. And when my father brought us to his home state of Kentucky, my mother was met with discrimination and racism. And when I was about four years old, my dad's mother, my grandmother, got into an argument with my mom - threw her out of the house with only the clothes she was wearing. And my brother and I did not see her again for 25 years. And so, that story and that experience taught me a lot about what happens to someone who was marginalized, who doesn't have a voice, who doesn't have advocacy. It also taught me about forgiveness. My grandmother was someone who advocated for me, she shaped me, she taught me about hard work, she loved me, and she was not the sum of her worst decision. My brother and I grew up in an area where we experienced discrimination and racism - and the disproportionate school discipline, the disproportionate law enforcement contact that so many young men of color experience, my brother experienced too. And when I think about public safety, it means a lot of things to me. It means that we are free of hate crimes that are born out of discrimination. It means that no person is the sum of their worst mistakes. It means that we can offer non-violent young people a second opportunity because sometimes they make really stupid choices. It means that we have to respect that people who live in our community may have experienced law enforcement differently, and we have to build trust, and we have to be able to show that we respect their lived experience before they will come to us with their problems. It also means that we can hold repeat perpetrators accountable, that we can hold violent crime and violent criminals accountable. It means that our victim services have to be responsive. It means that they have to be culturally sensitive. That's a lot of my, 'Yes, and...' So it drives how I approach this work, it drives my desire to create partnerships, it tries my desire to say 'Yes, and...' how can we work together? Yes, we can address the incidents of crime, and we can address the root cause. [00:33:39] Crystal Fincher: Before we go, also wanted to talk about issues of fairness and frustration that people are having in feeling like - hey, if you are rich or if you're powerful, we're watching you get away with stuff that it looks like other people are not. And that there's a disproportionate focus on people who are at the bottom, people who are struggling or poor or marginalized - while watching people in power seemingly skirt laws without people blinking an eyelash, whether it's watching some Seattle Police Department officers vote from an unauthorized address, or watching text messages get deleted, or watching corporations sometimes flaunt the law and victimize their employees. What can you do, or how would you approach fostering a sense of transparency and fairness as to who you seek to intervene with? Whether they're rich or poor or powerful - are you tracking that? What are your plans? What's your general approach to that? [00:34:59] Leesa Manion: It really, at the heart of it, is transparency and accountability. And prosecutor accountability in this sense. So that really means, and it starts with how we bring people into the office - what do our job announcements look like? Who has a seat at the table? What characteristics are we looking at? What barriers would be put away so that more people have an opportunity to join the office and have a seat at the justice table? What values do we reward? When it comes to our decision-making, it's really about being very transparent about the disproportionality that's in the system - being honest about that and not pretending that it doesn't exist. But then also inviting others to the table to help us get to the heart of that, and to be really open about what that conversation looks like, what that type of decision making looks like. And it also involves being willing to change our behavior, being able to change our practice around certain areas, and also being willing to admit - if we make a change and it's not successful, then we have to be willing to pivot and try something different. And not hiding that, but really sharing that with our community, sharing it with our law enforcement stakeholders, sharing it with the court. They're all part of our community and we all have to work together to make this happen. It's too important not to. [00:36:20] Crystal Fincher: It really is. Now you have an opponent who has done some of the things that you haven't been willing to do. He has sought and received endorsements from police unions and from public safety organizations, has taken seemingly a more hard-line and punitive approach - focused a lot on punishment and does not seem to be welcoming diversion to the degree that you do. And just seems to have a completely different perspective. Why, if you're talking to voters, why should they choose you? And what is at stake in this race? [00:37:04] Leesa Manion: I think the thing that is at stake is that we have this opportunity right now to continue to build this justice system that we should all be proud of. Right now, we have earned a national reputation of being fair, just, and effective. But that doesn't mean that we're perfect, it doesn't mean that we don't have work to do, it doesn't mean that everyone trusts us. So we have an opportunity to build trust. I'm someone who's been doing this work for a very long time. I can hit the ground running, I'm a 'Yes, and...' thinker, representation matters - my lived experience matters. If elected, I would be the first woman and the first person of color to hold this seat, and my perspective and my community involvement and the way I build broad coalitions and the way I collaborate matter. And I think that's why people should vote for me because we have this common ground of wanting things to be fair. We want to feel safe where we work, live, and play. We want to be the community that gives young people a second chance. We want to be a community where victims feel safe, and come forward, and report, and ask for help. We want to be a community that is in this together working toward a common goal. [00:38:27] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for spending the time with us today. We will include links to your website for people who are looking for more information and information about your campaign. And just appreciate you taking time to help us get to know you better. [00:38:41] Leesa Manion: Well, thank you so much, Crystal. Thank you for having me - this was a pleasure and it was a great conversation. Thank you so much. [00:38:49] 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 podcasts - just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered 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.

MacVoices #22125: Jeff Carlson Takes Control of Your Digital Storage

MacVoices Video

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 13, 2022 40:11

In his new update to Take Control of Your Digital Storage from Take Control Books, Jeff Carlson adds to our understanding of how our mass storage devices interact and perform with macOS Big Sur, and how that differs from previous versions of the system software. From Thunderbolt 4 and USB4 to managing APFS volumes and questions over the snapshots, a great deal has changed. Jeff helps us understand what changes we need to make. Show Notes: Links: Take Control Books Guests: Author and photographer Jeff Carlson (@jeffcarlson, jeff@necoffee.com) is a columnist for the Seattle Times, a contributing editor at TidBITS (tidbits.com), and writes for publications such as Macworld and Photographic Elements Techniques. He is the author of The Connected Apple Family, The iPad for Photographers, Third Edition, iPad & iPhone Video: Film, Edit, and Share the Apple Way, and Take Control of Your Digital Photos on the Mac, among many other books. He believes there's never enough coffee, and does his best to test that theory. You can find him podcasting about photography on both PhotoActive and Photocombobulate. Support: Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon http://patreon.com/macvoices Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect: Web: http://macvoices.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner http://www.twitter.com/macvoices Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner MacVoices Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/ MacVoices Group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe: Audio in iTunes Video in iTunes Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher: Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

MacVoices #22125: Jeff Carlson Takes Control of Your Digital Storage

MacVoices Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 13, 2022 40:12

mac photographers nas ssd tidbits seattle times macos big sur third edition apfs jeff carlson usb4 digital storage macvoices take control books photoactive your digital photos

Week In Review: June 10, 2022

black washington seattle lawyers roe v wade idaho stranger wa axios week in review seattle times glen morgan sequim jenny durkan

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2022 43:00

On today's Week in Review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times political reporter Jim Brunner. For police news, they first cover an update in the on-going saga of Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer's harassment of a Black newspaper carrier, then they break down the newest revelations in the controversy surrounding the missing text messages between former mayor Jenny Durkan and former Police Chief Carmen Best. In elections news, Crystal and Jim discuss activist Glen Morgan's volunteer group that's going door to door looking for illegal voters, and look at the motivations behind a Sequim lawyer's frivolous election fraud lawsuit. Finally, they explain how the end of Roe v. Wade will have major consequences for abortion access in WA state, even though our state constitution gives us the right to it. 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, Jim Brunner, at @Jim_Brunner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources “Court issues no-contact order against Sheriff Ed Troyer citing unlawful harassment of Black newspaper carrier” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/court-issues-no-contact-order-against-sheriff-ed-troyer-citing-unlawful-harassment-of-black-newspaper-carrier/ “Ex-Seattle Police Chief testifies that she deleted text messages in bulk” by Lewis Kamb from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/08/ex-seattle-police-chief-deleted-text-messages “Lawyer's email told all Seattle police employees to preserve texts” by Lewis Kamb from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/06/09/lawyers-email-seattle-police-employees-preserve-texts “Group doorbells WA homes, searching for illegal voters and drawing complaints” by Jim Brunner and Joseph O'Sullivan from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/group-doorbells-homes-across-washington-searching-for-illegal-voters-and-drawing-complaints/ “WA Attorney General files bar complaint against Sequim layer over ‘frivolous' election fraud case” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-attorney-general-files-bar-complaint-against-sequim-lawyer-over-frivolous-election-fraud-case/ “The Tiny Shelter Monopoly - Residents Want More Options And More Oversight Over Seattle's Preferred Shelter Model” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/07/74780685/the-tiny-shelter-monopoly “End of Roe v. Wade looms large in Idaho, where women are likely to seek abortions in Washington” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/end-of-roe-v-wade-looms-large-in-idaho-where-women-are-likely-to-seek-abortions-in-washington/ Transcript Transcript will be uploaded as soon as possible

Where did all the Uber riders go?

seattle uber lyft riders seattle times

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2022 12:18

People are moving around the city more than any other point since the pandemic started, but apparently those people aren't taking rideshares. Uber and Lyft's business in the Seattle region has cratered. That means a tougher job for people who make their money driving for the companies. Guest: David Kroman, Seattle Times transportation reporter.

Hour 3: Bob Condotta and Pete Woodworth

Bob, Groz and Tom

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 40:39

The Seattle Times' Bob Condotta // Headline Rewrites // Mariners pitching coach Pete Woodworth // NFL Headlines See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

seattle times woodworth bob condotta

The Interrupters: St Patrick | Darren Stott | Seattle Revival Center

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 31:12

Title: Saint Patrick Series: The Interrupters Speaker: Darren Stott Date: June 5, 2022 CCLI Church Copyright License #2271707 Darren Stott is a Pastor, Author, Podcaster, Former Radio Host, and Founder of Supernaturalist Ministries. Darren was awarded the Dennis Yarnell Inspiration Award for outstanding contribution to the City of Newcastle in 2016 and has been featured in several prominent publications including The Seattle Times, King 5 News, NPR, Charisma Magazine, Renton Reporter, The Religion News Service, and Evening Magazine. Darren began to flex his ministerial muscles at the age of 27 when he became the Lead Pastor at Seattle Revival Center on Easter of 2009. In 2016 his first book was released, Pattern Interrupt: Dismantle Defeat, Overcome Ordinary, and become a Rumbler. Today, he has helped hundreds of thousands with spiritual and practical guidance through pastoring, public speaking, conferences, consulting, and mentoring. In 2021 Darren released his second book in 2021, Carve: How to Steward and Sustain a Move of God. Darren holds a Bachelor of Arts specializing in Bible & Theology from Global University. By blending his education and many experiences, he has the aptness to help people deconstruct their incorrect framework of God. He engages people in reconstructing a healthy theology and opportunity for divine encounters that lead to personal and spiritual growth. Darren consults with two neighboring cities, and serves on multiple boards for churches, non-profits, and schools. On May 8th, 2021, Darren Stott was installed as President of the global ministry network now known as Renaissance Coalition, an organization established by John G. Lake in South Africa (International Faith Congress) and then incorporated in Spokane, Washington in 1947 by his daughter and son-in-law, Wilford and Gertrude Reidt. The organization exist to birth Kingdom Realities on the Earth through relationships, gatherings, equipping, and empowerment. Darren's greatest joy is his lovely wife, Andrea, and four beautiful kids: Abigail, Peter, Sophia, and Victoria. His call is to catalyze joy in the lives of others. Connect with Darren at www.darrenstott.com or on social media @theDarrenStott.

Yes, inflation is eating up your food budget

seattle eating budget inflation seattle times

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 13:01

If you're stretching your dollar for groceries, you are not alone. Seattle food banks are trying to help with that. But right now, they are experiencing high demands and a shift in the people who need assistance. Recently it includes people who are not typically food insecure. Seattle Times reporter Daniel Beekman will tell us about what food insecurity and inflation is looking like in our area.

ORIGIN: Exiting Eden | Darren Stott | Seattle Revival Center

conspiracies january 6th auburn insurrection charged proud boys seattle times mike carter

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 50:46

Title: Exiting Eden Series: ORIGIN Speaker: Darren Stott Date: June 7, 2022 CCLI Church Copyright License #2271707 Darren Stott is a Pastor, Author, Podcaster, Radio Host, and Founder of Supernaturalist Ministries. Darren was awarded the Dennis Yarnell Inspiration Award for outstanding contribution to the City of Newcastle in 2016 and has been featured in several prominent publications including The Seattle Times, King 5 News, NPR, Charisma Magazine, Renton Reporter, The Religion News Service, and Evening Magazine. Darren began to flex his ministerial muscles at the age of 27 when he became the Lead Pastor at Seattle Revival Center on Easter of 2009. In 2016 his first book was released, Pattern Interrupt: Dismantle Defeat, Overcome Ordinary, and become a Rumbler. Today, he has helped hundreds of thousands with spiritual and practical guidance through pastoring, public speaking, conferences, consulting, and mentoring. In 2021 Darren released his second book in 2021, Carve: How to Steward and Sustain a Move of God. Darren holds a Bachelor of Arts specializing in Bible & Theology from Global University. By blending his education and many experiences, he has the aptness to help people deconstruct their incorrect framework of God. He engages people in reconstructing a healthy theology and opportunity for divine encounters that lead to personal and spiritual growth. Darren consults with two neighboring cities, and serves on multiple boards for churches, non-profits, and schools. On May 8th, 2021, Darren Stott was installed as President of the global ministry network now known as Renaissance Coalition, an organization established by John G. Lake in South Africa (International Faith Congress) and then incorporated in Spokane, Washington in 1947 by his daughter and son-in-law, Wilford and Gertrude Reidt. The organization exist to birth Kingdom Realities on the Earth through relationships, gatherings, equipping, and empowerment. Darren's greatest joy is his lovely wife, Andrea, and four beautiful kids: Abigail, Peter, Sophia, and Victoria. His call is to catalyze joy in the lives of others. Connect with Darren at www.darrenstott.com or on social media @theDarrenStott.

Auburn man charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with January 6th insurrection

KUOW Newsroom

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 4:05

Kim Malcolm talks with Seattle Times reporter Mike Carter about new federal charges filed against Proud Boy leader Ethan Nordean.

182. Liz Carlisle with Latrice Tatsey and Hillel Echo-Hawk: Climate, Justice, and the Deep Roots of Regenerative Farming

Town Hall Seattle Science Series

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 7, 2022 62:32

There's a powerful movement happening in farming today, and it's not a movement focused on flashy technology or producing food faster or at larger scales. Instead, it's a movement that centers on farmers reconnecting with their roots, reviving their ancestors' methods of growing food, healing their communities, and ultimately fighting climate change. In her new book, Healing Grounds, Liz Carlisle shared the stories of Indigenous, Black, Latinx, and Asian American farmers who are restoring native prairies, nurturing beneficial fungi, and enriching soil health to feed their communities and revitalize cultural ties to the land. One woman learned her tribe's history to help bring back the buffalo. Another preserved forest that was purchased by her great-great-uncle, who was among the first wave of African Americans to buy land. Others have rejected monoculture to grow corn, beans, and squash the way farmers in Mexico have done for centuries. Through techniques long suppressed by the industrial food system, they steadily stitch ecosystems back together and repair the natural carbon cycle. This is true regenerative agriculture, Carlisle explained – not merely a set of technical tricks for storing CO2 in the ground, but a holistic approach that values diversity in plants and people. But this kind of regenerative farming doesn't come easily – our nation's agricultural history is marked by discrimination and displacement. Restoration, repair, and healing can only come from dismantling the power structures that have blocked many farmers of color from owning land or building wealth. Though the task is immense, it holds great promise and hope: that by coming together to restore farmlands, we can not only heal our planet, we can heal our communities and ourselves. Liz Carlisle is an Assistant Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, where she teaches courses on food and farming. Born and raised in Montana, she got hooked on agriculture while working as an aide to organic farmer and U.S. Senator Jon Tester, which led to a decade of research and writing collaborations with farmers in her home state. She has written three books about regenerative farming and agroecology: Lentil Underground (2015), Grain by Grain (2019, with co-author Bob Quinn), and most recently, Healing Grounds: Climate, Justice, and the Deep Roots of Regenerative Farming (2022). Prior to her career as a writer and academic, she spent several years touring rural America as a country singer. Latrice Tatsey (In-niisk-ka-mah-kii) is an ecologist and advocate for tribally-directed bison restoration who remains active in her family's cattle ranching operation at Blackfeet Nation in northwest Montana. Her research focuses on organic matter and carbon in soil, and specifically, the benefits to soil from the reintroduction of bison (iin-ni) to their traditional grazing landscapes on the Blackfeet Reservation. Latrice is currently completing her master's degree in Land Resources and Environmental Sciences at Montana State University and she serves as a research fellow with the Piikani Lodge Health Institute and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Hillel Echo-Hawk (she/her; Pawnee and Athabaskan) is an Indigenous chef, caterer, and speaker born and raised in the interior of Alaska around the Athabaskan village of Mentasta –– home to the matriarchal chief and subsistence rights activist, Katie John. Watching John and other Indigenous Peoples' fight for food sovereignty, as well as seeing her mother strive to make healthy, home-cooked meals for her and her six siblings, gave Hillel a unique perspective on diet and wellness. Echo-Hawk is the owner of Birch Basket, her food and work has been featured in James Beard, Bon Appetit, Eater, Huffpost, National Geographic, PBS, Vogue, The Seattle Times, and many, many more. Buy the Book: Healing Grounds: Climate, Justice, and the Deep Roots of Regenerative Farming (Hardcover) from Third Place Books Presented by Town Hall Seattle and sponsored by PCC Community Markets.

2022 Episode 24: Police Union Agreement, Sound Transit Alignment, Parking Ticket Refunds, and More

Seattle News, Views, and Brews

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 7, 2022 29:34

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss a new agreement between the city and one of its police unions, a recommendation from the City Council on Sound Transit alignment, a disturbing revelation about how sexual assault crimes in Seattle, a refund for thousands of people with parking tickets, and an interesting trend for rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

seattle police uber union alignment transportation lyft agreement city council seattle times refunds parking tickets seattle city council sound transit seattle channel david kroman brian callanan

Seattle's first post-pandemic Pride

seattle pride post pandemic seattle times

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 6, 2022 11:23

The pandemic forced many of us to reflect on what we truly want out of life. For some folks, that meant coming out of the closet, to themselves or to family and friends. Now Seattle's queer community is celebrating Pride month in person, some for the first time. Guest: Scott Greenstone, Seattle Times reporter.Read Scott's story: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/for-many-who-came-out-during-covid-this-will-be-their-first-pride/

Craving live theater? Here are 3 recommendations for this weekend in Seattle

KUOW Newsroom

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2022 6:25

Kim Malcolm talks with Seattle Times arts and culture reporter Jerald Pierce about his theatre picks for the weekend.

seattle recommendations craving seattle times live theater

Week In Review: June 3, 2022

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2022 44:19

On today's week-in-review, Crystal is joined by staff writer covering Law and Justice at The Stranger, Will Casey. After another difficult news week across the nation and locally, Crystal and Will wade through the latest controversies facing Washington's police departments. They break down the revelation that SPD has not been investigating adult sexual assault cases, and why this is more of an issue of priorities rather than staffing. They also question Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's accountability for the actions of the department, which he leads. Next they look into Pierce County Council candidate Josh Harris's shooting of a man Harris alleges stole from him and ask why Auburn's police department put the image of an officer accused of multiple murders on their recruitment banner. For housing news, Crystal and Will question the usefulness of Bruce Harrell's new Homelessness Data Dashboard and ask why landlords are enraged over the Seattle City Council's proposal to ask them to report the rents they're charging renters. Finally, the show wraps up with a check-in on controversy surrounding former Mayor Jenny Durkan's missing text messages, and how it's one example of why Washington's Public Records Act needs to be updated to meet our modern era. 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, Will Casey, at @willjcasey. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources “Seattle police stopped investigating new adult sexual assaults this year, memo shows” by Sydney Brownstone and Ashley Hiruko from The Seattle Times and KUOW: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/seattle-police-halted-investigating-adult-sexual-assaults-this-year-internal-memo-shows/ “Auburn officer charged with murder featured on department's recruiting banner” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/auburn-officer-charged-with-murder-featured-on-departments-recruiting-banner/ “This Auburn cop killed 3 and injured others. His department didn't stop him — outsiders did” by Ashley Hiruko and Liz Brazile from KUOW:https://www.kuow.org/stories/this-auburn-cop-killed-3-and-injured-others-it-took-outsiders-to-stop-him “Pierce County candidate with pro-law enforcement platform shoots at suspected car thief” by Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pierce-county-candidate-with-pro-law-enforcement-platform-shoots-at-suspected-car-thief/ “Seattle greenlights minimum wages for app-based delivery drivers” by MyNorthwest Staff from MYNorthwest: https://mynorthwest.com/3499857/seattle-city-council-passes-payup-legislation/ “Harrell's New Homelessness Data Dashboard Invites More Questions Than It Answers” by Natalie Bicknell Argerious from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/06/02/the-urbanist-podcast-harrells-new-homelessness-data-dashboard-invites-more-questions-than-it-answers/ “How Many Dashboards Does it Take to Build a House?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/05/31/74506931/how-many-dashboards-does-it-take-to-build-a-house “Pedersen Pisses Off Seattle Landlords: Is the rent too high? The City wants to know, but landlords don't want to say” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/01/74545296/pedersen-pisses-off-seattle-landlords “Did Our Last Mayor Commit a Felony? Washington's Public Records Act Needs An Overhaul” by Will Casey from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/02/74581748/did-our-last-mayor-commit-a-felony 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 during 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 on 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 cohost. Welcome to the program for the first time today, today's co-host: staff writer covering Law and Justice at The Stranger, Will Casey. [00:00:55] Will Casey: Thanks for having me, Crystal - excited to be here. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Hey, excited for you to be here - excited that you're at The Stranger covering Law and Justice. We all need great coverage of law and justice and wow, there is no shortage of law and justice news this week. So want to start by discussing a revelation that made my jaw drop, and made me gasp, and made me absolutely infuriated and perplexed - the news that Seattle police stopped investigating new adult sexual assault cases this year. What is going on? [00:01:34] Will Casey: Well, the mayor would like you to believe that a staffing shortage at the Seattle Police Department is responsible for their inability to process these new allegations of sexual assaults. To be specific, they are still investigating cases that involve children, but these are for new allegations of assault against an adult. And unfortunately, the mayor's not really telling the whole story there because other police departments in our area and nationally are also dealing with the labor shortage, but they have not made the same decisions in terms of how they allocate their existing staff out of the unit that's supposed to be handling these kinds of cases. [00:02:19] Crystal Fincher: That's right. And even within our department, every type of department has not seen decreases. They have moved people out of these investigative positions into other roles. What does that look like in the police department? [00:02:37] Will Casey: Well, so you probably heard a lot last year, during the mayoral campaign, about 911 response times. This is the frequent calling card of the more-law-and-order folks who want to conjure this image of - this resident's in distress, trying to get help and not having it come, while they're presumably being made the victim of a crime. Well, here we have actual victims of real crimes who are trying to ask for help from the Seattle Police Department and getting basically silenced. So, while they've shifted deputies and investigators out of this unit, they're moving people into things like these hotspot policing efforts or other just general patrol duties in attempts to presumably reduce those 911 response times. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And operation support has seen an increase, actually, in the amount of personnel allocated to that in the past couple years, despite the shortage - as they're calling it and dealing with it - the shortage of police that we have here. And just what is the rationale behind saying these other things are priorities more than investigating violent sexual assault? [00:04:00] Will Casey: Honestly, I can't personally vouch for the rationale that's backing this up. The only comment that our City leaders have offered on the record to The Seattle Times here is just that the mayor finds this situation "unacceptable." They noted that they tried to interview several other City councilmembers about the issue - they all ducked from being interviewed on the record. Chief Diaz says that - if we don't have an officer to respond to the sexual assault, then we're never going to be able to have the follow-up to investigate it. And so that's - and at least from him - why they seem to be maintaining the patrolling staffing levels rather than this investigative situation. But that doesn't really seem to be offering much comfort to the advocates for survivors of sexual assault who are bringing these criticisms to the public's attention. [00:04:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And beyond that, it continues to be perplexing to me how the mayor is finding himself becoming aware of this right now. As the executive of the City, he is in charge of this department - the police chief reports to him. Lots of people - I hear talking about the Council - the Council can pass policy, they can fund things. But operationally, administratively - all of that falls under the control of the mayor's office. So how - one, either how does the mayor not know this is happening, or are they doing this despite different direction - which we've seen examples of that happening before - where is the disengagement? How is it okay that policy like this is being enacted and the mayor doesn't know? Are there any steps taken to get answers about that, to address that? How are they saying they plan to increase monitoring of what's going on within the police department if stuff like this is happening without him being notified of it? [00:05:58] Will Casey: It's hard to say, honestly. And I think that there's some other details here in The Seattle Times report that really call into question the mayor's surprise - that at least that he's expressed - about this issue. Because it seems as though he doesn't have any difficulty getting SPD to allocate resources when he does have a policy interest in something - so notably the department's alternative response team, which is the unit that responds to homeless encampment removals. Monisha Harrell on the show a couple of weeks ago - that unit is now staffed by twice the number of officers on the sexual assault unit, after an additional seven patrol officers were added to that unit. And then you also have twelve detectives, compared to the four in the sexual assault investigation units, devoted to property crimes. So that's three times the number of detectives we have - looking at things like catalytic converter thefts, as opposed to sexual violence. So I don't know, maybe the mayor has an explanation for that, but it's not one that's been heard by the public thus far, at least. [00:07:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's perplexing, especially as we're hearing plans from the City Attorney for people who would previously be eligible for Drug Court or other court - that they're cracking down harder on them. How is it that we are finding ways to invest more, change policy, apply resources in different directions when they have an initiative, when they have an idea - but stuff like this has to be uncovered by reporters outside of the City to even begin to get answers or to see what's happening. It's just really, really perplexing and outrageous, especially given so much work done legislatively to make sure that all of the things downstream, especially when it comes to sexual assault, are being investigated, are they taking rape kits and processing those in a timely fashion. And I don't think anyone anticipated that the next problem we were going to be encountering is just police deciding not to investigate sexual assault at all. And if you're trying to project a safer image for the City and that you're taking action to make people safer, which is absolutely necessary, it seems like this would be a critical component of that. So it just feels very disjointed, very disappointing, and really infuriating that these decisions can be made that are so at odds with public safety. Another thing at odds, seemingly, with public safety that we saw this week was with Pierce County Council candidate, Josh Harris, who's running on a pro-law enforcement platform. People may be familiar with his name from a while back when he bailed out the police who had killed Manny Ellis - very, very problematic. Well, just recently he decided to go into an encampment where he felt some things had been stolen and engaged in an altercation with someone. The altercation escalated, police were - the story's murky - police were there, told him to stand back and stand by, somehow the person who they were engaging with got into a car. They're saying that the car went in the direction of Josh Harris and potentially charged at him. Josh Harris, then in front of police, fired into this car - does not seem like police fired into that car - really confusing what happened. And then somehow this person was not stopped, wound up back in the encampment - where Harris and a partner went in and took some things they said were stolen. They didn't say they were stolen from them, they didn't say how they knew that there were stolen, they were just a variety of things that evidently they're characterizing as stolen and we're not questioning this yet. But it just seems like we have seen more incidences of people feeling like they can go into encampments and communities where people are living, who don't have other shelter, and just assume that they're places of crime - to have no problem victimizing people, don't seem to have to substantiate whether or not something was indeed stolen, and hey - if something's stolen, someone should be able to get it back. We have processes for that that people should follow. But seeing this escalate to violence, seeing people go into these encampments armed with guns is just asking for a violent situation to happen. It's asking for people to get shot and killed. There have been several examples of this happening and why is this person running for office - who seems to have some kind of a complex that he needs to go and do this macho thing - it just seems really problematic. This is someone running for office in Pierce County right now, and I hope more people start talking about this and examining this and really getting to the details of this situation and his prior situations. 'Cause there seems to be a history of problematic or questionable activity here. Just really concerning. [00:11:37] Will Casey: Yeah, and the only thing I have to add to that is - this is not an isolated trend, data point here, right? We're seeing across the country, in contested Republican primary after primary, this is just becoming part of - this vigilantism is becoming part of their mainstream rhetoric. And I think that that's - frankly, very deeply troubling for our ability to continue to maintain our democracy and yeah, not the kind of moral leadership you'd like. But the sad fact is I doubt there are very many of his base voters who are going to have a problem with this behavior. [00:12:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that's the challenge. And I just hope that, as these things that happen are covered, that they're covered critically and that facts are verified and that accounts are verified because the framing of this sometimes seems really problematic. And it's just also worth mentioning the fact that although we have some real troubling characterizations and narratives about unhoused people and crime, the fact is that there are few people in society who are more frequently victims of crime than the unhoused population. It's a very, very vulnerable place to be - there was talk this week about potentially - Reagan Dunn, actually, introduced the idea of basically mapping where every unhoused person is and stays. And there's just a ton of concern by a lot of people about that. Because one, as we just said, unhoused people are already extremely vulnerable, are frequently victims of crime, are much more vulnerable than most of the rest of us. And we have seen, from reporters who have been very inappropriate in the way that they have tracked down and covered and photographed and videotaped folks in these encampments, and people feeling like they are entitled - if they know where one of them is - to walk in, to harass them, to assault people there. We've seen this happen several times. And so anytime you target a group and just point a big red arrow at them and say there they are, while simultaneously dehumanizing them with rhetoric and talking about how much of a problem they are - we know that's a recipe for violence, and we know that's a recipe for targeting. So no, we don't want to do that and that's a bad thing, Reagan Dunn - among the number of variety of bad things that Reagan Dunn seems like he's doubling down on doing. But aside from that, also - Auburn, City of Auburn, featured a police officer - who is currently charged with murder - who is featured on the department's recruiting banner. They were at an event, banner sitting here - big picture, officer's smiling - well, it's an officer who's charged for murder. What is the deal here, Will? [00:14:43] Will Casey: When you literally have a poster boy for your department being someone who's currently facing an accusation of murder and has a history of killing several other civilians while on duty, that's a problem. And I think, especially in this atmosphere of new-found focus not just on big city police departments, like Seattle's, but also how these same dynamics are playing out frequently with far less oversight in these smaller towns and cities throughout the state. And I think - what this shows is that there's a culture issue here in Auburn, at least in their police departments, with not being concerned, apparently, with the image that they're projecting into the community. And this is not someone who, at least from my perspective, it seems like you'd want to be holding out as a representative of the kinds of officers you're looking to hire, if you're really interested in changing the culture of the police department. KUOW has done a fantastic investigative series documenting all of the various moments throughout this officer's lengthy career - where he's been involved in violence repeatedly, has not found not been held accountable for any kind of discipline. And frankly, you shouldn't have to look at anything other than his own hands to tell you that he's someone you should be worried about. He's got tattoos that show - frankly, very common slogan - I guess, is the right word, motif - among the more extreme police officers that refer to being judged by 12 - meaning 12 jurors in a courtroom, presumably for reviewing some sort of act of violence that they engaged in, rather than carried by 6, which is - or 8 sometimes - referred to pallbearers bearing a coffin. And this is kind of warrior mentality where you're always under threat, the people who you're supposed to be protecting and serving are a constant possible source of danger to you, and if you "fear for your life" - that really does need to shift. This particular officer also has a combat veteran background, and there have been reports from within the department of people trying to get the Auburn PD to take some practice steps, get him some specialized counseling that may be necessary for someone adjusting to a civilian, law enforcement position. And it's just apparently never stuck. So, we have a lot more work to do in following the story and keeping everyone's attention trained on it - that pending murder charge will next be at issue in the public, possibly this September, because the judge overseeing that case just had to issue a continuance in the scheduled trial date for June. [00:17:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and just the family dealing with this - it's really hard. The family is very disappointed, very dismayed that - one, this officer did have a history, it was not addressed before. Unfortunately, he killed their family member and egregious enough - we all know how high the bar is for a police officer to get charged - he is charged. He's just waiting to go on trial, and unfortunately this trial keeps being delayed, which is very painful for the family. And just - there are people attached to this, these are real stakes and real people who are being impacted by this. And it just makes it that much more insulting that all of this is there - that we talk about wanting to keep people safe and healthy and whole, and treating people with dignity and respect - and wow, how this is not happening in the operations. And I just cannot - I cannot imagine being a family member of this person and then reading that he's literally the poster boy for the department. Just very, very disappointing. The department did say - well, hey, this is an old poster, this was before this happened and before he was charged with murder. It didn't happen before he killed other people - he has killed two other people, injured others aside from that. And so, they are putting that kind of behavior and history and record up on display. And so the question is, so who are you actually looking to recruit with this? What message are you sending? What does it say about the culture of the department? And I just hope that we begin to grapple with those questions as a community because it's absolutely necessary. In some better news this week, Seattle City Council passed PayUp legislation. What does this do? [00:19:56] Will Casey: Effectively, this is going to give a whole slew of app-based gig workers - finally - a minimum wage, which is a huge, huge deal. There's a little bit of back and forth in the final version of the law that got passed - Councilmember Alex Pedersen introduced a late amendment that did exclude a certain category of workers from the legislation, which was strange because he was the original sponsor of the bill. So it's not often you see - [00:20:26] Crystal Fincher: Andrew Lewis! [00:20:27] Will Casey: Oh, I'm sorry - did I say - yes, yes, yes - sorry, I made the frequent mistake of confusing him with the two other squishy progressives from the Council - my apologies to Andrew. But yeah, so anyway, he did undermine his own bill here in a relatively strange move that he said was to "take down the temperature on the issue." But that didn't really seem to happen because advocates for the workers are very upset that that exemption was inserted last minute into the legislation. But the large takeaway here is - this is still a significant step forward for a large class of employees who - Uber and Lyft, and these similar-style companies have been fighting tooth and nail in every state that tries to do this - to keep these people from getting a fair wage. So, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here, I guess. [00:21:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This is a step forward - it does meaningfully help a lot of drivers in the City, so this is a good thing, this is helpful. It would have been nice if it could be good for more people - we talked about that a lot last week. Councilmember Tammy Morales did offer an amendment that was passed that says they will take up legislation for the people left out of this bill - the marketplace workers who were excluded from this bill in that amendment that you just spoke about - that they will take that up by August of 2023. So there is now a date attached to it. One of the issues last week was - yeah, we'll get to it. But there was nothing concrete following that, there was no - well, when are you going to get to it, when are you going to address it if it's not here. And so now we do have a date, so hopefully app-based, or marketplace app-based workers, will also be included. But that's a very positive thing, very helpful. A number of these app-based service companies were very much in opposition to this, certainly were pushing for the amendment that Councilmember Lewis eventually passed for this bill. But it is a step forward, and I do not think it is too much to say that everyone deserves to make the minimum wage. And that just because you have figured out some technological loopholes does not absolve you with the responsibility for paying people who you're profiting from - to be clear, who you're profiting very handsomely from - a minimum wage. It's the least that should be done. So this week also, in City of Seattle news, Mayor Harrell introduced a new homelessness dashboard. What happened here? [00:23:09] Will Casey: Well, we've got a bunch of the data we already have now being aggregated into one place with some data visualization that made a tech worker friend of mine send me a long string of Twitter DMs talking about how terribly organized and poorly visualized the data is. And so - and his criticism is not the only one. My colleague at The Stranger, Hannah Krieg, had an excellent piece talking to some of the folks at Tech 4 Housing, who are experts in this field, and included an excellent breakdown of - that basically this dashboard presents the point of view that homelessness is a problem for the people seeing it, rather than for those who are experiencing the lack of shelter. And for me personally, I think this is going to be - a little bit of background here - part of the reason that the City is so concerned with visualizing this data and proving that they have the shelter capacity is that there's a federal lawsuit out of the Ninth Circuit, which is where Seattle resides, that effectively makes it illegal to do the encampments sweeps that the administration has been engaging in, unless there's adequate shelter available for everyone who's being forced to move. And so that's why you'll hear City officials so focused on this idea of referrals and saying that they had available capacity, without really ever getting into the details of - are you actually getting these people housing? Just - it was available, technically. And so we can't be punished by the courts for sweeping the problem to some other part of the city. [00:24:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is - it is a challenge. And we've certainly talked about before, talked about even last week, the issue with that shelter - just because we're hearing shelter is available, an offer of services was made, does actually not mean that those services were applicable to the person who they were made to. Someone may have a job that requires them to work hours later than the shelter will accept people. Well, the offer was made - that person couldn't accept them - and you're making someone choose between having a job and spending a night somewhere. And to be clear, many of these shelters, it is a night. This is not housing. This is oftentimes a bed. If we're talking about congregate shelter, those for a variety of reasons can - not be safe places, not be places that help people become more stable. And oftentimes in these shelters, you have to leave early in the morning with all of your possessions - it's not an easy thing to do. Anyone suggesting that people who are unhoused are somehow getting by in the system, or doing this because it's easy, or because they're lazy - does not understand what being out on the street is actually like. It's a dangerous place, it's a scary place, it's a very destabilizing place. And to help people get back to the point where they can find stability for housing requires stabilizing so many things in their lives that are made worse by the trauma and experience of being on the street. So it is actually important - if we're going to solve this issue, there has to be housing for people, not a shelter bed. I am pretty fed up with just talking about shelter bed capacity. Is it better than nothing? Sometimes, actually not all the time. And we actually need, we do need to have capacity to get people out of extreme heat or extreme cold, those situations, but we are doing nothing to address the problem. And in fact, making it worse if we just force people to start over and over and over again, get the little bit of their lives and stability that they've gotten, and the bit of community that they've built to help them try and - one, just stay alive and two, get things together enough where they can just get a little bit more and get more stable - to just keep sweeping and moving and sweeping and moving. And it just is not working, and for as much money as we're spending on all of this sweeping, on all of the resources going into this - we could be spending that on housing, we could be spending that on services. We are throwing a ton of money at this in ways that are only moving people around and not getting anyone actually off the street, or very few people off the street, while more people are falling into homelessness. So it's - if you listen to this show, you know how frequently frustrated this is. But I - yes, this is a dashboard. Yes, we are tracking this. I want it to be more than checking off a box to justify sweeps. And I think that's the bottom line. And I am hoping to see some evidence that this is coming online. There has been hopeful talk. There has been talk about providing services - there've been too many sweeps that have not had them at all. And so when is it going to start? I would like to see that more than a dashboard in terms of this. But we will continue to follow how this progresses - it has just been frustrating to continue to watch us relocate people and not do that. Also want to cover - this week, an interesting situation with talk about requiring landlords to disclose the rent that they're paying. What is happening here? [00:28:49] Will Casey: Well, it seems like Alex Pedersen - I'm getting my white male councilmembers correct now - might've pissed off a few members of his base in pushing forward this legislation. It actually caused a relatively interesting 5-4 split among the Seattle City Council. It wasn't your traditional divide between conservatives and progressive factions. On the conservative side, you had Sara Nelson and Debora Juarez voting No - each of them had their own reasons. Dan Strauss and Teresa Mosqueda also voted No - Mosqueda mostly due to the budget concerns with implementing this bill. But he did get support from Andrew Lewis, Lisa Herbold, Tammy Morales, and Kshama Sawant - who are all in favor because in their perspective, if you're already doing the paperwork to advertise the units and pay taxes on the income that you're gathering from these investments - passively I might add - it shouldn't be that much more of an effort to collect some of that data and report it to the City on a regular basis so that we actually have an idea of what it costs to live here. It'd be very, very helpful for a lot of things the City's trying to do. [00:30:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. A number of cities across the country are moving in this direction - Seattle is not unique in doing this. And originally I misspoke - I said the rent that landlords are paying, I meant to say the rent that they're charging - but this is good and useful information. And absolutely will help inform policy and determine what is appropriate, what is not appropriate, and what action could or should be taken to help address this affordability crisis which we are absolutely in the middle of. And so having this happen is - having landlords at the table is perfectly fine, but we need all of the information. If they're giving us input on how this might be onerous or how this is affecting their ability to do this or that, then let's see the data for that. We ask that for so many other people and so many other ways - hey, to get rent assistance, we make people divulge lots of things about their income and living situation and personal life - and the hoops that they have to jump through just to do that. They're asking for a ton of information from renters about their qualifications, they're running background checks. We're only asking for them to divulge the rent that supposedly they're advertising what they're charging - they may be unhappy for people to see if they raise the rent in exorbitant amounts. I know a number of people who've had their rent raised by over 30%. Someone close to me had their rent raised by over 45% - it's egregious, and so this is an issue that I'm sure that they may not want lots of visibility on, but - hey, everyone else is required to put in a whole lot of information, to divulge a lot of information - we're in a crisis. This is the least they could do. And to the point that Hannah Krieg covered, and that you mentioned, they're already doing it. We're just organizing it in the same place - for a dashboard - we know how much the City loves the dashboard. Let's get a dashboard together. But I think this is a good situation, I commend Alex Pedersen for stepping up to address this crisis, for talking about this very common sense, really low-effort step that can be taken to help get more information on how we can solve this. And understanding that his constituents are his residents and people who are afraid of being priced out of the places where they're at. The City has - about half of its residents are renters. This is a pressing issue for so many people, so commend him and the rest of the councilmembers who did vote to support this. It's really important. And people really are expecting action to be taken. And so I'm happy that they're heeding that call. Another issue this week that we've talked about before and that you covered was - hey, what's going on with those texts that were deleted? Was that a felon - like it wasn't supposed to happen. They're saying it's a crime, a serious crime - a felony in fact - for things like that to happen. And so the question has been, are you going to refer this for investigation? Who can do this? Why isn't it done? What is going on? [00:33:34] Will Casey: Well, this was a very wonderful deep dive into a realm of a lot of people not wanting to admit anything was their fault, which is a lovely place to be. And as - I cannot believe I'm about to say this, but this is the cost of not having an effective opposition party - because if King County had a Republican Party that was remotely capable of winning any elections, we'd have a partisan incentive for someone to dig into the truth of what's going on here. And we'd actually benefit from a little bit of competition, but currently everyone who's involved. [00:34:14] Crystal Fincher: Well, the Republican Party has resources that make them effective as an opposition party, but there could be other opposition parties that were stood up - technically it wouldn't have to be a Republican Party, although they are more integrated statutorily into our system. But anyway - keep going. [00:34:29] Will Casey: Yes, yes, yes - trust me, I'm the last person who's going to wish for success for any Republican candidates. But my point being that this is a situation where - normally, this is where the political realities of government tend to work towards the interests of people actually finding out what's going on. Instead - here, we have a bunch of political allies - Bob Ferguson at the Attorney General's office, Governor Inslee, Dan Satterberg - all kind of just doing the Spiderman meme of pointing at each other and saying - it's your responsibility to kick this off. But actually, in reporting this out this week, what I learned is that the real culprit here, I think, is just a lack of stewardship at the Legislature in how this law is written. So the Public Records Act has been updated several times, it's something that voters put onto the books through initiatives at various points in Washington State's history - that part of the law is very well tended to. However, it only really includes civil penalties for agencies who fail to produce a given record on the required timeline, or if there is some other - hey, they're being overly aggressive about the redactions that they're making in providing these sorts of records. So there's a specific grant of civil action authority for any private person to sue a government agency and say - hey, you were supposed to get me this record by X date. It's now Y date. Where's the paper? The problem is there's also a separate law on the books in a different part of the RCWs that makes the willful destruction of a public record a felony. And that's what the publicly available information suggests Mayor Durkan and/or former Chief of Seattle Police Department Carmen Best may have done with their messages. That law was last substantively amended in 1909. And in speaking with legislative staff, they agreed with my guess - which is that this was something that's a relic of back in the pioneer days - when one small town would lead a raid onto somebody else's records office and burn all of the deeds so that they could just take over their farms or mining stakes or whatever. So what needs to happen, in the next legislative session, is for the Legislature to specifically grant the authority of - either to the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General - but basically make it very clear that if we ever encounter a situation like this again, there's a very specific person whose job it is to investigate. And so we don't end up with this farcical game of hot potato that's going on right now. [00:37:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it is farcical - to be clear. And even - you touched on in the article that you wrote, which we will be including in the show notes, along with the other articles that we've discussed - was that - just incentives for accountability aren't there, they're actually pointing in the other direction. And so if there is no expectation that - hey, if I do something that I shouldn't do here, or if there's no record of other people being held accountable for those same things. And - hey, it would be easy for me to do this thing that I'm not supposed to do, and then just cover up that I did the thing that I'm not supposed to do - because the penalties of doing what I'm not supposed to do are greater than just covering it up and all that kind of stuff. And this is what we see. And especially that it was not just one person, it was multiple people involved in these incidences, and so it seems like - hey, we are trying to get rid of a record of what happened. And so many troubling things that happened - this is around the time when the precinct was abandoned. And again another issue of just - we find out that either there is no control or negligence or a refusal to own decisions that were made from the Mayor's office - but very troubling things that are happening that the public is owed - is literally owed - and just no accountability for that. So there needs to be, this should not be a my-team-versus-your-team type of thing. As we've seen in so many different instances, if we let this go now and even if - hey, well, that's my buddy, that's my team, that's my party, whatever it is - someone else is going to get a hold of it that you don't like and do worse. We have seen so many different examples of this. These are just good governance things that should not only apply to people who you are in opposition to politically - they're best when they apply to everyone, and they serve everyone better when they do apply to everyone, and we should find out what happened with these and there should be accountability attached to that. And I just wish we would take that more seriously. It would do a lot to create more trust in people in institutions. We're at a time right now where there is a crisis of confidence in all of our institutions, and only bad things happen in society when people lose trust in the institutions that are supposed to provide an orderly way of resolving disputes, find out information, talking about who has power and how they're able to wield it - all of those things. If we don't trust, if the public doesn't trust how that happens, then people start to take things into their own hands and use their own means - and that never turns out well, it never ends peacefully. [00:40:22] Will Casey: Yeah, and I think that there are some people who I think are looking at this as - oh, there's just a couple of people who've got it out for Mayor Durkan and they just don't want to let this go or move on - and we need to unify and heal after the 2020 protests. And I cannot disagree with that strongly enough - because in criminal law, we talk all the time about how we have to have these harsh sentences as a deterrent for criminal behavior, as if someone who has no other way to put food on the table except for stealing that food is going to think about the consequences of like - oh, well, down the line, this is going to mean X, Y, or Z for me. But here - these are sophisticated actors, right? These are people with power and leverage and public office who have the ability to make a cold, calculated decision about whether or not - how likely it is - they're going to get caught. And if they are, how bad are the consequences going to be, really? And we've already seen this trend continue in a disturbing way. This didn't make it into the piece that I wrote this week, but it's been reported elsewhere. We've seen similar issues with deleting texts at the Washington Redistricting Commission when they just blew past their midnight deadline. And voted without actually having maps in front of them. And so I think that this is a live issue, this is a real problem for people's faith in government, as you pointed out. And it's frankly, not that hard to fix - one-line amendment to say it shall be the responsibility of the Attorney General's office to investigate whenever there has been a destroyed public record - would solve this entire problem. [00:42:03] Crystal Fincher: It would, and it certainly needs solving and we certainly should have some accountability to this. I'm sure we'll be talking more about this subject more in the future as developments unfold, but it's just a challenge. There's lots that's been challenging this week, lately. We don't even get into the national stuff here - that's enough. And then just to see these types of events and headlines on a local level is challenging, but it is possible to create positive change. There are some good things happening and ways that we can all engage to make this better. And part of what we want to do in talking about this is to - like we say - understand what's happening, and why it's happening, and what we can do about it. And we see what's happening, and got further insight into the why this week and the levers that we can use to fix it. And so certainly is something that people need to do - is to advocate with their legislators that - hey, this is something that is an easy fix, a quick fix, and that should be fixed, and that we're expecting to be fixed. So hopefully that does happen. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks today, this Friday, June 3rd, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistant producer Shannon Cheng and help with Bryce Cannatelli. Our wonderful co-host today is staff writer covering law and justice - and if it wasn't clear to people, who is also a lawyer who is a reporter, which is helpful when reporting on law and justice and it shows - Will Casey. You can find Will on Twitter @willjcasey - that's C-A-S-E-Y. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered 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 - talk to you next time.

Casual Friday with Esmy Jimenez and Jeannie Yandel